Research Reports

Correctional Officer Recruits During the College Training Period: An Examination

2005 N° R-165

Philippe Bensimon
Criminologist, Ph.D

 

Correctional Service of Canada

 

October, 2005

 

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to begin by thanking the 233 persons who attended the 10 Correctional Training Program (CTP) courses given in the five Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) administrative regions from September 23, 2002, to October 4, 2004. Regardless of whether or not they passed the course, these persons are the very essence of this study; it could never have been carried out without their active participation.

The author also wishes to acknowledge the ongoing co-operation of all management and staff involved in training in the five staff colleges, especially: Éric LeBlanc and Danny LeBlanc in the Atlantic Region; Yves Malépart, Louise Dubreuil and Linda Goulet in the Quebec Region; Tracy Fenton in the Ontario Region; Max Dallenbach, Vince Streukens, Raylean Welter and Gordon Redhead in the Prairies Region; and Marg Fletcher and Brian Ferguson in the Pacific Region.

Thanks are also extended to the Steering Committee members, who in November 2001 were: union representative of federal correctional officers and the member of the union Ontario Regional Executive, who also represented Safety and Security; a member of Management Training and Career Management; a member of Labour Relations; and a Senior Project Manager, all of whom continue in these positions today; Pierre Mallette and Trevor Lee, correctional officers at Donnacona Institution and Kingston Penitentiary; Ian Nicholson, Director, Learning Programs, Learning and Career Development; Paul Braun, a former Director of Career Management who has since left CSC; Colleen Laframboise, Director of Labour Relations Operations; and Claude Tellier, Director, Security Operations and Procedures.

For all the statistical analyses, the author wishes to thank expressly Yves Lepage, Ph.D, full professor in the mathematics and statistics department at Université de Montréal, and his assistant, Miguel Chagnon, M.Sc.

For the trust he showed and the latitude he allowed throughout this sometimes difficult but always innovative and interesting process, gratitude is expressed to Larry Motiuk, Ph.D, Director General, Research.

For their great dedication, willingness to help and energy, the author wishes to express his appreciation to the staff of the library at Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

For the English version, the author expresses appreciation to Ms. Carol Edgar, Certified Translator (ATIO), Société Gamma Inc.

For rereading the original French text and its sea of typos, gratitude is extended to Suzette Fortin, a pillar of the Case Management Secretariat at the Regional Reception Centre (Quebec Region).

Finally, to those who have not had the opportunity to read the earlier introduction to this three-phase study, you should know that this study's scope, innovativeness and anticipated influence on future behavioural and organizational psychology studies in the prison environment would not have been nearly as marked without the hard work of my colleague Claude Tellier.

 

Executive Summary

Although much has been written about the prison environment, no one has really studied the development of correctional officer recruits. This longitudinal study covers 15 months of observations, from initial selection through a full year of on-the-job as a correctional officer.

What was our objective? It was to measure, assess and understand the behavioural and attitudinal adjustment among new correctional officers in their respective workplaces, in order to make appropriate recommendations to the staff colleges and correctional institutions. The recommendations focused on recruitment in the broadest sense of the term and on training, using 22 themes and 19 measurement scales. To these 19 measurement scales was added material compiled from 514 bibliographic references, as part of a review of the literature that allowed us to explore various topics including: demographic data such as age and social status; the advantages and disadvantages of correctional work; and health and lifestyle. Also explored were specific topics, covering the following: value acquisition and retention, group solidarity and attitudes; inmate rehabilitation; work-related stress; organizational commitment; motivation; support from superiors; empathy; and job satisfaction.

To gather data, six questionnaires were distributed at specific intervals: on the first day of their Correctional training program (CTP) at staff college; during the second week; after three months of training among committed participants; and then over a full year following these employees' initial assignment to a correctional institution, at three-month, six-month and one-year intervals.

From September 23, 2002, the date the first questionnaire was distributed on the basis of the various CTP schedules, until July 14, 2003, the date of the last scheduled CTP course. This study was carried out in the five CSC administrative regions: the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and Pacific. Of the 249 initial participants registered for CTP, including the 15 persons (9 men and 6 women) who did not show up at the staff college for the first day of training, 233 persons participated in the Pre A questionnaire.

As a result, no recruits in any of the five CSC administrative regions or the 10 CTP classes refused to participate in the Pre A questionnaire, and the attrition rate at this stage was zero.

This report presents the findings from phase two of a three-phase longitudinal study¹. The second phase presents the data from the first 12 weeks of training of 233 correctional officer recruits. In this group of 123 men and 110 women, the average age on the first day of training was 32 years old (by gender, age 33 for men and age 30 for women). Of these 233 individuals, 35 were Aboriginal persons and 35 were members of visible minorities, 116 were married or living in a common-law relationship, 113 had one or more children, and 174 had a college or university education. This demographic information indicates that correctional officer recruits' backgrounds include more extensive life experience than that may be found in other occupations.

¹ The report on phase one is entitled Correctional Officer Recruits and the Prison Environment: A Research Framework (Bensimon, 2004).

Dropouts and other forms of attrition began to appear only in the second week of CTP and continued over the following 10 weeks.

Overall, 86 (37%) participants (46 men and 40 women) did not complete the research. Therefore, 147 (63%) of the new recruits made up the final study sample. Among those who did not complete the research, 74 (86%) were not successful in the training, 7 (8%) did not respond to the Post questionnaire and remainder withdrew from CTP for others reasons (e.g., medical).

What happened during phase two of the study? Three questionnaires (Pre A, Pre B and Post) were distributed to staff college trainees covering a total of 16 exploratory themes² in three phases: the expectation phase, on the first day of training, when participants expressed their aspirations; the observation phase, after one week, as they acquired the basics; and the learning and perceptions phase, after 12 weeks of training. The 16 themes covered by the questionnaires were quite varied, and included: advantages and disadvantages of correctional occupations; expectations of group training;³ human service orientation; and the trainee peer group before and after CTP participation.

² The very scope of this study, where every theme is a thesis topic in itself, calls for limitation. The author therefore makes no claims of completeness, but hopes that the data base used to develop these themes will encourage other research on correctional work.

³ To avoid misinterpretation, it is important to note that this study is primarily an analysis of behavioural and attitudinal changes and in no way assesses the quality of CTP provided at the staff colleges. Training quality is a factor this study simply does not cover.

In spite of the particular cultural characteristics of each of the five CSC administrative regions and the demographic characteristics of the participants, all questions asking the recruits to express an opinion about inmates were entirely theoretical because, in the pre institutional context, the recruits were not confronted with the realities of the job. What they believed, learned, envisaged and observed gradually over their three-month training period formed part of the preparation for their entry into the prison environment.

Whatever reasons are given for this lack of continuity, it is nevertheless true that all the individuals whose names were on the CTP list were indeed selected in the hope that they would complete this training, which theoretically would have been followed by a year-long period on the job and completed with a position as a correctional officer. All of these individuals, then, whether they completed training or not, are important.

This report, then, covers the phase between the first day of training and, for those who completed the course successfully (147 persons), the last week before assignment to an institution.

Will the numerous themes examined in this study enable us to identify the persons who are the most determined and best able to walk the fine line between security and rehabilitation? Can we identify the ones who have the most empathy and are intrinsically the most motivated?

From these 13 measurement scales, among the 147 (77 men and 70 women) participants who completed these three months of CTP, a number of observations between the Pre A and the Post questionnaires emerge:

1. Pre-post analyses of scales revealed significant differences between men and women recruits on a variety of measures (Attitudes towards correctional work; Support for rehabilitation; Sources of motivation for correctional work);
2. Non-significant differences emerged between men and women recruits on a variety of measures (Attitudes towards inmates; Deterrence; Human service orientation; Social desirability; Intrinsic motivation; Self-efficacy; Expectations/Perceptions of training; Social cohesiveness and Credibility);
3. On three measurement scales specific to the occupation of correctional officers (Attitudes towards correctional work, Support for rehabilitation, and Sources of motivation for correctional work), the number of positive responses by women recruits to the statements presented is higher than those by men;
4. Initially, for Human service orientation, the number of positive responses by women recruits to the statements is higher, howewer, both gender groups increased overtime;
5. On five other measurement scales, the number of positive responses by both gender groups to shows a steady decrease: Support for deterrence (fewer positive responses by the women to the statements presented), Social desirability (more positive perceived self-image among the men), Intrinsic job motivation (decrease for women), Correctional self-efficacy (decrease for women), and Credibility (decrease for women);
6. The 147 recruits expressed higher levels of general motivation after 3 months on CTP;
7. Overall, 86 (37%) participants (46 men and 40 women) did not complete CTP and the research. Among those the non-completers, 74 (86%) were not successful in the CTP and others withdrew for various reasons. No significant differences emerged between recruits who completed CTP and participated in the research and those who did not on gender, age, education, or having dependents. However, it was observed that a substantially higher percentage of recruits did not complete CTP in the Atlantic (75%) and Prairies (69%) regions versus the Quebec (30%), Ontario (29%) and Pacific (26%) regions. Also found was that a high percentage of Aboriginal (57%) and visible minority recruits (57%) did not complete CTP. From the battery of measurement scales, a greater acceptance of deterrence and a lower sense of responsibility were more characteristic of those who did not complete CTP.

Regardless of gender, individuals may have skills, advantages, disadvantages, and other reasons for becoming a correctional officer that can be found in either group. Of course this does not rule out the fact there maybe gender-specific characteristics. As well, descriptive differences may exist without surfacing in statistical form.

Beyond statistics, an interest in interpersonal relations appears to be the best motivation for anyone wishing to engage in correctional work.

Phase three, the last phase, will conclude this study with an examination of the 147 recruits behaviours and attitudes as they begin correctional work.

 

Table of Contents

• Acknowledgements
• Executive Summary
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Participation Levels and Questionnaire Schedule
• Dropouts and Other Forms of Attrition

• Pre A Questionnaire
• 1) Recruit profile information
• 2) Health and lifestyle
• 3) Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work
• 4) Attitudes towards correctional work
• 5) Attitudes towards inmates
• 6) Support for rehabilitation
• 7) Deterrence
• 8) Human service orientation
• 9) Social desirability
• 10) Sources of motivation for correctional work
• 11) Intrinsic job motivation
• 12) Correctional self-efficacy
• 13) Pre-Correctional Officer recruit expectations of training

• Pre B Questionnaire
• 1) Pre-group environment questionnaire
• 2) Pre-Correctional Officer social cohesiveness
• 3) Pre-credibility

• Post Questionnaire
• 1) Recruit profile information
• 2) Health and lifestyle
• 3) Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work
• 4) Attitudes towards correctional work
• 5) Attitudes towards inmates
• 6) Support for rehabilitation
• 7) Deterrence
• 8) Human service orientation
• 9) Social desirability
• 10) Sources of motivation for correctional work
• 11) Intrinsic job motivation
• 12) Correctional self-efficacy
• 13) Post-Correctional Officer recruit perceptions of training
• 14) Post-group environment questionnaire
• 15) Post-Correctional Officer social cohesiveness
• 16) Post-credibility

• Discussion of Findings
• Drop Modeling and Prediction
• Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• References

 

Introduction

After passing the first selection tests, men and women from many backgrounds, from all parts of the country and, as we shall see, for a broad range reasons, went to take CTP in their respective regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and Pacific. Some sought a new job opportunity, others had happened to see a hiring announcement, and some had already worked in a related field; others had not. Most participants did not know each other or realize that they shared certain specific characteristics, apprehensions, objectives, and the need to succeed at something new: learning a trade with peace officer status, ⁴ a difficult occupation that is not at all well known.

⁴ This status is conferred under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Part I.

Together, men and women, Aboriginal persons and members of visible minorities, the young and the not so young, regardless of education and work experience, would experience many challenges during these first three months of training. A number of them would fail written tests at various times throughout the three-month elimination period, which covered over 95 learning modules (criminal law, legislation, regulations, case management, principles and theories of criminology, and crisis situations - not to mention problem-solving, self-defence, role-playing exercises, and firearms handling). Others, for various reasons, would opt simply to drop out because of another job offer, resignation, or such things as injury or illness requiring their temporary or permanent withdrawal from CTP.

Given the multiplicity of the questions, that made up the questionnaires used during this study, covering 16 themes including 13 measurement scales, a number of choices were necessary to ensure that the presentation of the questions was as unforbidding to the responders as possible. This was particularly true since, according to Sainsaulieu (1977), statistically monitored collective behaviours tend to provide a generalized picture of human relationships and, given certain trends, it is important not to jump to conclusions. Bearing this caveat in mind, and in order to ensure public observability and reproducibility for all the periods covered by this study in its entirety, we read the data using two types of analysis:⁵ descriptive and psychometric.⁶

⁵ Although the scope of this study goes beyond that of a laboratory analysis conducted in the field (staff colleges and penitentiaries) using six questionnaires over a 15-month period, the author wishes to point out how important it is to avoid certain quantitative excesses when reading theories of organizational or environmental psychology on transforming perceptual data into ratios. These data not only change constantly, but also will extend well beyond this initial 15-month period to cover participants' entire institutional careers.

⁶ T-test, logistic regression (Menard, 2002; Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000), repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), chi-square tests, Cronbach alpha and McNemar's test (Siegel & Castellan, 1988). The McNemar's test is a non-parameter test dealing with a dichotomic Pre / Post variable, here Pre - and Post -CTP.

In this second part, the wording and complementary references for each of themes merely provide further support for the literature review presented in the first previous report. Accordingly, for all references not cited in the bibliography for this second report, please refer to Correctional Officer Recruits and the Prison Environment: A Research Framework R-146 (Bensimon, 2004).

Please note that the present version is a translation of the original French entitled: Examen de la période de formation collégiale chez les futurs agents de correction.

Participation Levels and Questionnaire Schedule

Following Correctional Officer Recruits and the Prison Environment: A Research Framework (Bensimon, ibid.) , this phase two of a series of three covers the period of CTP, that is, solely the period spent at a staff college. During this period, at various intervals, the participants were each given three questionnaires: the Pre A questionnaire (distributed in class on the first day of training at the staff college); the Pre B questionnaire (distributed seven days later); and the Post questionnaire (distributed at the end of CTP, that is, during the last week of the third month of classes).

In each of the five CSC administrative regions, the staff college had its own CTP class schedule, with start and end dates as follows:

⁷ Four recruits in this group belong to the Atlantic Region but will be counted as part of that group only when they are assigned to an institution (the Nova Institution) in their home region, that is, in phase three of this study.

For the Pre A questionnaire, although not given any time limit, the recruits took between one-and-one-half and two hours to respond to 13 themes including 10 measurement scales; the same time was allowed for the Post questionnaire). On the first day of CTP, in all five CSC administrative regions, 233  Pre A questionnaire participants responded to its 169 questions. Attrition was 0 participants, for a participation rate of 100%.

The Pre B questionnaire, with 20 questions and three measurement scales and taking barely a quarter of a hour to complete, was intended to provide initial observations of the group of recruits, the choice of a career as a correctional officer, and CTP itself, as perceived by each participant. The  Pre B questionnaire was completed by 227 of 233 participants. Attrition was 6 participants, for a participation rate of 97.4%.

The Post questionnaire includes the Pre A and Pre B questions, in 16 themes including 13 measurement scales with a total of 182 questions,⁸ to provide an observation comparing what the recruits anticipated on the first day of their training, what they learned, and the reality that was presented to them during these 12 weeks of intensive training. The Post questionnaire was completed by 147 of 227 participants. Attrition was 80 participants, for a participation rate of 63%.

⁸ In this study, only seven nominal qualitative variables appear in the Pre A questionnaire alone: date of birth (DOB), gender (GENDER), race (RACE), education (EDU), specialties (SPECIAL), work experience (WKEXP), and find employment (FDEMP).

Overall then during the period of CTP, that is, solely the period spent at a staff college, a total of 378 questions were presented to each participant. Total attrition non-completers during this period (that is, all participants who did not complete CTP) amounted to 86 participants, or 37% of the initial recruits.

Six themes that form part of the overall study were not measured during this phase two portion (that is, the period spent at a staff college): Empathy, Organizational commitment, Job satisfaction, Job stress, Role conflicts, and Supervisory support. These six themes will be analysed using questionnaires in phase threee covering three phases of work in an institution (at intervals of three months, six months and one year).

If the number of persons who did not respond to one or more questions is taken into account, 226 participants responded to the 189 questions on the 13 measurement scales from the Pre A and Pre B questionnaires presented in the following table (each quantitative variable has been assigned a numeric value):

Descriptive Statistics – 13 Measurement Scales

If we consider only the questions with open variables to which more than 10% of participants responded (recruit profile information, advantages and disadvantages of correctional work, health and lifestyle), according to the logistic regression in the Summary of Processing of Observations table below, 189 out of 233 participants responded to all these questions. This participation rate, too, is appreciable:

Summary of Processing of Observations Participation Rate

The statistical distribution of the two gender groups (123 men and 110 women) for these 13 measurement scales is as follows:

Group Statistics Distribution Men and Women

The mean from each of these measurement scales was compared by gender using an Independent Sample Test.

In the Independent Sample Test (13 scales) (p. 8 and 9), a number of these measurement scales are significant (but caution must be exercised, given the multiplicity of tests run):

1. Attitudes towards correctional work (p =.001);
2. Support for rehabilitation (p = .001);
3. and Pre -correctional officer recruit expectations of training (p = .005).

Independent Sample Test (13 Scales)

Before elaborating further on these 16 themes, however, we must acknowledge the effect of vicinity, or the spatial factor (involving field, placement, and constant movement within a field) on why some individuals manage to pass a series of tests while others do not. To what extent does vicinity,⁹ the intensity of which varies with participants' situation and role during a given period (here, during their occupational training), affect success and all forms of attrition? In the following section we shall attempt to answer this question.

⁹ Here, vicinity means all types of spatial closeness and movement. Examples are behaviour- and attitude-related affinities and interests, regardless of subject or object (Maisonneuve, 1966).

 

Dropouts and Other Forms of Attrition

The decision to begin with this topic was not made by chance or on a purely methodological basis, but primarily out of respect for the individuals who agreed to participate in this study. In any study that uses volunteers,¹⁰ too often attrition in all its forms (failure, refusal to participate, resignation, lack of interest, or simply dropping out) is still a field left fallow. Although attrition shows up in statistical data, too often we spend our time looking elsewhere.

¹⁰ The term "participant" was chosen because it implies a much more active approach by group members to the occupation and its pre-established locations than does the much less active approach implied by the term "respondent".

Whatever reasons are given for this lack of continuity, it is nevertheless true that all the individuals whose names were on the CTP list were indeed selected in the hope that they would complete this training, which theoretically would have been followed by a year-long period on the job and completed with a position as a correctional officer. All of these individuals then, whether they completed training or not, are important.

In addition, we must remember that these individuals thought that their hard work and numerous sacrifices (unpaid training, returning to school as an adult, deadlines, examinations on which hinged ongoing training, and family responsibilities on a very tight budget), would pay off in terms of a new career. For this reason too, all of these individuals, whether they completed training or not, are important.

We must therefore take the time to ask ourselves a few questions. Is there a factor or indicator that could distinguish the recruits who passed from those who completed CTP from who continued from those who resigned? Is there a specific profile or characteristic that distinguishes those who resigned or refused to participate from the others that could help us better understand a possible error in our questionnaire presentation, objective or structure (although the questionnaire has no direct relationship with failure other than the fact that withdrawal from CTP automatically means withdrawal from the study)?

Of the 249 initial participants registered for CTP, including the 15 persons (9 men and 6 women) who did not show up at the staff college for the first day of training,¹¹ 233 persons participated in the Pre A questionnaire. From a purely epistemological point of view, the participation rate in the initial stage of a study involving questionnaires in a specific location (here, a staff college) and with a specific group (here, correctional officer recruits) is usually very high and then, for various reasons, rapidly declines. This high participation rate in the initial stage (the Pre A questionnaire) can be largely explained by six factors:

¹¹ Data on these recruits, identified by a CTP class code, are not analysed in phase two, but were included by region in phase one, Correctional Officer Recruits and the Prison Environment: A Research Framework, at p. 49.

1. the specific nature of participants, in a closed location and on the first day of CTP;
2. the fact that the participants knew they were being observed by various forms of authority (Matalon, 1988) and called onto the carpet, given the importance attached to CSC's first study on its own employees¹² (here, correctional officer recruits);
3. most likely a strong desire to please (Blalock, 1972) or simply to conform to the persons in a position of authority who presented the objectives of this study;
4. the fact that the participants were also members of a group, selected for numbers and for specific reasons, who were not in a position to dispute the justification of the study;
5. fear of refusing to participate, although the protocol of agreement left recruits free to agree to participate or not; and
6. simply out of belief and adjustment to behaviours apparently sought by the questionnaire.

¹² This study should not be confused with surveys carried out in the past.

As a result, no recruits in any of the five CSC administrative regions or the 10 CTP classes refused to participate in the Pre A questionnaire, and the attrition rate at this stage was zero.

Dropouts and other forms of attrition began to appear only in the second week of CTP and continued over the following 10 weeks. A total of 86 participants eventually withdrew during the period spent at the staff college (6 during the Pre B questionnaire, and 80 during the Post questionnaire).

Concerning the specific nature of the questionnaire themes and the reasons for all forms of attrition, each question will record whether habits change over time, not only in terms of tobacco use and alcohol consumption, but also in terms of the participants' perceptions of change in their immediate environment. Participants may indicate a certain answer or check off a certain statement on a measurement scale in the Pre A questionnaire, continue to provide the same responses in the Post questionnaire and the questionnaire distributed after three months of working in an institution, and then indicate an entirely different response in the questionnaires administered after six months and one year. As was noted in the introduction, changes in responses over time reflect sequential changes in the participants that may not be evident to them and may cause them to stop participating.

A second question is, if a participant who has never taken antihistamines starts taking them after six months of working in an institution, whether there is a relationship and, if so, whether it is significant.

For persons responding to each of the questions, boredom may rapidly lead to disinterest and will inevitably increase the number of dropouts from the study. Of course, although the process itself was clearly explained in the classroom on the morning of the first day of CTP, the participants may find the repetition of certain parts of the questionnaires redundant or feel that they have already answered all the questions in the previous questionnaire.

Nor, as we shall see in the final report, should the prison environment be underestimated. Later, on the job, the purpose of a study fades in the minds of participants unless it is reactivated by the same persons who explained why it was important: the content of the questionnaire appears to reflect another time, the period spent at a staff college, since which time participants have been in contact with many other realities.

In order to offset these forms of attrition from the study, particularly for the questionnaires covering intervals of three months, six months and one year of working in an institution, a follow-up e-mail message was sent to each CTP class in all the CSC five administrative regions, actively encouraging participants to continue with the study. A number of recruits who had not read the questionnaires because of a change of assignment or had simply forgotten to return them were personally asked to do so, and were reminded that the study was a first at CSC and that would produce results only with their full and complete participation.

Although this point is not made explicit in the questionnaires, the syntax of the questions (Likert scales from 1  to 5 or from 1 to 7) gives the participants some latitude in terms of response options. Although the questions are not always clear, a number of them are as worded by their authors, and the present author was not responsible for changing wording that may have left something to be desired.

That said, regardless of linguistic shortcomings, on the study as a whole only 11 handwritten comments in the margins or on the cover pages of the questionnaires, indicate that a question is repeated more than once or that a statement, not a question, is meant. For reasons of objectivity the present author does not consider it necessary to belabour these points, particularly since random responses can readily be identified using axiomatic logic. As well, during the 15-month CTP period, from all five CSC administrative regions, two isolated questionnaires were returned (one at the six-month interval and one at the one-year interval of working in an institution) on which zigzag responses (from 1 to 7 and from 7 to 1) led to the questionnaires being considered void. That said, from an enumeration of the reasons given for dropouts and other forms of attritions among 86 participants, seven clearly stand out:

1. 74 failures were directly related to CTP (theoretical and practical examinations);
2. 7 participants did not respond to the Post questionnaire or voluntarily withdrew as was allowed in the protocol of agreement;
3. 1 participant resigned (to take another job, in policing);
4. 1 participant withdrew for medical reasons;
5. 1 participant withdrew because of injury during training;
6. 1 participant withdrew because of illness; and
7. 1 questionnaire was lost in the mail.

If we include the seven participants who did not respond to the Post questionnaire, the 1 participant who resigned to take another job, the 1 participant who withdrew for medical reasons, the 1 participant who withdrew because of injury during training, the 1  participant who withdrew because of illness, and the 1 questionnaire that was lost in the mail, we have a total of 86 participants lost through attrition (by 46 men and 40 women) from across the five CSC administrative regions over the first 12 weeks of CTP. Thus, after the various written examinations, there remained a total of only 147 participants in CTP at a staff college who were to be assigned to institutions in accordance with pre-established needs set by the regions during the initial CTP period. Further attritions were to follow at each of the three later intervals, of three months, six months and one year.

For comparison purposes, in a 1988 study (although in a non-Canadian context), Kauffman calculated a 20% dropout rate during the first year of assignment to federal institutions. This rate is very high indeed, not only primarily from a human point of view, but also from the point of view of the training costs incurred.

About the actual number of persons who dropped out even before showing up for the first day of CTP at a staff college, our only information is demographic. The reasons these 15 persons dropped out are unknown since, as has been noted, they were not enumerated in the list of dropouts and other forms of attrition in the Pre A questionnaire.

The nature and number of dropouts and other forms of attrition tend to show that CTP is not undertaken lightly. This occupational training demands not only implicit physical ability (even though less emphasis has been placed on physical ability since October 2002, when physical testing as a prerequisite was eliminated),¹³ but also considerable ability to quickly assimilate the 95 learning modules. While not jumping to conclusions (for reasons that we shall see), we can explain these dropouts in terms of the series of examinations on the general subject matter¹⁴ including tests of shooting ability.

¹³ Following an investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Correctional Officer Physical Ability Test (COPAT) was eliminated because it did not meet the requirements set out in the Employment Equity Act. COPAT had been identified as a barrier to employability for women, Aboriginal persons, and members of visible and other minorities.

¹⁴ Subject matter included the CSC mission, the criminal justice system, types of criminal behaviour, intervention techniques, case management, internal and external resources, ability to communicate orally and in writing, and analytic, motivational and organizational abilities.

In response to certain questions, all the following statistical analyses, presented in table form, were carried out using chi-square tests in order to measure the association of variables and t-tests in order to measure equality of means. These questions were as follows.

1) Would there be a difference in number of dropouts among the men and among the women?

Answer :

In both the Pre A and the Post questionnaires, there is no significant difference between man and women, which have attrition rates of 37.4% and 36.4% respectively:

Cross-Classification Table
			Post Participants		Total
			Yes	No
Pre A-	Men	All	77	46	123
Demo-Q2:		% of Pre A-Demo-Q2: GENDER	62.6%	37.4%	100.0%
GENDER		% of Post participants	52.4%	53.5%	52.8%
	Women	All	70	40	110
		% of Pre A-Demo-Q2: GENDER	63.6%	36.4%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	47.6%	46.5%	47.2%
Total		All	147	86	233
		% of Pre A-Demo-Q2: GENDER	63.1%	36.9%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

2) What effect does education have on CTP completion?

While physical characteristics are not factors that can eliminate participants during the selection process CTP, theoretically, at least, persons with more education would be expected to complete the program.

Answer :

Although the results are not significant, out of 86 participants who did not complete the Post questionnaire, 32 have a university degree, 27 a college diploma, and 27 a secondary school diploma. Thus higher education does not correspond to success in CTP since, although in each group the amount of attrition reflects the number of participants, 39% of university graduates did not complete CTP, the highest attrition rate among the three groups of all those participated:

Cross-Classification Table
			Post Participants		Total
			Yes	No
Pre A-	Secondary	All	32	27	59
Demo-Q4:	school	% of Pre A-Demo-Q4: EDU	54.2%	45.8%	100.0%
EDU	level	% of Post participants	21.8%	31.4%	25.3%
	College	All	65	27	92
	level	% of Pre A-Demo-Q4: EDU	70.7%	29.3%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	44.2%	31.4%	39.5%
	University	All	50	32	82
	level	% of Pre A-Demo-Q4: EDU	61.0%	39.0%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	34.0%	37.2%	35.2%
Total		All	147	86	233
		% of Pre A-Demo-Q4: EDU	63.1%	36.9%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

That said, this self-identification question does not tell us whether participants were in undergraduate or graduate programs or whether they completed their studies. If participants with a university and with a college education are combined, between successful and unsuccessful CTP participants there is a 78% participants as compared with 68%.¹⁵

¹⁵ This figure includes all participants who did not respond to the Post questionnaire. The number of persons who did not respond (7%) is not significant.

For the moment, the initial hypothesis of Job Satisfaction (Bensimon, ibid.; Morgeson & Campion, 1997) linking dropouts to higher education cannot be corroborated since its results covered only a very short period (three months), not several years in a single occupation. Other variables combining highly diverse personal aspirations may eventually explain dropouts. These variables may include fear of and the nature of repetitive duties, lack of autonomy, limited career horizons, and anticipation of negative situations, and they will undoubtedly affect various social spheres after a few years of service.

Nevertheless, where education is concerned, ongoing training provided by the employer allows individuals to develop their knowledge and, if desired, to pursue a university education in accordance with a pre-established schedule and an annual performance evaluation within a defined career plan.

3) Does age play a role CTP completion?

Answer :

An examination, a reading of the data indicates no difference between those complete or do not complete CTP: the average age being 32.

Group Statistics

4) Are participants who are parents disadvantaged?

Answer :

Although among Post participants single individuals are still the largest group, a reading of the following table indicates no significant difference between participants with one or more dependent children and those with no children:

Cross-Classification Table
			Post Participants		Total
			Yes	No
Pre A-Sec1-Q2:	Yes	All	66	47	113
CHILDREN		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q2: CHILDREN	58.4%	41.6%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	44.9%	54.7%	48.5%
	No	All	81	39	120
		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q2: CHILDREN	67.5%	32.5%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	55.1%	45.3%	51.5%
Total		All	147	86	233
		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q2: CHILDREN	63.1%	36.9%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Thus family responsibilities do not appear to place recruits at a disadvantage in terms of training. Accommodation for participants from distant regions and meals except for lunch are covered by the staff college. That said, recruits have no guarantee whatsoever that they will pass their occupational training. Furthermore, recruits are not paid for their time for the duration of the CTP. For participants who are in a relationship with or without children, this situation demands a sufficient income to meet the most basic needs and, in particular, a great deal of courage and determination to learn this trade.

To this courage and determination is added the perverse effect of competition between those who will remain and those who will drop out, and between those who will quickly form part of the group for various reasons and those who will question their own motives for choosing this new and uncommon career.

5) Could one or more of the 16 themes (13 scales) explored during the three months of training have been decisive in determining success or dropping out?

Answer :

In this phase two, certain trends identified in the Independent Sample Tests (13 scales) table show a number of significant observations with regard to these 13 scales, including a greater acceptance of deterrence among those did not complete CTP and lower sense of responsibility among the same group.

This interpretation must be taken with care, however. It may be that the recruits became disappointed by their choice of career over time or simply show resistance to what they had perceived as secondary or not really important.

All work assigned to CSC employees is based on guidelines, values and the overarching principle of the rule of law, which must not only be learned and understood but also systematically applied, and a number of individuals may not have realized this fact during the first three months of training.

Independent Sample Tests (13 scales)

		Levene Test for Equality of Variance		T-Test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	Ddl	Sig. (bilateral)	Difference in Mean	Difference in Standard Variation	Confidence Interval 95% of Difference
									Lower Limit	Upper Limit
PRE -Sec2: Sources of motivation for correctional work	Equal variance hypothesis	.155	.694	.189	231	.850	.07973	.42120	-.75015	.90961
	Unequal variance hypothesis			.200	206.912	.842	.07973	.39959	-.70805	.86752
PRE -Sec2: Human service orientation	Equal variance hypothesis	.060	.806	.470	231	.639	.08808	.18728	-.28092	.45708
	Unequal variance hypothesis			.462	168.066	.645	.08808	.19078	-.28856	.46471
PRE -Sec2: Attitudes towards correctional work	Equal variance hypothesis	1.052	.306	-.241	230	.810	-.05134	.21326	-.47155	.36886
	Unequal variance hypothesis			-.237	166.477	.813	-.05134	.21694	-.47964	.37695
PRE -Sec2: Social desirability	Equal variance hypothesis	1.517	.219	-1.222	230	.223	-.22107	.18086	-.57743	.13529
	Unequal variance hypothesis			-1.176	155.490	.242	-.22107	.18805	-.59254	.15040
PRE -Sec2: Intrinsic job motivation	Equal variance hypothesis	.708	.401	1.571	231	.118	.72979	.46467	-.18574	1.64532
	Unequal variance hypothesis			1.602	189.212	.111	.72979	.45543	-.16858	1.62816
PRE -Sec2: Correctional self-efficacy	Equal variance hypothesis	1.094	.297	2.108	231	.036	2.58524	1.22625	.16918	5.00130
	Unequal variance hypothesis			2.051	163.362	.042	2.58524	1.26042	.09642	5.07406
PRE -Sec3: Support for rehabilitation	Equal variance hypothesis	.653	.420	1.672	230	.096	.92678	.55438	-.16554	2.01909
	Unequal variance hypothesis			1.623	162.360	.107	.92678	.57110	-.20096	2.05451
PRE -Sec3: Deterrence	Equal variance hypothesis	.245	.621	2.360	231	.019	.98317	.41652	.16250	1.80384
	Unequal variance hypothesis			2.308	166.044	.022	.98317	.42593	.14223	1.82411
PRE -Sec3: Attitudes towards inmates	Equal variance hypothesis	1.180	.278	-.847	231	.398	-1.48528	1.75325	-4.93969	1.96912
	Unequal variance hypothesis			-.814	156.811	.417	-1.48528	1.82556	-5.09114	2.12058
PRE -Sec4: Correctional training program, pre-expecations	Equal variance hypothesis	.276	.600	-.791	231	.430	-.43490	.54992	-1.51840	.64860
	Unequal variance hypothesis			-.821	198.872	.413	-.43490	.52965	-1.47934	.60955
PRE -Sec5: Group environment questionnaire	Equal variance hypothesis	.712	.400	1.763	225	.079	.90150	.51133	-.10611	1.90911
	Unequal variance hypothesis			1.830	180.434	.069	.90150	.49272	-.07073	1.87374
PRE -Sec5: Correctional officer social cohesiveness	Equal variance hypothesis	.564	.453	.567	225	.571	.23095	.40709	-.57125	1.03316
	Unequal variance hypothesis			.589	180.268	.557	.23095	.39241	-.54335	1.00526
PRE -Sec5: Credibility	Equal variance hypothesis	1.877	.172	1.479	225	.141	.56386	.38124	-.18740	1.31512
	Unequal variance hypothesis			1.450	153.416	.149	.56386	.38879	-.20420	1.33193

According to the phase two Group Statistics table, there is no significant difference between participants who pass and those who drop out of CTP on any of the 13 measurement scales (for the Post period):

Group Statistics

	Post participants	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Mean Error
PRE -Sec2: Sources of motivation for correctional work	Yes	147	26.4286	3.31249	.27321
	No	86	26.3488	2.70410	.29159
PRE -Sec2: Human service orientation	Yes	147	6.2193	1.34264	.11074
	No	86	6.1312	1.44066	.15535
PRE -Sec2: Attitudes towards correctional work	Yes	147	10.2150	1.52769	.12600
	No	85	10.2663	1.62809	.17659
PRE -Sec2: Social desirability	Yes	147	5.5266	1.25190	.10326
	No	85	5.7477	1.44906	.15717
PRE -Sec2: Intrinsic job motivation	Yes	147	36.3810	3.51578	.28998
	No	86	35.6512	3.25673	.35118
PRE -Sec2: Correctional self-efficacy	Yes	147	90.9086	8.66798	.71492
	No	86	88.3234	9.62650	1.03805
PRE -Sec3: Support for rehabilitation	Yes	146	37.1233	3.89675	.32250
	No	86	36.1965	4.37088	.47132
PRE -Sec3: Deterrence	Yes	147	14.5442	2.96840	.24483
	No	86	13.5610	3.23218	.34853
PRE -Sec3: Attitudes towards inmates	Yes	147	121.4432	12.12979	1.00045
	No	86	122.9285	14.16096	1.52702
PRE -Sec4: Correctional training program pre-expectations	Yes	147	34.4422	4.25091	.35061
	No	86	34.8771	3.68151	.39699
PRE -Sec5: Group environment questionnaire	Yes	147	27.8390	3.83296	.31614
	No	80	26.9375	3.38030	.37793
PRE -Sec5: Correctional officer social cohesiveness	Yes	147	25.0476	3.05056	.25161
	No	80	24.8167	2.69338	.30113
PRE -Sec5: Credibility	Yes	147	27.4014	2.67832	.22090
	No	80	26.8375	2.86155	.31993

Two additional factors separate CTP participants who complete from those who drop out. The first of these is location: nationally, 36.9% of the participants did not complete CTP. However, two regions had substantially higher rates of attition: Atlantic (75%) and Prairies (69.2%):

Cross-Classification Table
			Post Participants		Total
			Yes	No
Pre A-Sec1-Q3:	Atlantic	All	5	15	20
REGION		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q3: REGION	25.0%	75.0%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	3.4%	17.4%	8.6%
	Quebec	All	40	17	57
		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q3: REGION	70.2%	29.8%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	27.2%	19.8%	24.5%
	Ontario	All	65	26	91
		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q3: REGION	71.4%	28.6%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	44.2%	30.2%	39.1%
	Prairies	All	8	18	26
		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q3: REGION	30.8%	69.2%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	5.4%	20.9%	11.2%
	Pacific	All	29	10	39
		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q3: REGION	74.4%	25.6%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	19.7%	11.6%	16.7%
Total		All	147	86	233
		% of Pre A-Sec1-Q3: REGION	63.1%	36.9%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

 

The second of these remaining factors is race. According to this factor, of the 86 non-completers, 46 were Caucasians, 20 were Aboriginal persons, and 20 were members of visible minorities (the failure rate was the same in the latter two groups).

With the same failure rate of 57%, the last two groups, Aboriginal persons and members of visible minorities, are the groups most affected by dropouts:

Cross-Classification Table
			Post Participants		Total
			Yes	No
Pre A-Demo-Q3:	Caucasian	All	117	46	163
RACE		% of Pre A-Demo-Q3: RACE	71.8%	28.2%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	79.6%	53.5%	70.0%
	Aboriginal	All	15	20	35
		% of Pre A-Demo-Q3: RACE	42.9%	57.1%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	10.2%	23.3%	15.0%
	Visible minority	All	15	20	35
		% of Pre A-Demo-Q3: RACE	42.9%	57.1%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	10.2%	23.3%	15.0%
Total		All	147	86	233
		% of Pre A-Demo-Q3: RACE	63.1%	36.9%	100.0%
		% of Post participants	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

 

Training future professionals calls for long-term investments. A reading of these data, observed from September 23, 2002 to October 3, 2003 during the staff college training period, showed us how little these responses highlight the vital importance we must attach to CSC philosophy in hiring candidates, here future correctional officers. Two former studies, the first in 1985 with Walher & Gendreau and the second with Simourd in 1997, showed how decisive attitudinal and behavioural abilities related to the five key CSC values (respect, desire to learn and to change, integrity, results-orientedness, and teamwork) could be, in the short and the medium terms, regardless of individuals' social status, gender, work experience or education.

A recent study has shown that, out of a sample of 1,357 recruits, 177 (13%) correctional officers left CSC within 30 months of being hired (CSC, 2001). This figure is relatively important if we consider that, in the present study, out of 233 participants, 126 chose to learn this trade for the job stability (extrinsic motivation). In the United States, in 1998 alone, turnover among public-sector security employees in correctional institutions was as follows: 63% remained, 15% retired; and 22% left that occupation for unknown reasons (Workforce Associates, 2004; Blakely & Bumphus, 2004).

The needs of the prison population, advances in the behavioural sciences, offenders' attitude towards the clinical aspect of available programs, and ever-greater ethnic diversity¹⁶ demand that correctional officers be fully in agreement with the mission of rehabilitation conferred on the CSC by law. This concern for investing in both the selection process and human capital is all the more crucial given that three-quarters of recruits will quite likely spend their entire working lives with CSC (Tellier et al., 2001).

¹⁶ This greater ethnic diversity reflects migration patterns.

Employees' contribution to the rehabilitation process and their agreement with the values of the CSC mission remain crucial in the selection of new correctional officers. This selection has been the subject of a number of additional studies, including that by the Ohio Correction Assessment Center (Stickrath & Sheppard, 2004).

 

Pre A Questionnaire

This first section does not take attrition into account and thus includes data on all participants, including those who did not complete the training. That said, the critical mass of responses must be read with great caution: the data indicate change, since what a participant stated on the first day is not necessarily what the same participant stated after three months. For this reason, the Pre A questionnaire provides only a descriptive statistical presentation, differentiated by gender alone. Some variables such as age group and education, and their effects on responses by participants who passed and those who failed, will be covered only in the section on the Post questionnaire, and will allow us to draw up cross-classification tables between these two periods.

The questions in the Pre A, Pre B and Post questionnaires are indicated in the order given to participants, in sections (1 to 5), not by theme.¹⁷

¹⁷ See Appendix 1.

1) Recruit profile information

We begin this first section with a series of demographic variables indicating the overall profile of the 233 recruits on a national basis.

1) Age

Out of 10 classes and a total of 233 participants, the average age among men and women in the five regions was 32.3¹⁸ with a standart deviation of 7.5. They ranged in age from 20 to 53, suggesting that while some are starting their first career, others are likely starting their second or even third career:

¹⁸ Age is calculated on the first day of CTP of the last class in each region.

The average age among the men (33.9) is higher than that among the women (30.6):

Among both the men and the women, this average age appears to show that recruits' background includes much more extensive relational experience than that of persons in many other occupations, where learning begins in a person's early 20s. It should be emphasized that the age group between age 20.5 and age 52.6 is not unaffected by the falling birthrate of the 1970s, economic factors and, in some cases, the choice to begin a second or even a third career (Foot & Stoffman, 2000). These factors did not affect members of the previous generation, who were able to spend their entire working lives in the same field and often in the same location.¹⁹ That situation is found among correctional officers with 20 or more years of service, unlike those who began their careers in the early 2000s.

¹⁹ Reference is made here to members of the "baby-bust" generation, as opposed to baby boomers, born from the mid-1940s to the early 1960s.

No significant differences in age were observed in relation to race:

 

2) Marital status

Of the participants:

• 101 (43.3%) were single (36 men and 65 women);
• 116 (49.8%) were married or living in a common-law relationship: 78 men and 38 women;
• 16 (6.9%) were separated or divorced: 9 men and 7 women; and
• 0 were widowed.

 

3) Gender

Of the participants, 123 (52.8%) were men and 110 (47.2%) were women:

4) Do you have any children? 1) Yes 2) No

Of the participants, 113 had one or more children. Of these parents, 15 were single, 84 were married or living in a common-law relationship, and 14 were separated or divorced. The percentage of participants with children is not negligible among persons entering a second or even third career:

 

5) Region of selection

Of the 233 participants, the regional breakdown was as follows:

6) What language(s) do you speak?²⁰

²⁰ Responses to this question indicate self-identification, not official certification of official languages proficiency.

English : Of the participants, 194 (83.3%) stated that they spoke English.

French : Of the participants, 72 (30.9%) stated that they spoke French.

Other language(s) : Although other languages were not specified, 26 (11.2%) participants stated that they spoke a language other than English or French; 1 participant did not respond to this question:

7) Race

Distribution of the participants by race is as follows:

• 163 (70%) were Caucasians;
• 35 (15%) were Aboriginal persons; and
• 35 (15%) were members of visible minorities.

By region, this distribution is as follows:

 

8) What is the highest level of education that you have achieved?

Secondary school level : Of the participants, 59 (25.3%) were secondary school graduates (37 men and 22 women), of whom 34 were Caucasian, 20 Aboriginal persons, and 5 members of visible minorities.

College level : Of the participants, 92 (39.5%) were college graduates (46 men and 46 women), of whom 71 were Caucasian, 11 Aboriginal persons, and 10 members of visible minorities.

University level : Of the participants, 82 (35.2%) were university graduates (40 men and 42 women) of whom 58 were Caucasian, 4 Aboriginal persons, and 20 members of visible minorities.

A noteworthy point is that, among the three groups, members of visible minorities had the highest percentage of participants with a university degree (57.1%):

 

9) If you have completed post-secondary training, did you specialize in corrections, criminology, criminal justice or related specialities (law and security)?

To this question, 11 (4.7%) participants did not respond; 113 (48.5%) participants had studied in a related field:

Pre A -Demo-Q5: SPECIAL

		Frequency	%	Valid %	Cumulative%
Valid Missing Total	Yes No Total System missing	113 109 222 11 233	48.5 46.8 95.3 4.7 100.0	50.9 49.1 100.0	50.9 100.0

10) Please identify any related work experience.

Twenty-two participants (9.4%) did not respond to this question.

Policing : Of those who did respond, 13 (5.6%) had taken police training. Twenty-two participants (9.4%) did not respond to this question.

Security : Of those who did respond, 75 (32.2%) had work experience in the field of security. Twenty-two participants (9.4%) did not respond to this question.

Military : Of those who did respond, 20 (8.6%) had had a period of employment in the military. Twenty-two participants (9.4%) did not respond to this question.

Case worker : Of those who did respond, 57 (24.5%) had a background in social work. Twenty-two participants (9.4%) did not respond to this question.

Other : Of those who did respond, 100 had experience in various activities other than those listed. Twenty-one participants (9 %) did not respond to this question.

Of the participants, 41 stated that they had worked in two or more of these five occupational fields. Of this number, 30 had work experience in the field of security; 24 had experience in various activities other than those listed; 19 had a background in social work; and 11 had had a period of employment in the military. In total, then, the backgrounds of 108 (46%) participants out of 233 included the elements of order, surveillance and wearing a uniform.

11) How did you find out about this employment opportunity?

All the participants responded to this question.

• Applied through a job bank (Internet) : 16 (6.9%).
• Friends of mine who are correctional officers : 66 (28.3%).
• Family members who are correctional officers : 29 (12.4%).
• Advertising (media, job fair, etc.) : 42 (18%).
• Other : 105²¹ (45.1%).

²¹ "Other" may mean happenstance in a local setting (construction of a penitentiary in an outlying area with priority hiring for local residents) or an educational setting (classroom presentation on correctional officers and other careers in the criminal justice field).

12) What skill(s) do you feel you possess that will best assist you as a Correctional Officer? Please list a maximum of three.²²

²² See Appendix 2: this is the first of the qualitative questions, in which the words indicated by participants in the space provided are grouped using a series of key words. Although in a given questionnaire a key word may be used more than once, no key word is used in more than two of the qualitative questions, or used twice in the same qualitative question.This is true for all four qualitative questions, which give participants the option of indicating whatever words came to mind.

Possible opinions about an occupation have to do both with its emotional attractiveness in terms of assumed economic and social advantages and with the specific characteristics that distinguish it from other occupations (Cambon, 2004; Beauvois, 1995).

For this question, participants listed in writing the main skills they felt would assist them in their future occupation. In order not to waste energy on each and every skill noted or on certain frequencies that have no effect on the data (polarization of the Pre A questionnaire), while still not losing any factors that, as has been noted, will recur in the Post questionnaire, we retain only the frequencies by gender that are higher than 10 (5%).

Two themes emerge very clearly from this self-identification question:

1. empathy, with 156 responses from the 233 participants (66.7%);
2. and integrity on the job, with 150 responses (64.1%).

Far behind came: teamwork, with 37 responses (15.9%); sense of responsibility, with 34 (14.6%); and desire to learn and human experience, both with 30 (12.9%). At the bottom end of responses to this question that elicited extremes, good physical condition (ns) and affinity for security work (ns) were each noted by only 4 participants (1.7%). It should be noted that the participants themselves assigned priorities to the skills they noted, and that a number of these key words recur in the three other qualitative questions.

2) Health and lifestyle²³

²³ In the questionnaire given to the participants, the next two questions are numbered 9 and 10.

Tobacco

1) Do you use tobacco products? 1) Yes 2) Never

2) If you smoke, on average how many cigarettes a day do you smoke?

1) 1-4 2) 5-9 3) 10-19 4) 20-29 5) 30 or more

Out of 232 participants (1 did not respond), 66 (28.4%) stated that they smoked (29 men and 37 women). Overall, about three quarters (76.2%) of the men said they smoked compared to two thirds (66.4%) of the women. This raw figure (if significant) will be analysed only later, at intervals of three months, six months and one year in an institutional setting. That said:

The average number of cigarettes smoked per day is from five to nine, regardless of gender. Overall, almost two-thirds (65%) of smokers smoked nine or less cigarettes per day while just over a third (34.9%) smoked between 10 and 30 per day. Three participants did not respond to this question about frequency smoking.

Alcohol consumption

This theme might have placed participants in an extremely delicate situation, particularly on the first day of training and may reflect alcohol consumption much lower than is actually the case. The upshot is that, in order to avoid being stigmatized, 25 participants did not respond at all to questions 2 and 3 (questions 11 and 13 as presented in the questionnaire).

1) Do you drink alcohol (beer, wine, coolers, or hard liquor)?

1) Yes 2) I've never used alcohol.

Of the participants, one did not respond and 211 (90.9%), divided evenly between men (105) and the women (106), acknowledged that they consumed alcohol:

2) In the last three months, how many times did you have five or more drinks on one occasion?

Where frequency of alcohol consumption is concerned, with 27 participants not responding, 53 participants (26 men and 27 women) indicated once; 54 participants (25 men and 29 women) indicated from two to three times; and 18 participants (14 men and 4 women) indicated from four to six times:

3) During an average week, how many days do you have at least one drink of alcohol?

With 25 participants not responding, 47 participants (30 men and 17 women) indicated once a week, and 23 participants (14 men and 9 women) indicated from two to three times a week:

As is the case for tobacco and alcohol, the following theme of drugs or medication will be analysed using the consumption curve after the participants are assigned to an institution, at intervals of three months, six months and one year.

Drugs or medication

4) How often do you use the following over-the-counter drugs or medication?

To this question, one participant did not respond.

a) Painkillers (Tylenol, Aspirin, etc.)

• About once a week : 27 (11 men and 16 women).
• About once a month : 68 (22 men and 46 women).
• Rarely or never : 133 (88 men and 45 women):

 

b) Antacids (Tums, Rolaids, Maalox, etc.)

To this question, 9 participants did not respond.

• About once a week : 9 (4 men and 5 women).
• About once a month : 27 (16 men and 11 women).
• Rarely or never : 186 (99 men and 87 women):

 

c) Antihistamines (Seldane, Hismanal, etc.)

To this question, 8 participants did not respond.

• About once a month : 9 (4 men and 5 women).
• Rarely or never : 212 (115 men and 97 women):

3) Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work

1) There are advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (downsides) to any job. What do you consider are some of the advantages and disadvantages that go along with being a Correctional Officer? Please list what you consider are the advantages of the position of a Correctional Officer.

Among the participants (whose average age was 30 for the women and 33 for the men), expectations appear more marked than they would be in a group that included 20-year-olds. Generally speaking, older participants have expectations and greater social recognition related to their past work experience.

That said, although extrinsic factors recur a number of times, interestingly, on the first day of training, helping relationships were ranked second. A reading of the data indicates the following priorities:

2) Please list what you consider are the disadvantages of the position of a Correctional Officer.

Since the participants had never worked as correctional officers, unlike the potentially measurable advantages (helping relationships, job stability, pay, and fringe benefits), the disadvantages that were listed anticipated actual working conditions. This anticipation was based more on mental images than on actual experience, since the participants were only at the theoretical learning stage and had not yet had any contact with the prison population.

Among disadvantages of this occupation listed by the participants, stress (unfavourable public opinion or lack of recognition) heads the list with 145 responses. Far behind, but interacting directly with anticipation of stress, are: negative environment and atmosphere, with 49 responses; occupational accidents (risk of violence, hostage-taking, suicide), with 47; and difficult client group, with 12.

Other responses included: difficulties of shift work (day, evening and night shifts, as well as weekends and holidays), with 82 responses; disagreements, with 18; limited social life, with 15; and routine, with 11:

3) Besides the advantages and disadvantages of being a Correctional Officer, there may be other reasons for becoming a Correctional Officer. For example, other members of your family are or have been a Correctional Officer. Please list them.

With 73 responses, outside influences (family members, friends and acquaintances) dominate responses to this question. Following this were, affinity for security work, with 49 responses; job stability, with 22; study in a related field, with 18; helping relationships, with 12; and promotion, with 12:

N.B.: The following data were formatted using Excel so that descriptive statistical analyses could be carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 13 (SPSS 13) software and Pearson chi-square correlation coefficients calculated. As well, the statistical significance of results of less than 5% (0.05) is indicated in second tables presenting the results of chi-square tests.

4) Attitudes towards correctional work²⁴

²⁴ At risk of issuing repeated warnings, the author reminds readers that a number of the following Pre A and Post questionnaire themes have more to do with participants' expectations than with reality since the Pre A questionnaire is given on the first day of CTP. As well, the inverted questions appear only in the Post section.

In this first series of 12 closed statements to which participants responded True or False, the group of 233 was divided between those with a positive vision of correctional work and those for whom this opportunity was based on considerations other than the actual purpose of the work for which they were initially selected. Still, for many participants, this very general vision could change over time depending on positive or negative reinforcements related to the environment and experience on the job.

1) For good reasons, the type of work we do in corrections has a bad image with the public.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond; 92 participants (49 men and 43 women) indicated True (39.8%); and 139 (74 men and 65 women) indicated False (60.2%):

Although social disapproval expressed in prison architecture (enclosure, walls and constraints) and extending to everyone working in correctional institutions was not a factor that surfaced in response to the qualitative question on the disadvantages of correctional work (since that question was semi-structured), in the view of 3% of the participants there is public stigma associated with correctional work. That same perception constitutes subjective baggage for 92 of the respondents to the present question, even before they begin work in this occupation.

As Mbanzoulou (ibid.) writes, in today's world, freedom and human rights have become so important that, however useful their duties, correctional officers confront people with the ambivalence of their feelings about the sentences imposed on inmates. As a result, writes Mbanzoulou, in the history of penitentiaries there has been a persistent inclination to conceal correctional workers and what they do.

2) One of the most rewarding elements of correctional work is that it is challenging.

Despite more negative than positive responses to the previous question on the public image of correctional work, to this question, 1 participant did not respond, and 205 (108 men and 97 women) agreed with this intrinsic factor of the challenging nature of correctional work:

Here again, as they anticipated possible incidents (riots, hostage-taking, injury) and without the benefit of experience on the job, the participants associated correctional work with a wide range of images of the prison atmosphere, including security alongside latent and omnipresent insecurity (unlike other justice-related occupations, where crime is intermittent), helping relationships, suspicion, and time management forever postponed.

Correctional officers are police officers " inside ", whose job is not to find and charge persons who have committed crimes, but to keep these persons and others like them, for whom being enclosed is a constant hindrance, in a closely restricted area.

3) If I had the choice, I'd much prefer to work with non-offenders than with offenders.

Aside from 3 participants who did not respond, 37 participants (31 men and 6 women) indicated True (16.1%), and 193 (90 men and 103 women) indicated False (83.9%):

It is surprising, to say the least, that on the first day of CTP, outside the prison environment, 37 participants (6 women) whose primary role and responsibilities would be those of correctional officers working with inmates acknowledged that, if they had the choice, they would much prefer working with quite a different client group.

4) If it wasn't for the good pay, I would probably not choose a career in the field of corrections.

To this question 4, 2 participants did not respond, 213 (107 men and 106 women) indicated False, and 18 men and women acknowledged that they while the vast majority of 92.2% chose correctional work solely on the basis of pay. Previously, in response to an open question on the advantages of correctional work, 77 participants indicated pay. The present, more subtle question is intended to provide closer focus by isolating pay as a single objective:

In a study on motivational synergy, Amabile (1993) notes that persons are extrinsically motivated when the work is merely an activity that achieves objectives unrelated to the work itself. We shall return to this theme later in exploring sources of motivation for correctional work, as adapted for this study from Weiss (ibid.), and also to intrinsic job motivation as analysed by War, Cook & Wall (ibid.).

5) While every job has its rewards, offenders are the most interesting and challenging types of people to work with.

Although this question may appear provocative, the questionnaire uses a balanced approach in order to measure attitudes from one extreme to the other. In response to this question, 4 participants did not respond, 133 (62 men and 71 women) indicated True , and 96 (by far mostly men) indicated False :

6) In general, there are more good things than bad things about having a career in corrections.

With 3 participants not responding, participants indicated that the advantages of correctional work clearly win out over the disadvantages. A total of 219 participants (115 men and 104 women) agreed that the advantages, taken together, clearly outweigh the disadvantages:

7) Being involved in the field of corrections gives me a personal sense of pride and accomplishment.

This question mainly assessed the values on a job well done, and belonging. Three participants did not respond, and 219 (116 men and 103 women) indicated True (95.2%):

8) Usually, I am not very proud to tell people that I earn my living working with offenders.

With one participant not responding, 216 participants (115 men and 101 women) indicated False in response to this question (93.1%):

9) Generally, I would prefer to have a job in a different field than corrections.

With one participant not responding, 213 participants (110 men and 103 women) indicated False in response to this question:

10) What most attracts me to corrections is the type of work I do, and not the pay, fringe benefits, or working conditions.

With 3 participants not responding, 173 participants (84 men and 89 women) stated that they were attracted by the nature of their future occupation. This question refers again to the advantages already indicated in the qualitative questions. However, nearly one-quarter of recruits (57) in the 10 CTP classes in all parts of the country indicated False in response to this question. In other words, 57 persons beginning CTP were doing so that had the same pay, fringe benefits or working conditions. This figure is thought-provoking in light of the expectations of CSC policies on and investment in training:

If this is the case, that is, if one-quarter of recruits on the first day of CTP are not even interested in the work, how can rehabilitation be reliably implemented?

11) I would have to agree that work in corrections is not a very respectable kind of job to have.

With one participant not responding, 217 (113 men and 104 women) indicated False in response to this question:

If peace officers' respectability is dissociated from what they do in the minds of even a small number of participants (15 or 6.5%), there may be some discrepancy between the candidate selection process and the learning process.

12) Working in corrections would be OK as long as you didn't have to deal with offenders directly.

To this question on attitudes towards correctional work, 1 participant did not respond, 223 (118 men and 105 women) indicated False, and 9 (4%) indicated True :

In varying degrees, this attrition from the purpose of correctional work is found at the hard core of each of these 12 statements. Although these questions appear innocuous, will the responses to them not be even more striking on the job with the prison population, than in a classroom barely three hours into the first day of CTP? We shall attempt to discover the answer to this question in analysing the data and in phase three of this longitudinal study.

5) Attitudes towards inmates²⁵

²⁵ Likert-type measurement scales (Likert's Organizational Profile, 1967) present various active statements, in gradations between two extremes, that measure degree of agreement. Here they express opinions and ideas, not facts. They are intended to be brief and adapted to the vocabulary of the sample so as not to distract participants.

In a study conducted nearly 20 years ago, Jurik & Musheno (1986) established a correlation between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in correctional officers' attitudes towards inmates, with a higher number of negative attitudes when motivation for choosing this occupation had more to do with security than with helping relationships. As Larivière & Robinson (ibid.) point out in their 1996 survey on the attitudes of federal correctional officers in all regions towards inmates, these employees apparently showed a more punitive and less empathetic attitude and moderate support for rehabilitation, in comparison with other groups of professionals working in the same field. In the opinion of these authors, agreement between the organization's values and employees' values has no major effect on recruitment, although there is a connection among attitudes towards inmates, stress, and job satisfaction.

That said, the 1994 study of 1,970 correctional officers had a response rate of 48%, and 83% of the respondents were men whose average age was 40 and who had an average of 11 years of experience in the prison environment.

Participants in the present study indicated their views on the first day of CTP using 34 statements to which very few participants did not respond.

1) Inmates are different from most people.

Of the 233 participants, 34 agreed with this statement (14.6%) and 42 (18.0%) were undecided:

2) Only a few inmates are really dangerous.

To this question, one participant did not respond. A total of 73 (31.5%) felt that the concept of dangerousness was much broader than the very limited wording " Only a few inmates ..." would indicate. Another 46 (19.8%) were undecided:

3) Inmates never change.

To this question, 3 participants did not respond. Despite a certain negative attitude towards the typical inmate profile, most participants by far (220 or 95.7%) indicated belief in change:

4) Most inmates are victims of circumstance and deserve to be helped.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Notwithstanding the response to the previous question (belief in change), 31 (13.3%) participants rejected helping relationships, and 69 (29.7%) were undecided:

5) Inmates have feelings like the rest of us.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Unlike the responses to the first question, the responses to this question by nearly all the participants (228 or 98.2%) were in agreement. Here, the concept of feelings is different from the inmate profile referred to above:

6) It is not wise to trust an inmate too far.

To this question, 3 participants did not respond. Concern for security and anticipation of danger resulted in a high number of the participants (148) who agreed with this statement, as compared with 30 who disagreed, and 52 who were undecided:

7) I think I would like a lot of inmates.

In the mid-1920s, Bogardus (1925) endeavoured to measure the distance individuals want between themselves and an ethnic group different from their own. To that end, he developed the Social Distance Scale, including questions such as, "Would you admit a black person to your street as a neighbour?" and, " Would you admit a black person to your club as a chum? " Along the same lines of analysing social distance, Melvin, Gramling & Gardner (ibid.) also study this type of questions, this time with regard to convicted criminals and correctional officers. Their questionnaire measures attitudinal and behavioural gradations, which form the basis for most of the themes used in the present study.

There is no significant difference between the number of participants who agree and the number who disagreed with the above statement. The two responses to this question, which, as will be seen during the three periods studied in an institution, will change and become much more specific. Also crucial in the phase two responses to this apparently equivocal question are the 116 (50.4%) undecided participants, among whom there were 16 more men than women. As well, 15 more women than men agreed with this statement.

To this question, 3 participants did not respond:

8) Bad institutional conditions just make an inmate more bitter.

All the participants responded to this question, most acknowledging or thinking (80.3%) that bad institutional conditions can influence inmates' attitudes and behaviours, and 31 (13.3%) remaining undecided:

9) Give inmates an inch and they will take a mile.

Here again, all the participants responded to this question, and there is no significant difference between the number of participants who disagreed (63) and the number who agreed (68) with this statement. There was, howewer, a large number (102 or 43.8%) who were undecided:

10) Most inmates are stupid.

All the participants responded to this question, and nearly all (216 or 92.7%) disagreed with this statement:

11) Inmates need affection and praise just like anybody else.

In this question, to which all the participants responded, we find a humanistic approach, as distinct from the punitive or coercive approach, among 198 participants, although 29 (12.4%) remained undecided:

12) You should not expect too much from an inmate.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Uncertainty and ambivalence about what may or may not be asked led 162 participants to disagree with this statement, as compared with 44 (19.0%) who were undecided:

13) Trying to rehabilitate inmates is a waste of time and money.

The fact that all the 216 participants who responded indicated disagreement with this statement highlights support for rehabilitation (p = .006). Statistically, more women than men disagreed with this statement:

 

14) Inmates are no better or worse than other people.

One participant did not respond to this question; a total of 138 (59.5%) agreed with this statement, 47 (20.2%) disagreed, and 47 were undecided:

15) You have to be constantly on your guard with inmates.

To this question, 5 participants did not respond. Unlike the concept of danger evoked in question 6, the concept evoked in this question is one of greater security-related caution, which also surfaces in the qualitative question on the disadvantages of correctional work. Concern for their own and their co-workers' security led 177 (77.6%) participants to indicate agreement with this statement, while 31 (13.6%) were undecided:

16) In general, inmates think and act alike.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond. In linking certain questions, while exercising caution since in this early phase we do not distinguish between recruits who pass and those who fail, we do observe some consistency among responses to certain questions: 153 (66.8%) participants disagreed with this statement and 52 (22.7%) were undecided:

17) If you give an inmate your respect, they'll give you the same.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond; 170 (74.2%) participants indicated agreement with this statement, as while 43 (18.8%) were undecided:

18) Inmates only think about themselves.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond. This statement indicates the possibility of behaviour change among inmates, with 140 (61.1%) participants disagreeing and 64 (27.9%) undecided:

19) There are some inmates I would trust with my life.

To this question, 5 participants did not respond. Although a shade of meaning is expressed in the word " some " used in this statement, 110 (48.2%) participants disagreed with it and 80 (35.1%) were undecided:

20) Inmates will listen to reason.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond. This statement focuses on communication with inmates; 139 (60.7%) participants expressed belief in dialogue, while 74 (32.3%) were undecided:

21) Most inmates are too lazy to earn an honest living.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond. According to the disagreement with this statement expressed by 191 (83.4%) participants, helping relationships and empathy highlight the importance of belief in changing social behaviour and learning social values:

22) I wouldn't mind living next door to an ex-inmate.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond. Out of a total of 229 participants, most (100) (43.7%) were undecided and 93 (40.6%) would not mind living at close quarters with an ex-inmate in a rural or urban setting:

23) Inmates are just plain mean at heart.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond. A clear majority (200 or 87.3%) disagreed with this colourful statement:

24) The values of most inmates are about the same as the rest.

To this question, 5 participants did not respond. The generalization "about the same" tends to narrow the gap between inmates' values and those of society as a whole. In response to this question, 103 (45.1%) participants disagreed with the statement, 68 (29.8%) were undecided, and 57 (25.0%) agreed, with more men than women in the latter two groups (42 undecided and 35 in agreement) and more women than men disagreeing with this statement (p = .007):

 

25) I would never want one of my children dating an ex-inmate.

To this question, 4 participants did not respond. As is the case with other similar questions, 113 (49.3%) participants were undecided, 67 (29.3%) would not want such a close family relationship, and 49 (21.4%) did not find this type of situation unduly worrisome:

26) Most inmates have the capacity to love.

With 4 participants not responding, by far most of the participants (212 or 92.6%) agreed with this statement:

27) Inmates are just plain immoral.

To this question, 5 participants did not respond. Comparisons among responses to a number of questions show contradictory nuances. Immorality means, not absence of values, but dysfunctional behaviour in a specific situation; 192 (84.2%) participants disagreed with this statement:

28) Inmates should be under stricter, hard discipline.

To this question, 5 participants did not respond. This view of the unknown is coercive. Although hardly any of the participants had been in contact with the actual prison environment, 129 (56.5%) disagreed with this statement; 35 (15.3%) stated that they favoured more discipline than is now the case but had no knowledge of the context; and 64 (28.1%) were undecided, caught between what actually happens inside and their personal vision of the structure of the prison environment:

29) In general, inmates are basically bad people.

To this question, 6 participants did not respond. As is the case with other similar questions, 205 (90.3%) participants disagreed with this stereotyped generalization:

30) Most inmates can be rehabilitated.

To this question, 5 participants did not respond. Anticipating the possibility of positive rehabilitation, 167 (73.2%) participants agreed with this statement:

31) Some inmates are pretty nice people.

To this question, 5 participants did not respond. This question, too, is intended to be made objective or "less absolute" through the use of the words " some inmates " and " pretty nice "; 182 (79.9%) participants agreed, although 39 (17.1%) participants were unable to decide:

32) I would like associating with some inmates.

To this question, 6 participants did not respond. Although this question is provocative to say the least, the objective is to assess the extent of two extremes: 82 (36.2%) participants agreed with this statement, 75 (33.0%) were undecided, and 70 (30.9%) disagreed. In their study on collective phenomena, Galam & Moscovici (1995) note polarization effects, in which two extremes interact within a process that leads respondents to change their beliefs in themselves and in the world around them. We shall see that these two extremes change quickly in contact with another, on-the-job reality, where the participants are called upon to apply what they have learned in the previous three months:

33) Inmates respect only brute force.

To this question, 6 participants did not respond. Out of the 227 participants who did respond, only 6 (2.6%) believe in the effectiveness of physical coercion in the prison environment and 15 (6.6%) were undecided:

In response to this statement, more women than men strongly disagreed (p = .002):

34) If a person does well in the institution, they should be let out on parole.

To this question, 6 participants did not respond. Although this statement does not distinguish between good behaviour and the rule of law (implicit here in the equation " doing well = being let out on parole "), 99 (43.6%) participants agreed with this statement, 95 (41.9%) were undecided, and 33 (14.6%) disagreed:

On reading these 34 statements, with a few exceptions indecision must be interpreted, not as ambivalence or ignorance related to the content of the ongoing training (all of which is new), but as inability to express an opinion (particularly when the variance points to a high percentage of participants), and an image of this other group of persons with whom the participants will shortly have to work. If, to give only one example, we take statement 26, "Most inmates have the capacity to love" , this very simple sentence does not engage the participants' intellect but rather their perception of this other group of persons with whom they will have to work, starting shortly and throughout their career. In response to this statement, 13 participants were undecided and 4 disagreed.

Although these figures are low, if there is no change in attitude they will have a significant effect on these employees' progress once they are in contact with the reality of the job.

6) Support for rehabilitation

Nine statements in the questionnaire examine support for rehabilitation, providing the recruits (even without corrections-related job experience) with a dynamic vision of rehabilitation. As presented, they contain the purpose of correctional work as perceived by a majority of the participants, whose responses to these statements may change as a result of contact with the reality of the job. These nine statements evoke a number of collective perceptions of sentencing, intervention and its importance, public protection, and the costs of further investment in this protection.

Let us now see how the participants perceive inmates' gradual transition into the community and how this perception may correlate with gender.

1) All rehabilitation programs have done is to allow offenders who deserve to be punished to get off easily.

To this question, 1 participant did not respond. Most participants by far (212 or 91.4%) disagreed with this statement:

2) Reabilitating an offender is just as important as making an offender pay for his or her crime.

To this question, 1 participant did not respond. On the first day of CTP, this statement does not enlighten participants about the criminological, philosophical, legal or social meaning of punishment. Nevertheless, 207 (89.2%) of the participants agreed that these two purposes of incarceration are complementary and equal:

3) The only effective and humane cure to the crime problem is to make a strong effort to rehabilitate offenders.

To this question, 1 participant did not respond. As we shall see, very few participants did not respond to this series of statements. At this point, 195 (84.1%) participants agreed with making " a strong effort ", while 20 (8.6%) were undecided and 17 (7.3%) disagreed:

4) I would support expanding the rehabilitation programs with offenders that are now being undertaken in our correctional institutions.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Although the word " expanding " requires very little knowledge of the programs now being undertaken in correctional institutions, this statement presents the participants with a predisposition for improving existing treatment programs, with which 202 (87.5%) participants agreed:

5) The rehabilitation of adult offenders just does not work.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Although it is difficult for participants without on-the-job experience to form an opinion about this statement, according to the following data, the beliefs of participants in all 10 CTP classes confirm the response to the previous question: 205 (88.7%) participants disagreed with this statement, while 22 (9.5%) were undecided and 4 (1.8%) agreed:

6) The only way to reduce crime in our society is to punish offenders, not try to rehabilitate them.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Most participants by far (215 or 93.1%) disagreed with this statement that punishment is the only way to reduce crime:

7) We should stop viewing offenders as victims of society who deserved to be rehabilitated and start paying more attention to the victims of these offenders.

One participant did not respond to this question. The use of the word " victim " makes this a strong statement, with which 124 (53.4%) participants disagreed, 75 (32.3%) were undecided, and 33 (14.2%) agreed. The number of men who agreed (27) and the number of women who disagreed (70) are significant:

8) One of the reasons why rehabilitation programs often fail with inmates is because they are under-funded; if enough money were available, these programs would work.

To this question, 3 participants did not respond. This statement is complicated by the insertion of four expressions that evoke pre-conceived ideas: " one of the reasons ", " often fail ", " under-funded ", and " enough money ". In response to this stereotyped view of rehabilitation programs, participants' opinions were divided, with 104 (45.2%) undecided, 84 (36.5%) agreeing, and 42 (18.3%) disagreeing:

9) The rehabilitation of inmates has proven to be a failure.

To this question, 3 participants did not respond. With this portentous statement, 179 (77.4%) participants disagreed, even though 44 (19.1%) were undecided:

7) Deterrence

1) Stiffer jail sentences will help reduce the amount of crime by showing offenders that crime does not pay.

To this question, one participant did not respond. In response to this statement's logic of more punitive intervention, 124 (53.4%) participants disagreed, while 58 (25.0%) indicated a belief that stiffer jail sentences would in fact reduce the amount of crime. The possibility of a connection between stiffer jail sentences and reduced crime left 50 (21.6%) participants undecided:

2) Punishing offenders is the only way to stop them from engaging in more crimes in the future.

This statement, to which all the participants responded and which is apparently solidly anchored in human history, was not favourably received overall: 151 (64.8%) participants disagreed, while 42 (18.0%) agreed and 40 (17.2%) did not take a clear stand:

3) Sending offenders to jail will not stop them from committing crimes.

This question, to which all the participants responded, does not set up a relationship of opposition between belief in correctional programs and belief in the function of incarceration, given that both can operate simultaneously. This question separates participants who believe in incarceration as a prophylactic measure and a deterrent from those who believe that incarceration in itself does not prevent recidivism. With this statement: "prison as a school of crime", 140 (60.1%) participants agreed, while 58 (24.9%) disagreed and 35 (15.0%) were undecided:

4) Putting people in correctional institutions does not make much sense since it will only increase crime because correctional institutions are schools of crime.

All the participants responded to this question. Although this statement is linguistically more subtle than the previous one, 152 (65.3%) participants disagreed, recognizing the importance of incarceration, while 29 (12.4%) agreed and 52 (22.3%) were undecided. The 29 participants who agreed do not believe that incarceration is pointless, but rather that inmates cannot change:

5) Punishing offenders will reduce crime by setting an example and showing others that crime does not pay.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Unlike the responses to a number of previous questions, the responses to this statement about punishment indicated support by a majority of participants (108 or 46.5%), while 72 (31.0%) disagreed and 52 (22.4%) were undecided:

8) Human service orientation

Unlike the previous themes, the questions about human service orientation elicited no undecided responses. This situation can be explained by the fact that, for this theme, a choice of three responses was offered: True, False, or simply no response (on average, two participants did not respond to the questions on this theme). Satisfaction, self-identification with an area of social work, helping relationships, and an existential need to contribute to others' greater well-being form four sub-themes in the following statements.

1) I prefer a job that gives me the opportunity to help people solve their problems.

All the participants responded to this question. Out of 233 participants, 227 (97.4%) agreed with this statement:

2) I can get a lot of satisfaction from working with people who are less fortunate than I am.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Out of 232 participants, 149 (64.2%) agreed with this statement, while 83 (35.8%) disagreed:

3) For me, a job that involves talking to people about their problems is more meaningful than a job that involves only casual contact with other people.

All the participants responded to this question. Out of 233 participants, 200 (85.8%) agreed with this statement, while 33 (14.2%) disagreed:

4) Work that allows me to help other people makes me feel like I am really making a difference.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 221 (95.7%) agreed with this statement, while 10 (4.3%) disagreed:

5) I don't necessarily have to work with people in order to feel like I'm making a contribution to society.

To this question, 3 participants did not respond. Out of 230 participants, 157 (68.3%) agreed with this statement, while 73 (31.7%) disagreed:

6) If I were to start looking for a new career tomorrow, I'd probably look for work in one of the helping professions.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Out of 232 participants, 186 (80.2%) agreed with this statement, while 46 (19.8%) disagreed:

7) Administrative work is O.K., as long as it contributes to solving the major problems in society.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 111 (48.1%) agreed with this statement, while 120 (51.6%) disagreed:

8) Generally, I tend to get more satisfaction from working with people than from other parts of my job.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 182 (78.8%) agreed with this statement, while 49 (21.2%) disagreed:

In response to these eight statements on human service orientation, it appears that the career choice of most participants by far involves a need to help make society a better place. In other words, they believe in a better world, as described some 30 years ago by Rubin & Peplau (1975) in their sociological study entitled, "Who believes in a just world?"

Responses to this question are not divided along gender lines: the statistical distribution of True and False responses is the same among the women and the men (for this question, chi-square tests are not significant and have not been included).

9) Social desirability

Aside from career choice, there are career aptitudes. The following 10 statements validate or invalidate participants' first impressions.

1) Are you always willing to admit it when you make a mistake?

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 218 (94.4%) agreed with this statement, while 13 (5.6%) disagreed:

2) Do you always try to practice what you preach?

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 217 (93.9%) agreed with this statement, while 14 (6.1%) disagreed:

3) I never resent being asked to return a favour.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 193 (83.5%) agreed with this statement, while 38 (16.5%) disagreed:

4) I have never been irked when people express ideas very different from my own.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 138 (59.7%) participants agreed with this statement, while 93 (40.3%) disagreed:

5) I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 114 (49.4%) participants agreed with this statement, while 117 (50.6%) disagreed:

6) Do you like to gossip at times?

To this question, 3 participants did not respond. Out of 230 participants, 77 (33.5%) agreed with this statement, while 153 (66.5%) disagreed:

7) Have there been occasions when you took advantage of someone?

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 53 (22.9%) agreed with this statement, while 178 (77.1%) disagreed:

8) At times, do you try to get even rather than forgive and forget?

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. Out of 231 participants, 37 (16.0%) agreed with this statement, while 194 (84.0%) disagreed:

9) At times, have you really insisted on having things your way?

To this question, one participant did not respond. Out of 232 participants, 165 (71.1%) agreed with this statement, while 67 (28.9%) disagreed:

10) Are there occasions when you felt like smashing things?

To this question, 1 participant did not respond. Out of 232 participants, 84 (36.2%) agreed with this statement, while 148 (63.8%) disagreed:

In response to these 10 statements, although self-identification certainly leads participants to amplify their responses, readers are reminded that these attitudes and behaviours are measured over time, not as a cluster of responses on a given theme. No significant differences by gender were noted.

10) Sources of motivation for correctional work

In endeavouring to ascertain whether motivation gives meaning to work or whether work itself creates motivation in individuals, we encounter two reciprocal approaches: content and process. In a study on compensation, motivation and job satisfaction, Roussel (1996) summarized motivation as that which activates, orients, energizes and maintains individuals' behaviour as they work to achieve expected objectives.

In a hospital environment, employees' intrinsic motivation lies essentially in caring care for patients and ensuring their greater well-being in case of illness or accident, in the prison environment employees deal first and foremost with a necessarily involuntary, often criminalized client group who are dealing with significant areas of dysfunction and whose social and physical dangerousness does not offer correctional officers the same possibility of gratitude. How can inmates, who have no desire to be inside, be expected to thank their jailers? Correctional officers will see inmates (other people who are incarcerated following conviction) again only rarely and only in specific, strictly utilitarian circumstances, an attitude that Vroom's Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Theory (1964) referred to as expectancy that a certain behaviour will lead to a valued outcome: a job well done.

Over time, the feeling among correctional officers of a job well done (and thus their beliefs, their job motivation or lack thereof, and whether they do their work mechanically) is most often perceived in terms of acting within a functional structure reflected in an organizational chart, or in terms of achieving corporate results. Overall, they no longer perceive the connection between their efforts and results, and these efforts are often informal, greatly reducing day-to-day risk-taking as well as any results obtained. This lack of motivation is particularly pronounced given that correctional officers' work is performed in an atmosphere of unvarying control and supervision. Here again, Harackiewicz & Larson (1986) indicate that self-determination on the job is low among employees working in such environments.

This 10th theme presents six aspects, to which all participants responded; the first three aspects have to do with extrinsic sources of motivation, and the last three with intrinsic sources of motivation for correctional work. What might lead individual men and women to choose and to remain in this occupation?

1) Job security.

Out of the 233 participants, 221 (94.8%) considered job security important:

2) Competitive salary and benefits.

Here we see a strong extrinsic source of motivation for correctional work, with 214 (91.8%) of 233 participants seeing salary and benefits as important reasons to remain in this occupation:

3) Opportunities for quick promotion.

Of the participants, 162 (69.5%) considered this aspect important and 58 (24.9%) were undecided:

4) Interesting and/or challenging work.

The second series of aspects under this theme (Intrinsic sources of motivation) begins here. As was shown 20 years ago by Lindsay & Knox (1984) and more recently by Stohr, Lovrich & Wood (1996), intrinsic sources of motivation appear more often among women than men. A very large majority of the participants (222 or 95.3%) considered the nature and attractiveness of the work important; the high number of women (80 or 57.1%) who considered it very important is of interest. As well, more women (80 or 57.1%) than men (60 or 42.9%) considered this aspect very important, while more men (56 or 68.3%) than women (26 or 31.7%) considered it important:

Our observations correspond to this finding (p = .002):

5) Learning and development opportunities.

Ongoing training and personal development were important to 221 participants. Here again, significantly more women (79 or 55.2%) than men (64 or 44.8%) considered this aspect very important, while more men (49 or 62.8%) than women (29 or 37.2%) considered it important:

Our observations correspond to this finding (p = .006):

6) A sense of worthwhile accomplishment in my work.

For 214 or 91.8% of participants, this aspect of their future work is important or very important. Here again, more women (75 or 55.6%) than men (60 or 44.4%) considered this aspect very important:

There is a statistically significant difference between men's and women's responses (p = .007) :

11) Intrinsic job motivation

This section delves more deeply into intrinsic job motivation. Unlike extrinsic or instrumental job motivation, intrinsic job motivation is characterized by the need to feel competent and to do one's best in exercising effective control over one's immediate environment. Intrinsic job motivation also has to do with individuals' feelings, beliefs and thoughts about themselves. Carver & Scheier (1981), reiterated by Deci & Ryan (1985), use the expression "self-determination". Self-determination may decrease when individuals lose control over their behaviours (Roussel, ibid.); in the prison environment, many factors may cause individuals to lose motivation.

In terms of the theme of sources of motivation for correctional work, correctional officers who do their job would be entitled to, if not gratitude or recognition, at least some degree of respect. But how can mutual respect be achieved in the largely negative prison environment? This fact is an unchanging reality not only in incarceration, deterrence and constraint but also, insofar as possible, in providing assistance to inmates.

The following six statements have to do with self-determination; they will be re-examined after three months of training, and then after the three intervals in an institution.

1) I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do a job well.

All the participants responded to this question; all 233 (100%) agreed with this statement:

2) My opinion of myself goes down when I do a job badly.

All the participants responded to this question; 139 (59.6%) agreed, 64 (27.4%) disagreed, and 30 (12.9%) were undecided:

3) I take pride in doing my job as well as I can.

To this question, one participant did not respond; 232 (100%) agreed with this statement:

4) I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard.

All the participants responded to this question; 205 (88.0%) agreed with this statement:

5) I like to look back on the day's work with a sense of a job well done.

All the participants responded to this question; 227 (97.4%) acknowledged this positive aspect of work:

6) I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively.

All the participants responded to this question; 229 (98.3%) tended to want to improve their work tools, methods and approaches:

12) Correctional self-efficacy

In correctional work, as in many public service occupations, interactions -- implicit and explicit, individual and collective -- influence job satisfaction, performance, social atmosphere, familiarity resulting from repetition, reactions to various stressful situations, emotional organizational commitment, co-workers, immediate superiors, and the client group with its many specific characteristics.

Tschan, Semmer & Inversin (2004) present two modes of interaction: work-related and private. With the exception of spot positions in specific locations (in a tower, on a parapet walk, on mobile patrol, or in an electronic surveillance room), correctional officers are rarely alone at a control post (on a scheduled shift or on rotation in a cell block, a specific area, or a unit). Working without coffee breaks and with shorter meal breaks than any other professionals working in institutions, correctional officers can establish special oral communications that eventually combine the work-related and private modes. While work-related interactions do not prevent strictly private interactions from taking place, private interactions make work-related interactions much more pleasant and invest them with greater latitude (Buunk & Verhoeven, 1991; Hays, 1989; Wheeler, Reiss & Nezlek, 1983). Both modes of interaction are influenced by the immediate environment, security, frequency and duration. Depending on the purpose of the institution, then, there is a sociability that continually recurs and that is found in each of the 22 themes of this study.

Holland's typology (1997) uses the expression "extraversion" to designate affiliation and sociability characterized by a tendency to chat, to work as a team member according to certain affinities, and to get into a work routine, to the point where private interactions take over from work-related ones and the employer often ignores other skills. This situation occurs because these other skills are not given equal weight in the official job description and are not quantifiable; inevitably it creates disparities among employees, who eventually take refuge in routine and become less effective as a result.

The 15 statements used to explore this theme are not unrelated to Bandura's self-effectiveness theory (ibid.) in implicitly evoking other skills that most employees of an organization have; although whether to exercise these skills is the employees' choice, the organization should at least offer them the opportunity to do so. It is true that the diversity and the many specific characteristics of the prison population call forth more than the duties assigned to correctional officers. It is also true that extrinsic aspects of job motivation include more than pay, job security and fringe benefits (Summers & Hendrix, 1991).

In theoretical terms, we would like to believe that identity, recognition and being a role model affect the quality of the work and the exercise of other skills much more than any assigned duties that can be translated into monetary terms. In practical terms, particularly when the work involves not a product but a social service, as is the case in the prison environment, when job satisfaction is equated only with pay and employees have settled into a routine, the dropout risk quickly increases. Absenteeism resulting from frustration, resistance to change underlying long-standing conflict, lack of involvement, and giving up (Spector, 1997) subliminated as a desire for retirement are only a few examples.

Since this type of situation may go on for quite some time if individuals have 20 years of service ahead of them, corporate culture and policy are decisive in encouraging the exercise of these other skills. Higher self-esteem can only improve working conditions, social atmosphere, and performance (Kirchmeyer, 1992; Forsyth, 1990).

1) I often give up when work becomes complicated.

All the participants responded to this question; only 5 (2.2%) acknowledged that they often gave up when their work became complicated:

2) I adapt easily when work procedures are changed.

All the participants responded to this question; the responses are similar to the responses to the statements illustrating the previous theme (Sources of motivation for correctional work), with 218 (93.6%) participants agreeing:

3) When it comes to work, I have little confidence in myself.

All the participants responded to this question (222 or 95.2%); only 8 agreed with this statement and 3 were undecided:

4) I can be counted on to get my work finished.

All the participants responded to this question; 226 (97.0%) stated that they could be counted on to finish a job:

5) It takes me longer than it should to finish most of my work.

All the participants responded to this question; the vast majority (204 or 88%) disagreed with this statement. Only 17 (7.3%) participants agreed with this statement and 11 (4.7%) were undecided:

6) I can rely on my work skills to get the job done.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Nearly all the participants (227 or 97.9%) stated that they could rely on their work skills to get a job done.

For both men and women in the five regions and the 10 CTP classes, the average age is 32, which would explain at least in part their work experience and their maturity in taking on and completing work:

7) Getting organized at work is difficult for me.

Here again, all the participants responded to this question, with similar results: 214 (91.9%) stated that they had no trouble getting organized at work, while 12 (5.1%) felt that getting organized at work was difficult for them, and 7 (3.0%) were undecided:

8) I work even harder when the job becomes difficult.

All the participants responded to this question; 219 (93.9%) stated that they did not work harder when a job became more difficult:

9) I seldom reach the work goals I set for myself.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond; 213 (92.2%) stated that they did indeed reach the goals they set for themselves:

10) I know I can handle most of the problems that come up at work.

All the participants responded to this question; although they were only at the beginning of their second week of CTP, 225 (96.5%) stated that they could handle most of the problems that would come up in their work environment:

11) I avoid work that looks too difficult for me.

All the participants responded to this question; here again, most of the participants by far (219 or 94.0%) disagreed with this statement:

12) I rarely have a problem starting work when I should.

While one participant did not respond, 189 (81.5%) agreed with this statement. However, although the number of undecided participants remained steady (3 or 1.3%), the same was not true for the number who disagreed: 40 (17.3%) stated that they had a problem starting work:

13) It is difficult for me to work effectively.

Out of the 232 participants who responded to this question (one participant did not respond), nearly all (227 or 97.9%) stated that it was not difficult for them to work effectively:

14) When I accepted this position, I felt confident in my abilities to fulfill the requirements of this job.

Out of 230 participants who responded to this question (three participants did not respond), nearly all (227 or 98.7%) stated that they felt confident in their abilities to full the requirements of a correctional officer's job. The rest were undecided:

15) When I first accepted this position, I expected to see my involvement with inmates make a positive difference in their lives.

To this anticipatory question, out of the 232 participants who responded (one participant did not respond), 190 (82.0%) agreed that they believed they would exercise a positive influence on inmates, while 32 (13.8%) were undecided:

13) Pre -Correctional Officer recruit expectations of training

The 12 statements used to illustrate this theme, in which the recruits express their opinions with regard to their instructors, highlight any differences between their expectations of CTP and the skills, abilities and degree of satisfaction they appear to have acquired while learning previously unfamiliar subject matter. The same questionnaire will be used for the Post, 3 months, 6 months, and one year institutional assessments. Of course, minor wording /changes in conjugation were required to clearly delineate the time between the expectations of training and what would ultimately become their perceptions.

1) I expect the CTP will provide me with the skills and abilities required to effectively deal with a conflict situation.

All the participants responded to this question; judging by the 227 (97.5%) responses in agreement with this statement, nearly all the recruits had complete confidence that the training would provide them with the skills necessary to deal with difficult situations:

2) I expect the CTP will inform me of my roles and responsibilities as a correctional officer during an emergency situation.

All the participants responded to this question; out of 233 responses, 230 (98.7%) indicated confidence in this aspect of CTP:

3) I expect CTP to provide me with the knowledge and skills needed in order to protect myself from any potential harm.

All the participants responded to this question; out of 233 responses, and notwithstanding the expression " any potential harm ", the majority of participants (222 or 95.3%) anticipated that CTP would address this reality:

4) I expect CTP will address the preventative measures to reduce the risk of transmitted diseases.

All the participants responded to this question. Similar phrasing to that of the previous question elicited a similar response pattern, with 226 (97.0%) participants expressing confidence in CTP content in this regard:

5) I expect the CTP will inform me of my legal obligations with respect to inmate rights and privileges.

All the participants responded to this question; since respecting the rule of law is central to CTP, the participants naturally expected that training in this regard would be provided, and 230 (98.7%) participants agreed with this statement:

6) I expect the CTP will provide me with the knowledge and skills to effectively deal with a diverse offender population.

All the participants responded to this question; the response pattern was similar to that of previous questions, with 227 (97.5%) participants expressing agreement with this statement:

7) I expect the CTP will address offenders' special needs.

Out of 232 responses (one participant did not respond), this question elicited 204 (87.9%) responses agreeing that CTP would address offenders' special needs, while 26 (11.2%) participants were undecided:

8) I do not expect that the training will provide me with all the necessary abilities and skills to effectively fulfill my job requirements.

In response to this question, one participant did not respond and 22 (9.5%) were undecided. The fact that this statement was not expressed in absolute terms accounts for the mixture of participants who disagreed with this statement (102 or 44.0%) and those who agreed with it (108 or 46.6%):

9) I expect the CTP will encourage a healthy and positive working environment among other Correctional Officers.

All the participants responded to this question, the wording of which was anticipatory; 226 (97.0%) participants agreed with this statement:

10) I expect the CTP will encourage staff/offender relationships.

All the participants responded to this question; a large majority of 217 (93.1%) agreed with this positive expectation:

11) I expect that the instructors will provide training from a non-biased position.

All the participants responded to this question; 225 (96.5%) expected to receive objective occupational training:

12) I anticipate that the CTP instructors will take a rehabilitative position as it pertains to offender.

All the participants responded to this question; 198 (85.0%) agreed with this anticipation while, interestingly, 30 (12.9%) were undecided:

In the participants' responses to these 12 questions on their initial attitudes to CTP, there were no significant differences along gender lines.

 

Pre B Questionnaire

At this point in the process, the recruits have just completed one week of CTP, during which they have been introduced to an unusual environment, very often quite close to a correctional institution. They have been busy, their days spent in a group classroom setting with various instructors, and their evenings devoted to related readings. Everything is new: the courses, the objectives, the goals, the onmipresent rule of law, and the duty that will soon be theirs. That duty is far-reaching, entrusting them under the law with the supervision and guidance of offenders. In this new atmosphere, expectations are high.

The Pre B questionnaire is a tool for measuring social cohesiveness. Its 20 statements ask the participants to make a first observation of themselves: their feelings of belonging to the group, association or dissociation with their peers during the first week of CTP, and personal perceptions of the instructors. These questions call for a very high degree of frankness that the participants may not be prepared to provide at this stage, after only one week; they may fear that the confidentiality of their responses will not truly be respected, that they will be taken out of CTP, or that their views, if known, will foster dissent and thus harm CTP after a very short time. Nevertheless, the range of responses presented, on a scale from 1 to 5, will alleviate this entirely natural apprehension.

As well, far from being unchanging, the connection between what the participants actually feel and the first impressions they indicate will change over time with increased self-confidence, interactions with various groups, distance from the first day, and rapid immersion in the context of ongoing occupational training. As is noted in the section on Participation levels and questionnaire schedule, 227 participants (no longer 233) responded to the Pre B questionnaire. In less than one week, six participants had dropped out of CTP.

The Pre B questionnaire covers three themes: Pre -group environment questionnaire (seven statements); Pre -correctional officer social cohesiveness (seven statements); and Pre -credibility (six statements).

Under these three themes, the response options to each statement present two opposite extremes: participants who strongly disagree with the statement, and those who strongly agree with it. In between these two extremes are two less emphatic response options: participants who disagree with the statement and those who a gree with it. A further response option is provided for participants who are undecided; these responses are important and, from the outset, their ambivalence is far from being neutral.

Why? Let us take as an example the first question, " I do not enjoy being part of the social activities of the class. " This question, asked after the first week of CTP, could indeed appear premature. However, the fact that 9 participants state that they are undecided about whether they agree or disagree with this statement can be compared with the fact that 20 participants state that they do not enjoy being part of the social activities of the class, and this pattern of indecision cannot be interpreted as a neutral position, particularly in light of undecided responses to the 19 additional questions.

Interestingly, the undecided response option, which will be more clearly articulated using the two extreme response options presented in the Post questionnaire, administered at intervals of three months, six months and one year, elicited practically no responses in the Pre B questionnaire.

As was done for all the previous questionnaires, a comparison by gender was carried out using chi-square tests; the results of these tests are presented only if they indicate significant differences.

1) Pre -group environment questionnaire

1) I do not enjoy being part of the social activities of the class.

Out of this new group of 227 participants (all of whom responded to this question), and although these findings must be read with caution, 20 (8.8%) appeared to agree with this statement, a majority of 198 (87.2%) disagreed, and 9 (4.0%) were undecided:

2) I am unhappy with my CTP class's motivation level to succeed.

All the participants responded to this question; 22 (9.7%) stated that they were unhappy, 9 (4.0%) were undecided, and 196 (86.3%) indicated that they were satisfied:

3) I do not like the way that we accomplish our group tasks.

All the participants responded to this question; 8 (3.6%) agreed that they did not like the way group tasks were accomplished, 20 (8.8%) were undecided, and 199 (87.7%) liked the way group tasks were accomplished:

4) Our CTP class is united in trying to reach its performance goals.

All the participants responded to this question; 24 (10.6%) disagreed, 25 (11.0%) were undecided, and 178 (78.4%) agreed that the class was united about its performance goals:

5) Members of our CTP class would rather go out on their own than get together as a class.

To this question, 2 participants did not respond. This question, too, has to do with the socialization process; 17 (7.6%) agreed with the statement, 64 (28.4%) were undecided, while 144 (64.0%) thought the group preferred getting together as a class:

6) We all take responsibility as a class for any failure or poor performance.

All the participants responded to this question, with 119 (52.5%) participants agreeing with the statement, 35 (15.4%) disagreeing and 73 (32.2%) undecided:

7) CTP recruits have conflicting views about what correctional work entails.

All the participants responded to this question; 40 (17.7%) agreed with this statement, 49 (21.6%) were undecided, and 138 (60.8%) disagreed, believing that their group did not have conflicting views about what correctional work entails:

Although there is no significant difference in the participants' responses by gender, these seven statements on the group's feelings before participation tend to show disagreement and a high percentage of participants who are undecided.

With regard to objectivity, of course, responses after such a short period of CTP are not spontaneous. For many participants, the questions appear too direct after only one week of CTP. For many others, only varied, shared group experiences will make it possible to internalize the rules in force. In other words, the socialization process (involving the acquisition of standards and values) is inherent in any human community. Individuals may be members of a group without identifying with it. What is the initial degree of social cohesiveness among these participants?

2) Pre -Correctional Officer social cohesiveness

1) There exists a strong pressure to conform to the values and behaviours of my classmates.

All the participants responded to this question; 36 (15.9%) stated that there was strong pressure to conform to the values and behaviours of their classmates, while 41 (18.1%) were undecided and 150 (66.1%) disagreed with this statement:

2) I feel loyalty towards my CTP classmates.

To this question, one participant did not respond. Although a majority of recruits (192 or 84.9%) agreed with this statement, 11 (4.9%) disagreed, and 23 (10.2%) were undecided about whether they felt loyalty towards their peers:

3) This CTP class is one of the best groups of which I have been a part.

Asking this question early, as was done with some of the questions about inmates, is intended to be provocative. All the participants responded to this question and 145 (63.9%) stated that their class was one of the best groups of which they had been a part. This statement does not refer to " the best group " but rather to " one of the best groups ". This shade of meaning, while unambiguous, nevertheless led 23 (10.1%) participants to disagree and left 59 (26.0%) undecided:

4) I feel my CTP classmates would stand up for me.

All the participants responded to this question; 161 (70.9%) agreed with this statement, and 56 (24.7%) were undecided:

5) I do not agree with the values of the majority of my CTP classmates.

All the participants responded to this question; 28 (12.3%) participants were undecided, and 192 (84.5%) disagreed with this statement:

6) Sometimes my dislike for my fellow classmates makes me wonder if I want to become a Correctional Officer.

All the participants responded to this question; 214 (94.2%) disagreed with this statement. As is the case in any human group, in these self-identifying responses we find a range of differing views as well as 8 (3.5%) participants who were undecided:

7) I often feel that I have very little in common with my CTP classmates.

All the participants responded to this question. To this statement, intended to be a more subtle evaluation of peer incompatibility; 11 (4.9%) participants agreed, 28 (12.3%) were undecided, and 188 (82.9%) appeared to feel some affinity for their peers:

Although the group is only beginning CTP, it will gradually take form depending on the ups and downs and difficulties and advances experienced by its members. Over time and given the many training-related interactions, some recruits will change their minds, distance themselves or, on the contrary, have a greater feeling of belonging among their future co-workers.

In the following theme, the participants were entirely free to decide whether they would express an opinion in response to six questions dealing with their perceptions of their instructors. The wording of these questions is very direct and concise, sometimes even abrupt. It cannot be overemphasized that these questions have to do, not with evaluating teaching performance (as is often done in academic settings), but rather with what the participants feel, sense and experience in reflecting on subject matter and instruction methods that are entirely new to them. These indications by the participants of their perceptions and attitudes towards others have to do, not with establishing or maintaining social relationships, but rather with establishing and maintaining good knowledge of their environment.

In this regard, we refer to a study that goes back nearly half a century: Thibaut, Lloyd & Strickland (1956) emphasized that increasing pressure on individuals in a new environment, whether task-oriented or group-oriented, simply led them to conform (in terms of belonging) or to drop out.

In many ways CTP is demanding, and the recruits are not always able to appreciate clearly the scope of legislation, the complexity of criminal behaviours, and the wide range of specific correctional tools. What is involved for them is future employment, to be applied strictly in accordance with the rule of law. Each action will take place in an enclosed architectural space, with a client group that is compelled to be there and has highly diverse needs and a multitude of specific characteristics. Recruits' anticipated starting point lies in the connection among themselves, the subject matter and their perceptions of learning an extraordinary trade. In the participants' responses on Pre-correctional officer social cohesiveness, there were no significant differences along gender lines.

3) Pre -credibility

1) My instructors are credible.

To this question, one participant did not respond; out of the 226 responses recorded, 218 (96.5%) agreed with this statement:

2) My instructors are competent.

All the participants responded to this question; out of 227 responses, 226 (99.6%) agreed with this statement:

3) I trust my instructors.

All the participants responded to this question; with 9 (4.0%) undecided, 215 (94.7%) participants agreed with this statement:

4) My instructors do what they say they will.

All the participants responded to this question; 13 (5.7%) were undecided, and 213 (93.8%) agreed with this statement:

5) My instructors do not know correctional work well.

All the participants responded to this question. The vast majority (218 or 96.1%) disagreed with this statement, while 8 (3.5%) agreed:

6) My instructors really know how to facilitate a class of recruits.

All the participants responded to this question; the response pattern was typical to that of other questions, with 212 (93.4%) participants agreeing with this statement, 10 (4.4%) und ecided, and 5 (2.2%) disagreeing:

These observations complete the Pre B questionnaire. Now, 12 weeks will pass. A few days before being assigned to institutions in their respective regions, the recruits have probably become more homogenous over the past three months of CTP. We say probably, because 147 participants remain to respond.²⁶

²⁶ A total of 86 recruits were dropped out from CTP.

The following results, interpreted in relation to the theoretical data obtained from the Pre A questionnaire, will make it possible to validate or invalidate certain hypotheses proposed in the section on Dropouts and Other Forms of Attrition. What has happened during the past three months, and why?

 

Post Questionnaire

In order to obtain cohesive data on changes in recruits' attitudes and behaviours during CTP at a staff college, for the Post questionnaire we used only responses from the 147 participants who were successful after the first three months of CTP. Subsequent comparisons -- not only in the Post questionnaire, but also in the following three intervals of work in an institution -- will therefore be drawn among the same group of participants: the 147  Pre A questionnaire participants who were successful after the first three months of CTP.

As mentioned, the Post questionnaire was administered at the end of CTP, just before the recruits were assigned to an institution.

1) Recruit profile information

1) Age

In the Pre A questionnaire the average age was higher among the men than among the women. In this regard, no significant difference is noted from the Pre A questionnaire to the Post questionnaire: overall, the average age was 33.4 years among the men (77 participants) and 31.1 years among the women (70 participants) after the first three months of CTP:

2) Marital status

A reading of these data (one participant did not respond) indicates that 71 participants were in a couple relationship (married or living in a common-law relationship), 64 were single, and 11 were separated or divorced. No significative difference between Pre A and Post among 147 participants:

3) Gender

After the first three months at a staff college, the 10 CTP classes in the five CSC administrative regions were made up of 77 men and 70 women. Despite the elimination of 86 candidates (46 men and 40 women), it is remarkable to observe that response patterns remain almost unchanged.

4) Do you have any children? 1) Yes 2) No

Even though the recruits were unpaid during CTP, family responsibilities did not prevent 67 parents from passing the course, which highlights these individuals' determination to learn their trade well:

5) Region of selection

According to the following table, the Atlantic region (Pre A = 20; Post = 5) and Prairies region (Pre A = 26; Post = 8) appear most affected by dropouts and other forms of attrition:

6) What language(s) do you speak?

English was spoken by a clear majority of the 147 participants with 81% of responses, while 30.6% indicated that they spoke French:

7) Race

Allocation of the 147 recruits by race was as follows:

The number of Caucasian participants is eight times larger than the number of Aboriginal persons or the number of members of visible minorities.

2) Health and lifestyle

Tobacco

1) Do you use tobacco products?

1) Yes 2) Never

Out of 145 participants (2 participants did not respond), although 107 (73.8%) stated that they did not use tobacco products, 38 (26.2%) (or one quarter, with a higher percentage among the women) stated that they did:

2) If you smoke, on average how many cigarettes a day do you smoke?

1) 1-4 2) 5-9 3) 10-19 4) 20-29 5) 30 or more

After three months of training, smoking frequency was as follows:

Although a higher percentage of women smoked, this difference is not significant at this point. No difference between Pre and Post.

Alcohol consumption

1) Do you drink alcohol (beer, wine, coolers, or hard liquor)?

1) Yes 2) I've never used alcohol.

Unlike the previous question, and although these self-identifying statements about private, social and cultural aspects of recruits' lives must be read with caution, the men appear to make greater use of alcohol. This difference, however, does not appear to be statistically significant:

2) In the last three months, how many times did you have five or more drinks on one occasion?

No difference between Pre and Post :

3) During an average week, how many days do you have at least one drink of alcohol?

Although the response pattern among the men remains unchanged, the gender difference is not significant. No difference between Pre and Post :

Drugs or medication

4) How often do you use the following over-the-counter drugs or medication?

a) Painkillers (Tylenol, Aspirin, etc.) : with response patterns of 16 and 22, the women indicated significantly greater use of painkillers than did the men (p = .006) for Post period:

b) Antacids (Tums, Rolaids, Maalox, etc.):

There is no significant difference between the two gender groups with regard to antacid use:

c) Antihistamines (Seldane, Hismanal, etc.)

Similarly, the following table shows no difference between the two gender groups in terms of antihistamine use:

3) Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work

In order to ascertain clearly the changes in the ordinal qualitative variables presented in the four open questions in this theme, we used the responses from only the 147  Pre A and Post  questionnaire participants who were successful after the first three months of CTP. The responses from the first group of participants (n = 233) are presented here only as indications but have no value in drawing comparisons. Key words that received responses from fewer than 10 participants (5%) in the Pre A questionnaire were not included in the comparative tables. Each series of key words was analysed using chi-square tests and McNemar's test (Siegel & Castellan, ibid).

1) What skill(s) do you feel you possess that will best assist you as a Correctional Officer? Please list a maximum of three.

If the numbers of responses given by the 147 participants in the Pre A and the Post questionnaires are compared, fewer positive responses were given for teamwork, sense of responsibility, desire to learn, and affinity for security work :

	Pre A (N = 233)	Pre A (N = 147)	(Post (N = 147)
Empathy	156	105	103
Integrity on the job	150	98	99
Teamwork	37	28	20
Sense of responsibility	34	28	14
Desire to learn	30	19	6
Human experience	30	17	14
Affinity for security work	20	12	6

2) There are advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (downsides) to any job. What do you consider are some of the advantages and disadvantages that go along with being a Correctional Officer? Please list what you consider are the advantages of the position of a Correctional Officer.

After 12 weeks of CTP, fewer positive responses were given for helping relationships, challenges, human experience, and affinity for security work :

	Pre A (N = 233)	Pre A (N = 147)	Post (N = 147)
Job stability	126	83	76
Helping relationships	105	71	55
Promotion	87	56	57
Pay	77	48	48
Teamwork	72	49	47
Fringe benefits	68	48	60
Challenges	47	25	14
Human experience	41	21	14
Affinity for security work	32	24	15
Variety on the job	26	15	13
Good working conditions	17	13	8
Being a good example	10	5	3
Integrity on the job	10	6	5

3) Please list what you consider are the disadvantages of the position of a correctional officer.

Disadvantages were grouped under eight key words.

	Pre A (N = 233)	Pre A (N = 147)	Post (N = 147)
Stress	145	98	86
Difficulties of shift work	82	50	53
Negative environment and atmosphere	49	30	21
Occupational accidents	47	34	25
Disagreements	18	14	21
Limited social life	15	6	11
Difficult client group	12	10	15
Routine	11	10	10

This table clearly reflects changes in the participants' perceptions over time. With CTP and participants' increased confidence with regard to the responsibilities they would soon be called upon to assume as correctional officers, fewer negative responses were given for stress, negative environment and atmosphere, and occupational accidents. That said, the composite nature of the group and the difficulties that all the recruits encounter mean that more positive responses were given for disagreements, as we shall see in the section on Discussion of findings.

4) Besides the advantages and disadvantages of being a Correctional Officer, there may >be other reasons for becoming a Correctional Officer. For example, other members of your family are or have been Correctional Officer. Please list them.

In addition to the 13 key words indicated in question 2 as advantages of being a correctional officer, six additional reasons were given for becoming a correctional officer. Of special note, an increase in positive responses was observed in helping relationships:

	Pre A (N = 233)	Pre A (N = 147)	Post (N = 147)
Outside influence	73	46	36
Affinity for security work	49	33	24
Job stability	22	16	7
Study in a related field	18	13	6
Helping relationships	12	5	10
Promotion	12	10	7

N.B.: As was done for the Pre A questionnaire, the data were formatted using Excel so that descriptive statistical analyses could be carried out using the SPSS 13 software and, this time, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) calculated. These operations make it possible to show differences by gender on each of the 13 measurement scales.

Another point is that, despite certain trends towards either fewer or more responses that will persist for all of these 13 measurement scales, participants' response patterns appear to be more gender-related than individual. This phenomenon, already studied by Fagley & Miller (1997), tends to show that women and men have different response patterns (whether giving fewer or more positive responses) to a given theme. For each of these 13 measurement scales, this group effect is clearly shown in the profile diagrams illustrating estimated marginal means.

4) Attitudes towards correctional work²⁷

²⁷ A choice had to be made not to provide cross-classification tables between the Pre A and the Post questionnaires for each question, but to compare men and women for all 13 measurement scales. These measurement scales illustrate quite clearly the differences among these 147 participants over the first three months.

*1) For good reasons, the type of work we do in corrections has a bad image with the public.

2) One of the most rewarding elements of correctional work is that it is challenging.

*3) If I had the choice, I'd much prefer to work with non-offenders than with offenders.

*4) If it wasn't for the good pay, I would probably not choose a career in the field of corrections.

5) While every job has its rewards, offenders are the most interesting and challenging types of people to work with.

6) In general, there are more good things than bad things about having a career in corrections.

7) Being involved in the field of corrections gives me a personal sense of pride and accomplishment.

*8) Usually, I am not very proud to tell people that I earn my living working with offenders.

*9) Generally, I would prefer to have a job in a different field than corrections.

10) What most attracts me to corrections is the type of work I do, and not the pay, fringe benefits, or working conditions.

*11) I would have to agree that work in corrections is not a very respectable kind of job to have.

*12) Working in corrections would be OK as long as you didn't have to deal with offenders directly.

* = Inverted question

The difference in the means for the two gender groups shows a most interesting characteristic: among the women there were very high expectations, consistently throughout the three months of CTP (same level 10.5); among the men there were lower expectations that increased nevertheless (moving from 9.9 to 10) (scoring grid using scale between 0 and 12):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec2: ACW	Men	9.9334	1.65566	77
	Women	10.5247	1.31650	70
	Total	10.2150	1.52769	147
Post -Sec2: ACW	Men	10.0843	1.64972	77
	Women	10.5286	1.39925	70
	Total	10.2959	1.54648	147

The tests of within-subject effects show no significant effect or interaction over time :

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.439	1	.439	.460	.499
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.439	1.000	.439	.460	.499
	Huynh-Feldt	.439	1.000	.439	.460	.499
	Lower limit	.439	1.000	.439	.460	.499
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.396	1	.396	.415	.521
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.396	1.000	.396	.415	.521
	Huynh-Feldt	.396	1.000	.396	.415	.521
	Lower limit	.396	1.000	.396	.415	.521
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	138.472	145	.955
	Greenhouse-Geisser	138.472	145.000	.955
	Huynh-Feldt	138.472	145.000	.955
	Lower limit	138.472	145.000	.955

That said, the table above shows a significant gender effect (p = .022):

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	30925.097	1	30925.097	8438.611	.000
Gender (ns)	19.660	1	19.660	5.365	.022
Error	531.384	145	3.665

This profile diagram on Attitudes towards correctional work after three months of CTP indicates much higher expectations among the women both on the first day at the staff college and after three months of CTP; among the men, although expectations increased, they remained much lower:

Profile Diagram - Attitudes towards correctional work

Time (Time 1 = Pre A; Time 2 = Post)

5) Attitudes towards inmates

*1) Inmates are different from most people.

2) Only a few inmates are really dangerous.

*3) Inmates never change.

4) Most inmates are victims of circumstance and deserve to be helped.

5) Inmates have feelings like the rest of us.

*6) It is not wise to trust an inmate too far.

7) I think I would like a lot of inmates.

8) Bad institutional conditions just make an inmate more bitter.

*9) Give an inmate an inch and they will take a mile.

*10) Most inmates are stupid.

11) Inmates need affection and praise just like anybody else.

*12) You should not expect too much from an inmate.

*13) Trying to rehabilitate inmates is a waste of time and money.

14) Inmates are no better or worse than other people.

*15) You have to be constantly on your guard with inmates.

*16) In general, inmates think and act alike.

17) If you give an inmate your respect, they'll give you the same.

*18) Inmates only think about themselves.

19) There are some inmates I would trust with my life.

20) Inmates will listen to reason.

*21) Most inmates are too lazy to earn an honest living.

22) I wouldn't mind living next door to an ex-inmate.

*23) Inmates are just plain mean at heart.

24) The values of most inmates are about the same as the rest.

*25) I would never want one of my children dating an ex-inmate.

26) Most inmates have the capacity to love.

*27) Inmates are just plain immoral.

*28) Inmates should be under stricter, hard discipline.

*29) In general, inmates are basically bad people.

30) Most inmates can be rehabilitated.

31) Some inmates are pretty nice people.

32) I would like associating with some inmates.

*33) Inmates respect only brute force.

34) If a person does well in the institution, they should be let out on parole.

* = Inverted question

In reacting to stimuli in their immediate environment, humans show certain predispositions; both positive and negative attitudes are the result of ongoing interaction between them and that environment. Here, images that recruits may have about inmates are based on the nature of the inmates' crimes, sentences, backgrounds (particularly with repeat offenders) and behaviours. Two types of variables that may affect participants' attitudes towards inmates are presented:

• variables that are directly observable (objective variables such as age and gender); and
• variable that are latent or inferred (subjective variables that are more difficult to observe) (Lafrenaye, 1994).

For the moment these attitudes are only anticipatory, since the participants have not been in contact with the reality of the job. Although in both gender groups fewer positive responses were given over time to the statements presented, the difference in the means for the two gender groups shows many fewer such responses by the men (moving from 119.8 to 118.8) but a more pronounced decrease among the women over time (moving from 123.2 to 121.1) (scoring grid using scale between 34 and 170):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec3: ATI	Men	119.8214	11.37031	77
	Women	123.2272	12.75769	70
	Total	121.4432	12.12979	147
Post -Sec3: ATI	Men	118.8430	11.65279	77
	Women	121.1012	10.68914	70
	Total	119.9183	11.22333	147

The tests of within-subject effects show no significant effect or interaction over time:

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	176.691	1	176.691	3.895	.050
	Greenhouse-Geisser	176.691	1.000	176.691	3.895	.050
	Huynh-Feldt	176.691	1.000	176.691	3.895	.050
	Lower limit	176.691	1.000	176.691	3.895	.050
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	24.142	1	24.142	.532	.467
	Greenhouse-Geisser	24.142	1.000	24.142	.532	.467
	Huynh-Feldt	24.142	1.000	24.142	.532	.467
	Lower limit	24.142	1.000	24.142	.532	.467
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	6577.778	145	45.364
	Greenhouse-Geisser	6577.778	145.000	45.364
	Huynh-Feldt	6577.778	145.000	45.364
	Lower limit	6577.778	145.000	45.364

The tests of between-subject effects show no significant gender effect:

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	4276838.308	1	4276838.308	18975.146	.000
Gender (ns)	588.152	1	588.152	2.609	.108
Error	32681.780	145	225.392

The profile diagram on Attitudes towards inmates (next page) shows many fewer positive responses over time to the statements presented, among both the women and the men (who gave a great many fewer such responses), although the decrease in the number of such responses between the first day at the staff college and after three months of CTP was more pronounced among the women.

Among the men, such responses were not only fewer but also decreased over time. That said, these differences by gender are not statistically significant:

Profile Diagram - Attitudes towards inmates

Time (Time 1 = Pre A; Time 2 = Post)

6) Support for rehabilitation

*1) All rehabilitation programs have done is to allow offenders who deserve to be punished to get off easily.

2) Rehabilitating an offender is just as important as making an offender pay for his or her crime.

3) The only effective and humane cure to the crime problem is to make a strong effort to rehabilitate offenders.

4) I would support expanding the rehabilitation programs with offenders that are now being undertaken in our correctional institutions.

*5) The rehabilitation of adult offenders just does not work.

*6) The only way to reduce crime in our society is to punish offenders, not try to rehabilitate them.

*7) We should stop viewing offenders as victims of society who deserved to be rehabilitated and start paying more attention to the victims of these offenders.

8) One of the reasons why rehabilitation programs often fail with inmates is because they are under-funded; if enough money were available, these programs would work.

*9) The rehabilitation of inmates has proven to be a failure.

* = Inverted question

At their respective levels, the means for the two gender groups remain practically unchanged; over time, the women indicated slightly less support for rehabilitation (mean moving from 37.8 to 37.7), while the level of support indicated by the men remained more or less the same between the first day at the staff college and after three months of CTP.

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
Pre -Sec3: SR	Men	36.5789	4.26541	76
	Women	37.8116	3.30897	69
	Total	37.1655	3.87659	145
Post -Sec3: SR	Men	36.5921	4.17030	76
	Women	37.7246	3.53089	69
	Total	37.1310	3.90736	145

There is no significant effect over time :

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.098	1	.098	.018	.895
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.098	1.000	.098	.018	.895
	Huynh-Feldt	.098	1.000	.098	.018	.895
	Lower limit	.098	1.000	.098	.018	.895
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.181	1	.181	.032	.857
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.181	1.000	.181	.032	.857
	Huynh-Feldt	.181	1.000	.181	.032	.857
	Lower limit	.181	1.000	.181	.032	.857
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	799.233	143	5.589
	Greenhouse-Geisser	799.233	143.000	5.589
	Huynh-Feldt	799.233	143.000	5.589
	Lower limit	799.233	143.000	5.589

The tests of between-subject effects indicate some gender effect (p = .043):

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	399879.529	1	399879.529	16517.419	.000
Gender (ns)	101.156	1	101.156	4.178	.043
Error	3461.968	143	24.210

In both the Pre A and Post questionnaires, Support for rehabilitation is significantly higher among the women than among the men.

The profile diagram on Support for rehabilitation after three months of CTP presents a significantly higher level among the women than among the men in both the Pre A and Post periods. That said, the respective levels of support indicated by each gender show no significant change between the first day at the staff college and after three months of CTP:

Profile Diagram - Support for rehabilitation

Time (Time 1 = Pre A; Time 2 = Post)

7) Deterrence

1) Stiffer jail sentences will help reduce the amount of crime by showing offenders that crime does not pay.

2) Punishing offenders is the only way to stop them from engaging in more crimes in the future.

*3) Sending offenders to jail will not stop them from committing crimes.

*4) Putting people in correctional institutions does not make much sense since it will only increase crime because correctional institutions are schools of crime.

5) Punishing offenders will reduce crime be setting an example and showing others that crime does not pay.

* = Inverted question

The difference in the means for the two gender groups is not significant, but indicates that both the men (mean moving from 14.8 to 13.4) and the women (mean moving from 14.2 to 13) indicated much less agreement with the statements on deterrence over time (scoring grid using scale between 5 and 25):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec3: DET	Men	14.8052	3.19143	77
	Women	14.2571	2.69560	70
	Total	14.5442	2.96840	147
Post -Sec3: DET	Men	13.4253	3.27497	77
	Women	13.0107	2.44521	70
	Total	13.2279	2.90723	147

The tests of within-subject effects show, not a significant interaction, but a significant difference over time (p < .001):

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	126.453	1	126.453	27.270	.000
	Greenhouse-Geisser	126.453	1.000	126.453	27.270	.000
	Huynh-Feldt	126.453	1.000	126.453	27.270	.000
	Lower limit	126.453	1.000	126.453	27.270	.000
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.326	1	.326	.070	.791
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.326	1.000	.326	.070	.791
	Huynh-Feldt	.326	1.000	.326	.070	.791
	Lower limit	.326	1.000	.326	.070	.791
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	672.381	145	4.637
	Greenhouse-Geisser	672.381	145.000	4.637
	Huynh-Feldt	672.381	145.000	4.637
	Lower limit	672.381	145.000	4.637

The table of tests of between-subject shows no significant gender effects :

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	56467.946	1	56467.946	4472.390	.000
Gender (ns)	16.990	1	16.990	1.346	.248
Error	1830.755	145	12.626

The profile diagram on Deterrence (next page) shows significantly less support for deterrence after three months of CTP than on the first day at the staff college, among both the women and the men.

Although the level of support for deterrence was lower among the women than among the men, there is no significant gender difference in the rate of decrease in the level of support, for which the lines of graphic representation are nearly parallel:

Profile Diagram – Deterrence

Time (Time 1 = Pre A ; Time 2 = Post )

8) Human service orientation

1) I prefer a job that gives me the opportunity to help people solve their problems.

2) I can get a lot of satisfaction from working with people who are less fortunate than I am.

3) For me, a job that involves talking to people about their problems is more meaningful than a job that involves only casual contact with other people.

4) Work that allows me to help other people makes me feel like I am really making a difference.

5) I don't necessarily have to work with people in order to feel like I'm making a contribution to society.

6) If I were to start looking for a new career tomorrow, I'd probably look for work in one of the helping professions.

7) Administrative work is OK, as long as it contributes to solving the major problems in society.

8) Generally, I tend to get more satisfaction from working with people than from other parts of my job.

Although the means in the two gender groups initially appeared much the same, after three months of CTP they were higher among the women (mean moving from 6.2 to 6.5) than among the men (mean moving from 6.2 to 6.3) (scoring grid using scale between 0 and 8):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec2: HSO	Men	6.2152	1.40136	77
	Women	6.2238	1.28502	70
	Total	6.2193	1.34264	147
Post -Sec2: HSO	Men	6.3766	1.55630	77
	Women	6.5320	1.12500	70
	Total	6.4506	1.36565	147

The tests of within-subject effects show, not a significant interaction, but some effect over time (p = .046):

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	4.042	1.000	4.042	4.051	.046
	Greenhouse-Geisser	4.042	1.000	4.042	4.051	.046
	Huynh-Feldt	4.042	1.000	4.042	4.051	.046
	Lower limit	4.042	1.000	4.042	4.051	.046
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.395	1.000	.395	.396	.530
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.395	1.000	.395	.396	.530
	Huynh-Feldt	.395	1.000	.395	.396	.530
	Lower limit	.395	1.000	.395	.396	.530
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	144.682	145.000	.998
	Greenhouse-Geisser	144.682	145.000	.998
	Huynh-Feldt	144.682	145.000	.998
	Lower limit	144.682	145.000	.998

The table of tests of between-subject effects shows no significant gender effects:

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	11779.200	1	11779.200	4380.430	.000
Gender (ns)	.493	1	.493	.183	.669
Error	389.912	145	2.689

This profile diagram on Human service orientation (next page) shows steady change over the three months of CTP in both gender groups, but a more pronounced intensification of human service orientation among the women than among the men.

The descriptive change may well be significant even though the gender difference is not statistically significant:

Profile Diagram – Human service orientation

Time (Time 1 = Pre A ; Time 2 = Post )

9) Social desirability

1) Are you always willing to admit it when you make a mistake?

2) Do you always try to practice what you preach?

3) I never resent being asked to return a favour.

4) I have never been irked when people express ideas very different from my own.

5) I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.

6) Do you like to gossip at times?

7) Have there been occasions when you took advantage of some one?

8) At times, do you try to get even rather than forgive and forget?

9) At times, have you really insisted on having things your way?

10) Are there occasions when you felt like smashing things?

The means for the two gender groups show a most interesting characteristic: a sharp downturn in responses on social desirability among both the men (mean moving from 5.4 to 5.1) and the women (mean moving from 5.5 to 5.3) (scoring grid using scale between 0 and 10):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec2: SD	Men	5.4859	1.25346	77
	Women	5.5714	1.25769	70
	Total	5.5266	1.25190	147
Post -Sec2: SD	Men	5.1833	1.31243	77
	Women	5.3778	1.46118	70
	Total	5.2759	1.38389	147

The tests of within-subject effects show, not a significant interaction, but some effect over time (p = .046):

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	4.516	1	4.516	4.064	.046
	Greenhouse-Geisser	4.516	1.000	4.516	4.064	.046
	Huynh-Feldt	4.516	1.000	4.516	4.064	.046
	Lower limit	4.516	1.000	4.516	4.064	.046
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.218	1	.218	.196	.659
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.218	1.000	.218	.196	.659
	Huynh-Feldt	.218	1.000	.218	.196	.659
	Lower limit	.218	1.000	.218	.196	.659
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	161.135	145	1.111
	Greenhouse-Geisser	161.135	145.000	1.111
	Huynh-Feldt	161.135	145.000	1.111
	Lower limit	161.135	145.000	1.111

The table of tests of between-subject effects shows a gender effect:

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	8568.178	1	8568.178	3594.420	.000
Gender (ns)	1.437	1	1.437	.603	.439
Error	345.643	145	2.384

The profile diagram on Social desirability (next page) shows two parallel downturns. Social desirability drops between the first day at the staff college and after three months of CTP, among both the women (although their level of support is higher) and the men.

This downturn verges on being significant; it does not indicate a gender difference:

Profile Diagram – Social desirability

Time (Time 1 = Pre A ; Time 2 = Post )

10) Sources of motivation for correctional work

1) Job security

2) Competitive salary and benefits

4) Interesting and/or challenging work

5) Learning and development opportunities

6) A sense of worthwhile accomplishment in my work

In this theme, we did not maintain a distinction between the two sub-themes (extrinsic and intrinsic) but used the total number of responses.

The difference in the means for the two gender groups, illustrated below in the profile diagram of estimated marginal means, shows a most interesting contrast: increased motivation among the women (mean moving from 26.7 to 26.9), but quite markedly decreased motivation among the men (moving from 26.1 to 25.8) (scoring grid using scale between 6 and 30):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec2: MOTV	Men	26.1688	3.10942	77
	Women	26.7143	3.52277	70
	Total	26.4286	3.31249	147
Post -Sec2: MOTV	Men	25.8312	3.05391	77
	Women	26.9000	2.43257	70
	Total	26.3401	2.81750	147

The tests of within-subject effects show no significant effect or interaction over time:

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	.423	1.000	.423	.064	.800
	Greenhouse-Geisser	.423	1.000	.423	.064	.800
	Huynh-Feldt	.423	1.000	.423	.064	.800
	Lower limit	.423	1.000	.423	.064	.800
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	5.022	1.000	5.022	.763	.384
	Greenhouse-Geisser	5.022	1.000	5.022	.763	.384
	Huynh-Feldt	5.022	1.000	5.022	.763	.384
	Lower limit	5.022	1.000	5.022	.763	.384
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	954.903	145.000	6.586
	Greenhouse-Geisser	954.903	145.000	6.586
	Huynh-Feldt	954.903	145.000	6.586
	Lower limit	954.903	145.000	6.586

The table of tests of between-subject effects shows a significant gender effect (p = .049):

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	204496.918	1	204496.918	16912.208	.000
Gender (ns)	47.775	1	47.775	3.951	.049
Error	1753.293	145	12.092

In the profile diagram on Sources of motivation for correctional work, motivation among the women increases between the first day at the staff college and after three months of CTP, but decreases among the men to a much lower level than was initially the case. That said, the value of .049 does not indicate a significant gender difference.

In the absence of a significant time factor as well, it cannot be said that the increase or the decrease is significant: for all 147 participants, Sources of motivation for correctional work between the Pre A and the Post questionnaires is steady:

Profile Diagram - Sources of motivation for correctional work

Time (Time 1 = Pre A ; Time 2 = Post )

11) Intrinsic job motivation

1) I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do a job well .

2) My opinion of myself goes down when I do a job badly .

3) I take pride in doing my job as well as I can.

4) I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard.

5) I like to look back on the day's work with a sense of a job well done.

6) I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively.

The lines representing the means for the two gender groups not only cross but also show a more pronounced decrease among the women (mean moving from 36.4 to 35.5) than among the men (mean moving from 36.3 to 35.7) (scoring grid using scale between 6 and 42):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec2: IJM	Men	36.3117	3.59554	77
	Women	36.4571	3.45021	70
	Total	36.3810	3.51578	147
Post -Sec2: IJM	Men	35.7403	3.68283	77
	Women	35.5571	3.16061	70
	Total	35.6531	3.43362	147

The tests of within-subject effects show, not a significant interaction, but a significant effect over time (p = 0.012):

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	39.694	1.000	39.694	6.441	.012
	Greenhouse-Geisser	39.694	1.000	39.694	6.441	.012
	Huynh-Feldt	39.694	1.000	39.694	6.441	.012
	Lower limit	39.694	1.000	39.694	6.441	.012
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	1.979	1.000	1.979	.321	.572
	Greenhouse-Geisser	1.979	1.000	1.979	.321	.572
	Huynh-Feldt	1.979	1.000	1.979	.321	.572
	Lower limit	1.979	1.000	1.979	.321	.572
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	893.579	145.000	6.163
	Greenhouse-Geisser	893.579	145.000	6.163
	Huynh-Feldt	893.579	145.000	6.163
	Lower limit	893.579	145.000	6.163

However, the table of tests of between-subject effects shows no significant gender effect:

Tests of between-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1 Transformed variable: Mean
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Constant	380509.795	1	380509.795	20975.575	.000
Gender (ns)	.026	1	.026	.001	.970
Error	2630.389	145	18.141

In the next profile diagram on Intrinsic job motivation, the lines representing the means for the two gender groups cross after approximately five weeks of CTP, and show a more pronounced decrease among the women.

Although neither the crossed lines nor the gender effect is significant, the rate of decrease between the Pre A and the Post questionnaires is significant for both genders:

Profile Diagram – Intrinsic job motivation

Time (Time 1 = Pre A ; Time 2 = Post )

12) Correctional self-efficacy

1) I often give up when work becomes complicated.

2) I adapt easily when work procedures are changed.

* 3) When it comes to work, I have little confidence in myself.

4) I can be counted on to get my work finished.

* 5) It takes me longer than it should to finish most of my work.

6) I can rely on my work skills to get the job done.

* 7) Getting organized at work is difficult for me.

8) I work even harder when the job becomes difficult.

* 9) I seldom reach the work goals I set for myself.

10) I know I can handle most of the problems that come up at work.

*11) I avoid work that looks too difficult for me.

12) I rarely have a problem starting work when I should.

*13) It is difficult for me to work effectively.

14) When I accepted this position, I felt confident in my abilities to fulfill the requirements of this job.

15) When I first accepted this position, I expected to see my involvement with inmates make a positive difference in their lives.

* = Inverted question

Here again, the lines representing the means for the two gender groups cross and show an overall decrease in motivation among both gender groups that is more pronounced among the women (mean moving from 91.1 to 89.1) than among the men (mean moving from 90.6 to 89.2) (scoring grid using scale between 15 and 105):

Descriptive Statistics
Pre A -Demo-Q2: Gender		Mean	Standard Deviation	N
PRE-Sec2: CSE	Men	90.6494	8.26656	77
	Women	91.1532	9.20131	69
	Total	90.8875	8.69400	146
Post -Sec2: CSE	Men	89.2987	8.56103	77
	Women	89.1449	8.67260	69
	Total	89.2260	8.58449	146

The tests of within-subject tests show a significant effect over time (p = 0.014):

Tests of within-subject effects
Measurement scale: MEASUREMENT SCALE 1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	Ddl	Mean of Squares	F	Significance
Time (ns)	Assumed sphericity	205.286	1.000	205.286	6.180	.014
	Greenhouse-Geisser	205.286	1.000	205.286	6.180	.014
	Huynh-Feldt	205.286	1.000	205.286	6.180	.014
	Lower limit	205.286	1.000	205.286	6.180	.014
Time * gender (ns)	Assumed sphericity	7.869	1.000	7.869	.237	.627
	Greenhouse-Geisser	7.869	1.000	7.869	.237	.627
	Huynh-Feldt	7.869	1.000	7.869	.237	.627
	Lower limit	7.869	1.000	7.869	.237	.627
Error (time)	Assumed sphericity	4783.152	144.000	33.216
	Greenhouse-Geisser	4783.152	144.000	33.216
	Huynh-Feldt	4783.152	144.000	33.216