Correctional Service Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Research Reports

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Correctional Officers and Their First Year: An Empirical Investigation

2005 N° R-179

Philippe Bensimon
Criminologist, Ph.D

 

Correctional Service of Canada

 

November, 2005

 

Acknowledgments

This research paper represents the third and final in a series of three reports on correctional officers at the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). Having now completed this work, the author wishes to thank all of the participants who, from March 24, 2003, to October 30, 2004, demonstrated such persistence in their involvement in this exploration of the attitude changes that occur with the shift from the world of correctional theory to correctional practice. More importantly, however, I wish to dedicate this work to them.

For their administrative and logistical support, I would also like to thank all institutional heads and members of the clerical staff at the 29 institutions to which the 147 recruits who completed the Correctional Training Program (CTP) were assigned.

For their statistical analyses, their willingness to pass on what they have learned, and the great patience they displayed at each of our meetings, the author wishes to reiterate his gratitude to Yves Lepage, Ph.D., full professor at the department of mathematics and statistics at l'Université de Montréal, and Miguel Chagnon, M.Sc.

For the trust he showed and all of the latitude he allowed over the past three years in connection with this subject, which is being addressed at CSC for the first time, thanks are owed as well to Larry Motiuk, Ph.D., Director General, Research Branch.

For the information they provided in highly specific fields, the author expresses appreciation to: Robert Riel, Comptroller, Correctional Service of Canada; Martin Devenport, Director, Performance Measurement, Performance Assurance Sector; Élise Thériault, Technical Assistant, Information Management, Human Resources; Lyne Parks, Analyst, Preventive Security and Intelligence; and Jean-Pierre Rivard, Senior Financial Project Officer, Comptroller's Branch.

For her dedication, willingness to help and energy, gratitude is extended to Noëlla Morvan, Reference and Interlibrary Loans Officer, Library and Information Centre, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

For rereading the final French text with its inexcusable misprint, I am also indebted to my former colleague Suzette Fortin, a mainstay of the case management secretarial staff at the Regional Reception Centre (Quebec Region) and Françoise Le Prohon.

For the English version, the author expresses appreciation to Kathleen McHugh, Certified Translator (ATIO), Société Gamma Inc.

In closing, for those who have not had an opportunity to review the previous two reports, which introduce this research and discuss the three-month vocational training program at the five colleges, the scope and innovative vision of this longitudinal study in the field of organizational psychology would not have been possible without the preliminary work of the author's colleague, Claude Tellier, Director, Security Operations.

 

Executive summary

Three years, including fifteen months of long-term observation, were needed for this longitudinal study. This represents CSC'S first in-depth study to access correctional officers' experience in terms of their theoretical training, beliefs, and attitudes and the realization of these in field work. In this final phase, three identical questionnaires were administered over time, after 3 months, 6 months and 1 year at an institution.

The objective was to evaluate, examine, analyze and understand the attitudinal adjustments and behaviour of new correctional officers in their workplaces. While understanding is clearly important, the objective was also to make appropriate suggestions to the staff colleges and correctional institutions. The suggestions were to focus on recruitment in the broadest sense of the term and on support, using 22 themes, including 19 measurement scales. The latter were accompanied by exhaustive literature review of the correctional officer's experience, a poorly understood profession.

We applied our methodology from September 23, 2002, the date on which the first questionnaire was distributed in accordance with the schedules for the various Correctional Training Program (CTP) classes, until October 4, 2004, the date on which the last questionnaire was administered at the institutions. The study was carried out in the five CSC administrative regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and Pacific.

Throughout this 15-month period, participation was always voluntary, confidential, and research participants were free to withdraw at any time.

In the wake of the two previous research reports written in connection with this longitudinal study,1 this final phase presents empirical data for the first 12 months on the job. During this 12-month period, 147 men and women (from an initial group of 233 persons selected) put into practice what they had learned during their training at the staff college.

1 Correctional Officer Recruits and the Prison Environment: A Research Framework (Bensimon, 2004) and Correctional Officer Recruits During the Training Period: An Examination (Bensimon, 2005).

What happened during that one-year period? What strengths and weaknesses of attitudes were significant enough to be discussed in this research report?

It will be recalled that in the first part of this study, we had administered three questionnaires - Pre A, Pre B and Post - to staff college trainees. These questionnaires covered a total of 16 exploratory themes2 in three phases: the expectation phase, which began on the first day of training, when recruits expressed their aspirations; the anticipation phase, after one week in class, as they acquired the basics; and the observation phase, when the first observation was made after 12 weeks of training. The 16 themes covered by the questionnaires were quite varied, and included the advantages and disadvantages of correctional work, initial expectations and subsequent perceptions of the training3, social cohesiveness within the group, and human service orientation, as well as a theme relating to the peer group of classmates before and after participation in the CTP. All questions that asked recruits to express an opinion with regard to inmates in these questionnaires where purely hypothetical since the recruits had not yet been exposed to the field, to operations.4

2 The author cannot claim that these themes are exhaustive but nonetheless hopes that the databank used in their development will lead to further research in the field of correctional occupations.

3 To avoid any misunderstanding, it is important to remember that the purpose of this research was primarily to analyze the attitudinal changes that occurred rather than the quality of the training provided at the five colleges that deliver the CTP, a subject that is not addressed in this study.

4 See Appendix I Correctional Officer Recruits During the Training Period: An Examination.

In this final phase of our research, however, we examined what happened after three months, six months and one full year in correctional operations. This third and final report presents our results in this area.

In this phase, six scales were added to the 13 previous ones: Organizational commitment, Role conflict, Supervisory support, Job stress, Job satisfaction and Empathy. In total, 22 themes (19 scales) were explored.

As to the rate of participation, of 147 new recruits, 76 (52%) responded to the questionnaire at the three-month phase, 53 (36%) after six months, 53 (36%) after a year, and 35 (24%) at all three points, for a total of 93 participants (63%) who responded on at least one of the three occasions. In terms of methodology, only those who responded to the three month and one-year questionnaires were used to measure attitudinal changes over time, representing a group of 38 people comprised of 15 men and 23 women. These 38 people represent 26% of the 147 new recruits who were assigned to an institution after their training. Changes in participants' responses for each of the 22 themes and for each of the above-mentioned groups were analyzed against the core sample of new recruits (N=147) for comparative purposes.

This analysis of a 12-month period spent in a correctional environment showed that over the course of the year, in three areas the correctional officers displayed highly positive attitudes that remained unchanged over time, starting with the day on which they were recruited, after three months of training and after a year of practice in a correctional unit. Those areas were:

  • Counselling or helping relationships;
  • Desire to learn; and
  • Empathy.

These were consistently listed by correctional officers as the skills they possessed that would best assist them in their job.

At the end of their first year at an institution, and despite the many difficulties they encountered along the way and despite a tendency for scores to decrease in some areas over time, the correctional officers continued to display high scores for positive attitudes in nine areas, namely:

  • Attitudes towards correctional work (aside from the public's perception of the profession);
  • Support for rehabilitation;
  • Social desirability;
  • Human service orientation;
  • Sources of motivation for correctional work;
  • Intrinsic job motivation;
  • Correctional self-efficacy;
  • Empathy; and
  • Deterrence. Although support for deterrence became stronger over time for men as well as for women, the mean scores showed that this did not apply to newly promoted officers.

The only significant differences found between men and women in the above-mentioned nine areas were in the areas of Support for rehabilitation, Attitudes towards correctional work and Empathy, where women tended to score higher.

Notwithstanding these nine areas where high scores were noted, the correctional officers displayed more mixed attitudes in four areas:

  • Organizational commitment;
  • Job satisfaction;
  • Attitudes towards inmates; and
  • Other dimensions of Empathy.

Despite the apparent contradiction with the central theme of empathy listed above, the scores for the following three subscales were just within average range:

  • Perspective taking;
  • Fantasy;
  • Personal distress related to empathy.

No significant differences were observed between men and women in the above three areas aside from a more negative effect among men on the scale for Attitudes towards inmates and a more positive effect among women for Perspective taking.

The three major disadvantages reported by participants regarding their job after a year were the following:

  • Shift work;
  • Stress related to the anticipation of violence; and
  • Environment and negative atmosphere:
    1. Job insecurity (position not permanent);
    2. Anxiety caused and maintained by a lack of recognition in their duties and role as correctional officers; and
    3. A feeling that there is a lack of recognition and reciprocity in relations among colleagues.

Four of the 19 scales showed a continual decrease in positive attitudes from the end of the first three-month period to the end of the first year of service. These scales include:

  • Role conflict: Not being sufficiently challenged by the work, largely because of its monotonous, routine and repetitive nature, with no real involvement in counselling because the correctional officers their role is static.
  • Role ambiguity: Degree of autonomy in decision-making, underutilization of skills.
  • Supervisory support: For correctional officers who are just starting out, the requirements of this brand new environment do not match their personal capacity to meet them.
  • Job stress (and its two subscales, stress-related feelings of anxiety and stress under substantial time pressure): Officers on duty must meet the needs of clients who are there against their will, sometimes in a crisis situation, and are regularly exposed to stressful situations.

The trend in corrections is toward protecting the public through the reintegration of inmates into society in a way that is both safe and humane. Through their roles and their duties, correctional officers have an integral role to play in this effort, which sees counselling and support as cornerstones of safety. And yet, although we spend a great deal of time studying and understanding offenders in order to enhance public protection, we have yet to adequately understand the interactions between inmates and staff members. Understanding these interactions will help us improve the social relationships between a constrained population and all the women and men whose duty it is to control, to supervise, and to help them as humanely as possible with respect for the rule of law.

 

Table of Contents

 

Introduction

The staff college period is now over. Of an initial group of 233 recruits, only 147 men and women remain, having successfully completed their theoretical training. It was not easy, but they made it through. From the Pacific to the Atlantic Region, the graduates of the 10 Correctional Training Program (CTP) classes were assigned to institutions according to the required staffing levels and the time at which each group graduated. For these recruits, this is a huge leap into the unknown. While they are eager to undertake this challenging work and are filled with the satisfaction of finally being able to apply what they have learned and to face their new reality, there is something ineffable in the air, something akin to apprehension, even fear, because their new workplace is unlike any other. They are all the more aware of this given that the transition will be immediate.

From now on, most of what they do in the context of their new position will take place inside the prison walls, in the midst of the population confined within them. They will have to learn to communicate so as to convince, dissuade, persuade, and to take the time needed to cope with the harsh reality of life in a correctional facility. And all of this must take place in strict accordance with the law.

For the first time in their lives, these 147 new officers will find themselves surrounded by walls ringed with observation towers, fences and barbed wire, and will, most importantly; have their first encounter with real inmates. Their experience will be nothing like the scenarios and role plays at the staff college or the lectures their instructors delivered in class. They will also have to introduce themselves to those who already know how things work, namely their future coworkers. There is so much to do and so little time. For better or for worse, some will end up alone, blending into the background, while others will rise close to the top within the same institution.

These 147 new correctional officers will arrive one by one or in small groups at different times. After registering just like the inmates and all other new arrivals do, they will pick up their uniforms and equipment and be assigned an individual locker in their name. From now on, they will no longer have to answer for their actions to an instructor but to a correctional supervisor. From this point onward, a supervisor will provide them with instructions to follow for a particular unit or control post along with their new work schedule for the next three weeks.

They did not know this at the outset, but they will quickly come to realize that the prison world is above all a closed environment, a place where neither inmates nor those who work there are able to move around freely. They will need to learn to wait patiently for one door to close before a second one can be opened. The very archetype of functionality if ever there was one, correctional officers will find that their reflexes, like those of the detainees they work with, will no longer respond in the same way as they did outside of these walls. After walking through that first doorway, they will find that their movements, attitude and capacity to react to the gaze of those who are involuntary present and watching them will gradually cause them to become an inherent part of this environment in which the uniform is above all else, the symbol.

Within these walls, there are those who must stay here and those who are able to return home after their work shifts. All of the former without exception are there against their will, for periods ranging from a few years in prison to a life sentence. For the latter, their duty to protect the public confines them to a work environment designed to facilitate supervision and to control comings and goings so as to ensure that those imprisoned there do not escape.

Correctional officers, like all other staff members, gradually establish their own habits and settle into a routine that seems quite comfortable but that never truly is. With time, the walls, the barbed wire, the automatic doors, the bars on every window, the warning signs and the metal detectors will all become familiar objects. It is these changes in attitude that will consequently bring changes in behaviour.

While much has been written about the prisonization, or institutionalization, of inmates, there has been little research on these processes as they apply to the experiences of correctional personnel. Irrespective of their will, correctional staff will also become conditioned by the prison environment in which many of them will spend the major portion of their working lives – much longer than most of the inmates they will be required to supervise.

The vast majority of employees eat on site and take their breaks in close quarters with the prison population at a control post or in one of the adjacent assessment offices, as they choose. The topic of conversation is generally work related, specifically some kind of difficult case. As time passes, by force of habit and routine, the environment becomes almost normal. Regardless of how it looks or the weather outside, the institution is where they spend their time. In this artificial environment, every telephone call may be listened to and outside mail is always opened before it is received. The stated purpose is to deconstruct criminal behaviour in order to return offenders as quickly as possible to the community. Particularly since the correctional setting has its own limitations and remaining in this environment for too long may be counter-productive to the intended effects (Layton MacKenzie, 2004; Wayne, 2003; Gendreau and Keyes, 2001; O'Donnell and Edgar, 1996; Bonta and Gendreau, 1995; Stevens, 1995; Kauffman, ibid.; Porporino, 1986). People who work in this setting, regardless of their occupational category, must contend with a criminality that is multi-faceted and often advanced.

Like any other employee just starting out, whether male or female, new correctional officers will be taking their first steps in this extraordinary world and they will need to adjust very quickly. This environment will likely seem much less harsh than they had previously anticipated, given the cleanliness of the premises, the apparent calm, the fact that everything seems to be as it should and nothing is left to chance. Plans have been made for the various emergencies that may arise. Nonetheless, behind the criminal behaviour that new employees will encounter on a daily basis, behind the words they will read or have to write, is the criminal offence that was committed. It was not until recently that researchers began focusing on the impact of incarceration on an individual's psyche and the other impacts this has. This impact is nonetheless very real. It is all the more insidious and pernicious and less visible given that once violence is put down on paper, it becomes abstract and gradually transforms people, places them in a state of contradiction with what they had hoped and believed, either backing them into a corner or forcing them to pull away from their conceptions of human nature. In dealing with rationalization, denial and the countless other cognitive distortions of those they are obliged to deal with, correctional officers (like clinical staff) need to take on the failures, frustrations, successes, hopes and satisfaction of work performed day to day against a backdrop of human misery, suffering and regret that arises from the torment of being incarcerated.

In such circumstances, what hope is there for recognition or parity with other sectors that are also involved in the fight against crime, especially when this misery is confined every day behind the same walls?

In such circumstances, what possibility is there of preserving one's values and sensitivity and withstanding cynicism when, from the very first day, they are being eaten away by a never-ending criminal cycle of new arrivals and those who return, seemingly for no valid reason? With each day that passes, inmates dream of what lies beyond those walls, of what they should have done or not done. And every day, the people in uniform remind them that they are there and not somewhere else because....

This third and final part of our study takes a look at those who are on the front lines in providing security at correctional facilities. Their work is based on observation, listening, working with and counselling offenders on a case-by-case basis, and paying attention to details that in other clinical settings may pass unnoticed. Correctional officers and clinicians are similar in this respect. They do not have the luxury of choosing cases according to how interesting or uninteresting they might be: they have to take them all. One inmate asks to make a phone call when the time for making calls is up (his request is special and always more urgent than anyone else's); another simply wants to be seen by the doctor but forgot to put his name on the list the day before; still another wants to sit down and talk about everything and nothing because he feels alone and has just taken a break from mopping a floor that shines in winter and summer alike. Because correctional officers do not officially hold the status of the clinicians, everyone wants to confide in them, although due to unspoken prison rules, few inmates are willing to acknowledge this openly.

Unlike police officers, correctional officers are front-line workers who remain confined in the same place for the entire day. They do not move around much. Standing on a range or sitting at a control post, they work behind closed doors, and the image they conjure up in the public's imagination is the opposite of what human beings have aspired to since the dawn of time: freedom.

Police officers enjoy a kind of public profile, but correctional officers are permanently confronted with crime within a confined space, by day, by evening and by night. The image they evoke is not that of the police officer who stops a motorist for speeding or who intervenes when an offence has just been committed. In the face of criminal behaviour that has already been punished, correctional officers are like police officers but behind closed doors, surrounded by 10, 20, a hundred cases of violence. Nonetheless, in books and in movies, guards are always portrayed in a negative light with behaviour that is corrupt, sadistic and even criminal. This is a highly unfortunate representation for the thousands of male and female peace officers who serve as the gateway between what will happen between " before" and " after", between the person who was arrested and the one who will be released into the community at some point in the future.

Indeed, what will happen during the correctional officer's first year after three months, six months and then a full year have elapsed? Are there specific moments that mark the distinctions between one specific period and the next? If so, why and how does this take place? Are there facts that can be validated, correlations or mere hypotheses that can be made?

Among the 22 themes that this third and final report examines, where are the problems, and what are the solutions to those problems that might be useful to the organization in addressing what is above all a matter of human nature? This is what we will be looking at in the pages that follow.

 

Participation Levels and Questionnaire Schedule

In the previous report, 182 questions comprised each of the two main questionnaires: the Pre A and the Post. The Pre A consisted of 10 scales, 11 questions about demographic information, six questions on health and four qualitative questions addressing the requirements, advantages and disadvantages of the occupation as of the very first day of training at the college:

Pre A

  • Attitudes towards correctional work
  • Attitudes towards inmates
  • Support for rehabilitation
  • Deterrence
  • Human service orientation
  • Social desirability
  • Sources of motivation for correctional work
  • Intrinsic job motivation
  • Correctional self-efficacy
  • Pre -Correctional Officer recruit expectations of training

These were followed by three scales for questionnaire Pre B, which was given out to participants the following week:

Pre B

  • Pre -Group environment questionnaire
  • Pre -Correctional Officer social cohesiveness
  • Pre -Credibility

Lastly, after the three months of training, the Post questionnaire (which combined Pre A and Pre B5) was administered, representing a total of 13 scales including demographic, health-related and qualitative data (a total of 16 exploratory themes):

Post

  • Attitudes towards correctional work
  • Attitudes towards inmates
  • Support for rehabilitation
  • Deterrence
  • Human service orientation
  • Social desirability
  • Sources of motivation for correctional work
  • Intrinsic job motivation
  • Correctional self-efficacy
  • Post -Correctional Officer recruit perceptions of training (phase involving observation in relation to initial observations – same questionnaire as Pre A,but with change of verb tense and title from Pre-Correctional Officer recruit expectations of training)
  • Post -Group environment questionnaire
  • Post -Correctional Officer social cohesiveness
  • Post -Credibility

5 It is important to note that the Pre Aand Pre Bquestionnaires present four themes and were administered during the anticipation and expectation phases, whereas the Postquestionnaire as well as those for 3 months, 6 monthsand 1 yearwere administered during the observation phase. The content remained the same aside from the verb tenses.)

For this third and final phase of the research, six other scales were added to the Post questionnaire (for a total of 19 scales), with a total of 288 questions for each of the three measurement times:

3 months, 6 months and 1 year...

  • Attitudes towards correctional work
  • Attitudes towards inmates
  • Support for rehabilitation
  • Deterrence
  • Human service orientation
  • Social desirability
  • Sources of motivation for correctional work
  • Intrinsic job motivation
  • Correctional self-efficacy
  • Post -Correctional Officer recruit perceptions of training
  • Post -Group environment questionnaire
  • Post -Correctional Officer social cohesiveness
  • Post -Credibility
  • Organizational commitment
  • Role conflict
  • Supervisory support
  • Job stress
  • Job satisfaction
  • Empathy

These 19 scales were associated with the same qualitative, demographic6 and health-related questions.

6 The only seven questions not repeated in the Post, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year questionnaires relate to date of birth, gender, race, level of education, specialization, nature of any related work experience and reason for choosing the occupation.

As we will see shortly, out of a pool of 147 new officers, 93 of them (63%) responded for at least one of the three time points established for analysis of the data.

The time frame for each of the 10 classes at an institution was as follows:

3 months , 6 months and 1 year
Atlantic 1 March 24, 2003, to December 22, 2003
Quebec 1 May 19, 2003, to February 23, 2004
Quebec 2 July 14, 2003, to April 22, 2004
Quebec 3 August 18, 2003, to May 3, 2004
Ontario 1 May 5, 2003, to February 2, 2004
Ontario 2 May 24, 2003, to February 26, 2004
Ontario 3 September 22, 2003, to June 24, 2004
Ontario 4 December 8, 2003, to September 30, 2004
Prairies7 1 September 22, 2003, to June 24, 2004
Pacific 1 January 12, 2004, to October 4, 2004

7 For the Prairies Region, of the 12 participants who returned their questionnaires, nine of them who had been assigned in mid-June 2003 to the Willow Cree Healing Lodge were not actually in contact with their first inmates until April 5, 2004 (the date on which the institution officially opened and the date on which inmates first arrived), i.e., three months after receiving the final questionnaire (administered after one year). The other three participants were assigned to Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge in mid-June 2003. To avoid any misinterpretation, the nine participants were subject to a separate analysis and were not included in the analysis of behavioural changes for the two periods (three months and one year).

Six separate groups were analyzed:

1) There were 76 respondents for the questionnaire at the three-month mark. However, this included six of the nine participants who had not yet been in contact with inmates. These participants were the subject of a separate analysis. Accordingly, the number of participants for the three-month analysis was 70.

Coincidentally, the male/female split for those 70 people was exactly even, at 35 for each:

3-month period

Cross-tabulation
Group size
    Gender  
    Male Female Total
3mo-sec1-region Atlantic 2 6 8
Quebec 14 5 19
Ontario 17 10 27
Prairie 0 3 3
Pacific 2 11 13
Total   35 35 70
Chi-square tests
Asymptotic meaning
  Value dof (bilateral)
Pearson chi-square 17.309a 4 .002
Correction for continuity  
Likelihood ratio 19.386 4 .001
Linear-by-linear association 4.523 1 .033
Number of valid observations 70  
a 4 cells (40.0%) have a theoretical size less than 5. The minimum theoretical size is 1.50.

2) There were 53 respondents for the questionnaire at the six-month mark. However, this included two of the nine participants who had not yet been in contact with inmates. As mentioned, they were the subject of a separate analysis. Accordingly, the number of participants for the six-month analysis was 51 (22 men and 29 women):

6-month period

Cross-tabulation
Group size
    Gender  
    Male Female Total
6mos-sec1-region Atlantic 2 3 5
Quebec 6 4 10
Ontario 13 9 22
Prairie 0 3 3
Pacific 1 10 11
Total   22 29 51
Chi-square tests
  Asymptotic meaning
  Value dof (bilateral)
Pearson chi-square 10.93a 4 .027
Correction for continuity  
Likelihood ratio 13.07 4 .011
Linear-by-linear association 5.38 1 .020
Number of valid observations 51  
a 6 cells (60.0%) have a theoretical size less than 5. The minimum theoretical size is 1.29.

3) There were 53 respondents for the questionnaire covering the one-year period. Six of the nine participants who this time had been in direct contact with inmates responded but were the subject of a separate analysis since there could be no comparison with the previous two administrations. Accordingly, the number of participants for the one-year analysis was 47 (21 men and 26 women):

1-year period

Cross-tabulation
Group size
  Gender  
  Male Female Total
1yr-sec1-region Atlantic 1 3 4
Quebec 7 2 9
Ontario 10 10 20
Prairie 0 3 3
Pacific 3 8 11
Total   21 26 47
Chi-square tests
Asymptotic meaning
  Value dof (bilateral)
Pearson chi-square 8.61a 4 .071
Correction for continuity  
Likelihood ratio 9.97 4 .041
Linear-by-linear association 2.42 1 .120
Number of valid observations 47
a 7 cells (70.0%) have a theoretical size less than 5. The minimum theoretical size is 1.34.

4) The number that completed both the three-month and one-year questionnaires was 38 (15 men and 23 women):

3-month and 1-year periods

Cross-tabulation 1yr-sec1-Q3: region * gender
Group size
    Gender  
    Male Female Total
1yr-sec1-region Atlantic 1 3 4
Quebec 5 2 7
Ontario 7 8 15
Prairie 0 3 3
Pacific 2 7 9
Total   15 23 38
Chi-square tests
Asymptotic meaning
  Value dof (bilateral)
Pearson chi-square 6.74a 4 .150
Correction for continuity  
Likelihood ratio 7.84 4 .097
Linear-by-linear association 1.92 1 .165
Number of valid observations 38
a 7 cells (70.0%) have a theoretical size less than 5. The minimum theoretical size is 1.18.

5) The number that completed all three questionnaires (3 months, 6 months and 1 year) was 32 (12 men and 20 women):

3-month, 6-month and 1-year periods

Cross-tabulation 1yr-sec1-Q3: region * gender
Group size
    Gender  
    Male Female Total
1yr-sec1-region Atlantic 1 2 3
Quebec 4 2 6
Ontario 6 6 12
Prairie 0 3 3
Pacific 1 7 8
Total   12 20 32
Chi-square tests
Asymptotic meaning
  Value dof (bilateral)
Pearson chi-square 6.93a 4 .139
Correction for continuity  
Likelihood ratio 8.21 4 .084
Linear-by-linear association 3.52 1 .060
Number of valid observations 32
a 8 cells (80.0%) have a theoretical size less than 5. The minimum theotetical size is 1.13

6) For the Prairies region alone, although the number is much too low to be able to validate and measure attitudinal changes over a single period of time (see footnote 6), analysis of the participants who responded to the questionnaires without having been in contact with inmates before one year nonetheless yields results that support the general trend for the five regions for each of the 19 scales, whether increasing or decreasing.8

8 See Appendix VI.

Of those nine persons (all on the Prairies Region), only one failed to respond to any of the questionnaires. Six responded at 3 months. Two at 6 months9 and six at 1 year:

9 Although the table for the 6-month period was duly recorded, there were only 2 participants. Therefore, no statistical value could be attached to it.

Gender
  Frequency Percent Valid percentage Cumulative percentage
Valid Male 5 62.5 62.5 62.5
Female 3 37.5 37.5 100
Total 8 100 100  

 

Methodology

In terms of methodology and analytical procedure, we10 were faced with a number of different options. We chose the one that would enable us to shed some light on the changes that occurred between the time when the participants completed their college training ( Post) and after 3 months, 6 months and 1 year at an institution.

10 The two statisticians and the author of this report.

Comparing the Post period to that of 3 months (65 participants) would have entailed too short a length of time for us to be able to analyze and come to a better understanding of the attitude changes that occurred over time, given that this research was intended to measure the first year spent at a correctional institution. Extending the period of analysis from Post to 6 months(51 subjects) or 1 year (44 subjects) seemed appropriate. The Post period involved only 13 scales, however whereas 19 scales were employed in the analysis of the three time intervals at an institution. By mutual agreement, and after careful consideration of the representative nature of the above six groups, we decided that attitude changes for both genders would be studied through the 38 individuals present at the three-month and one-year time points. This would be supplemented by extracting information from the five other groups depending on whether the segments showed increases or decreases for each of the 22 themes.

If our sampling were to be based on the six groups with their own traits recorded, analyzed and presented in this study according to gender, the only tables that would appear here would be those showing the changes for the 38 men and women who responded for both periods, i.e., at three months and one year. Accordingly, the statistical methods presented in this third report are as follows:

  1. Description of the data for each of the three observation periods and frequencies for all variables by gender for the three periods (after 3 months, 6 monthsand 1 year);
  2. Description of the 19 scales with Cronbach alpha values11 and descriptive statistics by gender for each period;
  3. For each of the 19 scales, comparison between the 3-month and 1-year periods, taking gender into account (Bollen, 1989);
  4. Comparison between the 3-month and 1-year periods for the three sets of discrete variables, taking gender into account; and
  5. Correlational study of the different scales for the 3-month and 1-year periods.

11 See Appendix II.

Beyond these five analytical phases, the findings provide a general overview of the changes in the recruits after three months and one year through cross-referencing of the 22 themes codified in Excel.12

12 See Appendix III.

Finally, in order to avoid redundancies within the reference list, and given that the present is a single study in three parts, ibidem(abbreviation: ibid) is used to refer to authors referenced in one of the two previous reports.

 

Dropouts and Other Forms of Attrition

In contrast with the Pre and Post periods ,attrition at this stage of the game can no longer be attributed to failure, as in the case of attrition during vocational training.13 Rather it was linked to three key factors: weariness over time, the reality in the field, and certain sources of pressure clearly identified in e-mail correspondence between the author and participants in each of the five administrative regions.

13 A total of 86 cases of attrition were recorded for the five administrative regions among the 10 CTP classes.

The three key factors identified where:

  1. Conditions inherent to any longitudinal research. As indicated on the consent form, participants were free to withdraw at any time. There was thus a natural fatigue and a lack of interest in responding to three identical questionnaires over a period of a year. Furthermore, participants did not always understand why they were being given three questionnaires to which they had already responded (saturation effect);
  2. Changes in the environment and level of autonomy that underlie the development of knowledge (maturation effect). The respondents were no longer at the college, and many things had changed from the time of their first three months at an institution. The questionnaire therefore represented a past from which participants wished to distance themselves in order to more effectively cope with the realities of the present; and
  3. Pressure tactics by the union between May and September 2003, particularly in the Quebec Region.14

14 Individual and group follow-up took place through 62 e-mails. Among these e-mails, it became obvious that the three- and six-month phases (i.e., from May to September 2003) were most strongly affected. E-mail messages sent for this period and for certain classes were systematically returned with a very brief automated message informing the sender that the recipient was in a contract negotiation period and therefore was unable to respond.

The following three tables indicate the frequency of participants by region for each of the three periods:

3mos-sec1-Q3:
  Frequency Percent Valid percentage Cumulative percentage
Valid Atlantic 8 11.4 11.4 11.4
Quebec 19 27.1 27.1 38.6
Ontario 27 38.6 38.6 77.1
Prairie 3 4.3 4.3 81.4
Pacific 13 18.6 18.6 100.0
Total 70 100.0 100.0  
6mos-sec1-Q3:
  Frequency Percent Valid percentage Cumulative percentage
Valid Atlantic 5 9.8 9.8 9.8
Quebec 10 19.6 19.6 29.4
Ontario 22 43.1 43.1 72.5
Prairie 3 5.9 5.9 78.4
Pacific 11 21.6 21.6 100.0
Total 51 100.0 100.0  
1yr-sec1-Q3:
  Frequency Percent Valid percentage Cumulative percentage
Valid Atlantic 4 8.5 8.5 8.5
Quebec 9 19.1 19.1 27.7
Ontario 20 42.6 42.6 70.2
Prairie 3 6.4 6.4 76.6
Pacific 11 23.4 23.4 100.0
Total 47 100.0 100.0  

It is also worth noting that these three different frequencies (with 147 participants in theory) clearly illustrate the well-known work of Sherif (1936) and Asch (1956) which suggested that, in an environment in which a person does not know how to act, the behaviour of others becomes one of the most important sources of reference in that person's adjustment. For Alain (1993), regardless of the specific locale, new arrivals show compliance when there is an immediate behavioural change in opinion or perceptions arising from the real or imagined presence of a group of persons in a position of strength. This was the case for the recruits after the first three months at an institution.

In any event, this is the type of scenario that tends to beset all longitudinal studies. The fact remains nonetheless that the successive response rates were 52% at three months and 36% at six months, remaining at 36% at the end of the first year. In total, 63% responded at least one of the three times they were approached.

 

Descriptive Statistics Showing Changes at 3 Months and 1 Year

Please note : In this third and final part, the wording and complementary references for each of the 22 themes adds to the literature review presented in the two previous reports. Accordingly, for all references not cited in the bibliography for this third report, please refer to reports R-146 (2004) and R-165 (2005).

1) Recruit profile information

1) Age

Although this information does not appear on the questionnaire for the institutional period, it is interesting to note that the average ages of participants for the three periods was 33 for men and 32 for the women. For the men, the average age was consistent for the four groups shown below, with a minimum of 23 years and a maximum of 53. For the women, the range was between 22 and 44 years:

Age of participants at 3 months:
 
  N Average Mean Minimum Maximum
Gender Male Participants' ages at post N=3 32.54 7.34 22.49 52.86
  Female   N=3 31.98 7.25 20.86 45.22
Total group   N=7 32.26 7.25 20.86 52.86
Age of participants at 6 months:
 
  Group N valid Average Mean Minimum Maximum
Gender Male Participants' ages at post 22 N=2 33.09 6.56 22.92 52.86
  Female   29 N=2 32.57 6.55 23.37 44.07
Total group   51 N=5 32.79 6.49 22.92 52.86
Age of participants at 1 year:
 
  N valid Average Mean Minimum Maximum
Gender Male Participants' ages at post N=2 33.93 6.89 22.92 52.86
  Female   N=2 32.37 6.98 21.97 44.07
Total group   N=4 33.06 6.91 21.97 52.86
Age of participants at 3 months and 1 year:
 
  N valid Average Mean Minimum Maximum
Gender Male Participants' ages at post N=1 33.58 7.82 22.92 52.86
  Female   N=2 32.72 7.30 21.97 44.07
Total group   N=3 33.06 7.41 21.97 52.86

First finding: Analysis of the participants present for the Pre A, Post, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year questionnaire administrations and of the dates of birth of each participant between March 24, 2003 and October 4, 2004 showed that the average age remained constant at 33 years for the men and 32 for the women:

Group Statistics
  PreA-Demo-Q2: N Mean Standard deviation Standard error of mean
Participants' ages Male 77 33.1989 7.03597 .80182
at pre A Female 70 30.9212 7.25150 .86672
Participants' ages Male 77 33.4028 7.03733 .80198
at post Female 70 31.1354 7.26056 .86780
Descriptive statistics
  N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.
Participants' ages at pre A 147 20.46 52.59 32.1143 7.20583
Participants' ages at post 147 20.65 52.87 32.3231 7.21002
N valid (listwise) 147  

2) Marital status

The data indicate that three people who were single during the college training married within a year after starting work at an institution and that one person who was married separated:

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q1: Marital status * 1yr-sec1-Q1: Marital status
Group size
  1yr-sec1-Q1: Marital status  
  Single Married/c. law Sep./divorced Total
3mos-sec1-Q1: Marital status single 12 3 0 15
married/common law 0 21 1 22
separated/divorced 0 0 1 1
Total   12 24 2 38

3) Gender

For the four periods other than the first period, the participation rate remained higher among women than among men:

 
Period at institution (n =) Men Women
3 months 70 35 35
6 months 51 22 29
1 year 47 21 26
3 months and 1 year 38 15 23
3 months, 6 months and 1 year 32 12 20

4) Do have any children?

1) Yes 2) No

It was noted that only one child was born during the study period:

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q2: children * 1yr-sec1-Q2: children
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q2: children  
    Yes No Total
3mos-sec1-Q2: children yes 20 0 20
no 1 17 18
Total   21 17 38

5) Region of selection

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q3: region * 1yr-sec1-Q3: region
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q3: region  
    Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairie Pacific Total
3mos-sec1-region Atlantic 4 0 0 0 0 4
Quebec 0 7 0 0 0 7
Ontario 0 0 15 0 0 15
Prairie 0 0 0 3 0 3
Pacific 0 0 0 0 9 9
Total   4 7 15 3 9 38

6) What language(s) do you speak?

For English, there was only one change:

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q4: langue: English
1yr-sec1-Q4: language: English
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q4: langage: English  
    Yes No Total
3mos-sec1-language: English yes 32 0 32
no 1 5 6
Total   33 5 38

For French, there were no changes:

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q4: language: French*
1yr-sec1-Q4: language: French
Group size
    3mos-sec1-Q4: langue: French  
    Yes No Total
3mos-sec1-language: English yes 10 0 10
no 0 28 28
Total   10 28 38

For other language(s) spoken, there was only one change:

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q4: language: other *
1yr-sec1-Q4: language: other
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q4: language: other  
    Yes No Total
3mos-sec1-Q4: language: other yes 2 0 2
no 1 34 35
Total   3 34 37

2) Health and lifestyle

1) Tobacco

In Canada, slightly over five million people aged 15 and over (20% of the population) smoke on a daily basis. These findings have remained unchanged since 200315 (Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey/CTUMS, Health Canada, 2004). Those using tobacco on a daily basis reported smoking approximately 15 cigarettes a day, with men smoking more than women (17 versus 13 cigarettes a day respectively).

15 These figures are likely unduly low considering that the response rate for the CTUMS (conducted by Statistics Canada) was lower than normal.

The literature shows that women who want to stop smoking have more difficulty than their male counterparts. Physiologically, women seem to metabolize nicotine more slowly than men do, which means that equal amounts of nicotine translate into a higher dose in relation to body weight. This partly explains why weight gain and physiological withdrawal symptoms are much more pronounced among women (Health Canada, 1999; Health Canada, 2004; Kinnon and Hanvey, 1995).

In this case, the percentage of those who smoked at one year were essentially the same as those recorded after three months of training at the college. Comparison of the results between three months and one year at an institution revealed a change in smoking habits for only one officer. The findings indicated that 60% were non-smokers and 40% were smokers. Although rates were higher for women, those findings were not pronounced enough to be reported for that period. No significant changes were recorded for the five other sampling groups.

1) Do you use tobacco products? 

1) Yes 2) Never

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q9: tobacco * 1yr-sec1-Q9: tobacco
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q9: tobacco  
    Yes No Total
3mos-sec1-Q9: tobacco yes 14 0 14
never 1 23 24
Total   15 23 38

The comparison between daily cigarette use after three months and after one year at an institution was as follows:

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 plus

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q10: number of digarettes per day *
1yr-sec1-Q10: number of cigarettes per day
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q10: number of cigarettes per day  
    1-4 5-9 10-19 20-29 Total
3mos-sec1-Q10: 1-4 3 0 0 1 4
number of cigarettes per day 5-9 1 1 1 0 3
10-19 0 0 4 1 5
20-29 0 0 0 2 2
Total   4 1 5 4 14

Here also, the findings did not point to any change in smoking habits between the two time points.

Alcohol consumption  

In terms of both usage and frequency, the data collected did not indicate any conclusive changes. The same observation was made for the five other sampling groups.

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

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q11: alcohol * 1yr-sec1-Q11: alcohol
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q11: alchool  
    yes never used Total
3mos-sec1-Q11: alcohol yes 31 2 33
never used 3 1 4
Total   34 3 37

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

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q12:
alcohol use 3 mos * 1yr-sec1-Q12: alcohol use 3 mos
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q12: alcohol use 3 mos  
    never once 2 or 3 times 4- 6 times 7-9 times 10 or more times Total
3mos-sec1-Q12: never 10 1 1 0 0 0 12
alcohol use 3 mos once 1 2 1 0 0 0 4
2 or 3 times 0 0 4 1 2 0 7
4-6 times 0 1 4 1 0 1 7
10 or more times 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total   11 4 10 2 2 2 31

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

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q13:
no. dys 1 drink alcohol* 1yr-sec1-Q13: no. dys 1 drink alcohol
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q13: no. dys 1 drink alcohol  
    less than once once/week 2-3 days/week 4-6 days/week Total
3mos-sec1-Q13: less than once 12 3 2 0 17
no. dys 1 drink alcohol once/week 3 4 2 1 10
2-3 days/week 0 3 1 0 4
4-6 days/week 0 0 0 1 1
Total   15 10 5 2 32

Drugs or medication

Analysis of usage and frequency of drugs or medication did not indicate any changes that warranted being reported. No changes were recorded for the five other sampling groups.

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

a- Painkillers (Tylenol, Aspirin, etc.):

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q14a:
painkillers * 1yr-sec1-Q14a: painkillers
Group size
    1yr-sec1-Q14a: painkillers  
    almost every day app. once/week app. once/month rarely or never Total
3mos-sec1-Q14a: almost every day 1 0 0 0 1
painkillers app. once/week 0 2 0 2 4
app. days/month 0 5 6 1 12
rarely or never 0 2 1 18 21
Total   1 9 7 21 38

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

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q14b:
antacids * 1yr-sec1-Q14b: antacids
Effect
    1yr-sec1-Q14b: antacids  
    app. once/week app. once/month rarely or never Total
3mois-sec1-Q14b: app. once/week 1 0 1 2
antacids app. once/month 1 4 1 6
rarely or never 3 1 26 30
Total   5 5 28 38

c- Antihistamines (Seldane, Hismanal, etc.):

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec1-Q14c:
antihistamines * 1yr-sec1-Q14c: antihistamines
Group size
    1an-sec1-Q14c: antihistamines  
    almost every day app. once/week app. once/month rarely or never Total
3mois-sec1-Q14c: almost every day 1 0 0 0 1
antihistaminess app. once/month 0 0 1 0 1
rarely or never 0 4 2 30 36
Total   1 4 3 30 38

In short, the intent here was not to make conclusions regarding specific health issue with respect to newly promoted correctional officers but rather to provide a profile of their first year of employment at the Correctional Service of Canada. We found no significant changes in the use of tobacco, alcohol or prescription drugs during the participants' first year of service and their adjustment to their new career. Comparison with the five other groups identified for analysis16 also did not yield any data that indicated any kind of impact over time.

16 The responses for each of the 22 themes by the group of 38 participants who responded for both the three-month and one-year administrations were consistent with those of the other five groups.

Although these findings were not overly revealing for any of the six different groups identified for this research, this theme could easily be explored at a later date in other studies over a longer period of time and with a much broader sample with respect to years of experience on the job. As an example of one of the many hypotheses that could be explored, 3,000 correctional officers with an average of 15 years of experience in a correctional setting could present an entirely different profile in terms of their state of health from that presented here for the first year of service.

3) Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work

As in the previous report, the 4 qualitative questions17 presented for this theme allowed respondents to use whatever vocabulary they chose to express themselves in their own words. More of their descriptions were directly related to their actual experience rather than the expectations they had during their vocational training at the college. This can be explained both by the knowledge of the field they were gradually acquiring and by the sense of greater freedom to express their opinions as compared to the initial group. Some of the participants answered these questions but others chose to leave them blank because they considered them uninteresting, redundant, overly long or too much trouble.

17 See Appendix IV.

As well, the frequencies presented a response rate that was lower than those for the scales (closed questions and specific themes that simply entailed checking off a figure from 1 to 5, from 1 to 7 or from 1 to 2 for true or false).

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

To the list of seven key words previously identified for the Pre A and Post questionnaires, 10 others were added. However, of that list of 17 key words, only those categories with frequencies of 10 or more responses after one year were selected here. Of all skills and qualities that new correctional officers believe they possess, empathy was the most important one for all groups (regardless of the frequencies recorded) and all five periods ( Pre A, Post, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year). The importance of this quality remained intact over time. It was also noted that counselling followed empathy very closely. The fact that those two key words invariably emerge for all groups over a 15-month period shows that there is a genuine desire to help others, as we will see shortly with the scales relating to human service orientation, attitudes towards correctional work, support for rehabilitation, attitudes towards inmates and empathy.

The following key words were also present: Human experience and Desire to learn. The two elements added since the Post period are Adaptability and Sense of observation. These two themes are directly related to learning in the field and would not have manifested themselves in the classroom:

 
Key words 3 months (n=38) 1 year (n=38)
Counselling 16 16
Human experience 8 11
Desire to learn 12 11
Empathy 18 17
Adaptability 6 6
Sense of observation 7 8

However, after one year on the job, the following key words no longer appear: Affinity for security work, Integrity on the job, Teamwork and Sense of responsibility. This in no way suggests that these skills or qualities are no longer present, but rather that the priorities of respondents had changed. In addition, we must consider a more limited range of responses as compared with 147 participants, as initially anticipated.

Let us now look at the advantages of correctional work.

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:

To the list of 13 key words previously identified for the Pre A and Post tests, 10 others were added. However, from that list of 23 key words, only those categories with frequencies of 10 or more responses after one year are presented here.

For the Pre A and Post periods, and for all other groups taken separately in terms of frequency, the extrinsic aspects of employment prevailed: job stability, fringe benefits, pay, promotion opportunities and schedules (flexibility in arranging days off, not to be confused with shift work).

Here also, counselling was ranked among the major benefits associated with this occupation:

 
Key words 3 months (n=38) 1 year (n=38)
Job stability 17 18
Fringe benefits 15 19
Pay 15 17
Promotion 12 8
Counselling 11 7
Schedules 10 11

The following key words disappeared: teamwork, challenges, affinity for security work, diversity of functions involved, setting an example and work integrity.

3) Please list what you consider are the disadvantages of the position of a Correctional Officer :

To the list of 8 key words previously identified for the Pre A and Post questionnaires, 24 others were added. However, of that list of 32 key words, only those categories with frequencies of 10 or more responses after one year are presented here.

For the different time periods and the frequencies associated with them (for the Pre A and Post periods as well as for the 3 months, 6 months and 1 yearphases), we find the same key words: difficulties of shift work, stress, and environment and negative atmosphere:

 
Key words 3 months (n=38) 1 year (n=38)
Difficulties of shift work 17 23
Stress 13 12
Environment and negative atmosphere 11 11

In contrast with state of health, where we did not see any changes during the course of their first year on the job, it was quite surprising to note that the first three months ushered in an entirely different state of affairs which is evidenced in the addition of 24 words designating disadvantages. Those just beginning a new profession very often display enthusiasm, energy and a willingness to overcome all obstacles, especially young people who have just entered the labour force and who are eager to prove themselves. When failure has not been encountered and when their experience lives up to their expectations, this highly positive behaviour is reinforced. In reality, however, the situation will change after a few months, especially in an organization as highly structured as a correctional facility. More than 20 years ago, Wicks (ibid.) traced the path followed by correctional officers who had recently graduated from the staff college. Hope and positive expectations of finally being able to start something completely new gradually gave way to scepticism and disillusionment barely six months after they began working.

That said, Wicks ( op. cit.) was referring to young correctional officers recently been hired in their first real job. This differs from our study in that the average age of participants was 32 years (33 for the men and 31 for the women). This does not correspond with the more common profile of new employees starting their career. By the age of 32, individuals tend to be established in society and to already have a vocational and/or professional history.

The advantages listed earlier notwithstanding, the opportunity to express the disadvantages associated with correctional work also provided an outlet to the correctional officers. But what is behind the three key disadvantages that were identified and the many comments that appeared in the margins beside the responses?

1) With respect to the difficulties of shift work one will remember that schedules were included in the list of advantages of correctional work. Some clarification is therefore needed regarding this apparent contradiction. Unlike other employees, correctional officers do not work Monday to Friday from 8:00 to 4:00 or 9:00 to 5:00. Obviously – and this is why we find schedules on the list of advantages – this type of arrangement offers the possibility of having a broader range of activities outside so-called regular hours. An officer who has Tuesday and Thursday off, for example, can pursue other social and/or material interests as desired. However, irregular shifts have an impact on what is commonly referred to as the human being's biological clock. People are quite able to adjust to working nights or evenings when they do so on a regular basis, but this becomes more difficult when schedules change as a result of an institution's immediate needs or staff absences, holidays and last-minute replacements.

Shift work presents challenges in terms of family and social relationships (Totterdell, 2005; Frone, 2003) as well as for the human body and its circadian rhythm. The latter has a direct impact on behaviour and the proper surveillance of an environment in which security must be maintained at all times (Lalemand, 1999).18

18 The schedules presented a number of variations: seven consecutive days of work with three days off; four consecutive days of work with two days off; and six consecutive days of work with two days off. Each of those periods was extended by one day of work with a corresponding additional day off. Shifts included days, evenings and nights (although the teams that work nights at many institutions are comprised of people who prefer this shift). With the exception of new correctional officers, those who choose to work nights often hold another job or prefer to have limited contact with the prison population. The majority of them are at the end of their careers or do not support the objectives of reintegration (Van Voorhis et al., ibid.).

2) In contrast with the 12 questions associated with the scale for job-related stress (which pertains specifically to the two subscales relating to pressure and the time available for performing a given amount of work), the word stress is equated with anticipation of an incident or situation inherent in the correctional environment. But what is meant when we refer to stress within a penitentiary?

The nature and seriousness of the risks incurred, their frequency, the measures implemented to address certain possibilities, the quality of the environment, the associated perceptions, the anticipation of dangerous events that could arise in the workplace, which vary from one place to the next depending on whether it is a coal mine, a nuclear plant, a hospital, a laboratory, a military or industrial facility, an oil rig or a fishing boat... The list is a long one and it covers only accidents inherent to working conditions. But what about stress associated with violence in the workplace?

By way of reference, in a 1999 study conducted by the U.S. Postal Service Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace (United States Postal Service, 2000), one out of every 20 Americans has been physically assaulted, one out of six harassed, and one out of three insulted or threatened at their place of employment. The second leading cause of death in the workplace is homicide. The study revealed that 6,719 work-related homicides (0.77 per 100,000 inhabitants) occurred between 1992 and 1998. The survey found that there were 0.26 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants among letter carriers who worked on foot or who drove a delivery vehicle for the U.S. Postal Service; 2.10 for employees of small businesses (grocery stores, restaurants and gas stations); 6.46 for police officers; and 31.54 for taxi drivers, representing just under half of the 6,719 homicides that occurred in a work context.

Stress and violence in the hospital and psychiatric sector have also been the subject of numerous studies over the past 10 years (Duxbury and Whittington, 2005; Jansen, Dassen and Groot Jebbink, 2005; Johnson, 2004; LeBlanc and Kelloway, 2002; Schat and Kelloway, 2005; Bell, Green, Fisher and Baum, 2001; Kiely and Pankhurst, 1998; Beale, Cox and Leather, 1996; Whittington, Shuttleworth and Hill, 1996), but there has been very little research conducted on staff working in corrections, although the literature on prisons does include some studies on physical violence among inmates. In the correctional context in Canada, at least where penitentiaries are concerned, the last incident in which correctional officers were killed on the job was in July 1984.19

19 Two correctional officers were stabbed to death by an inmate at Stony Mountain Institution in Manitoba. Prior to this incident, in May 1983, a correctional officer was killed at Archambault Institution; this murder came on the heels of the 1982 mutiny at that institution, which resulted in the deaths of three correctional officers. Between 1967 and 1981, six CSC correctional officers were killed by inmates (Jayewardene and Doherty, 1985). In 1997 in Quebec, two provincial correctional officers were killed at close range by organized crime members while driving a patrol wagon.

That said, we must not confuse actual and potential risks, because over the years confinement gives rise to a barely discernable sense of anticipation among both staff and inmates that something is about to happen. This sense of anticipation could stem from a particular incident, an atmosphere created by a dangerous individual or group, rumours, or intelligence pertaining to institutional security.

Being directly or indirectly involved in an incident is one thing; living in anticipation of it is quite another.

The prison environment is generally free of noise, dust and chemicals, and there is no heavy equipment or machinery to be operated, as is the case at most factories and construction sites (Grayson, 1994). The architecture is stark and the peripheral space is part barracks, part hospital. Whatever comes in and goes out through the main door is always under the control and supervision of human beings. The opportunity to move around freely does not exist, not even in what are referred to as minimum-security institutions. Aside from a few workshops (which are being replaced more and more by a wide range of programs), nothing is really produced there, the focus being on learning behaviour that is consistent with social norms including those of a morning and afternoon schedules.

In prison, no one falls off scaffolding, and there are no toxic fumes, but there are men and women who have been convicted of violating the rules to an extent serious enough to warrant being incarcerated. To avoid any friction among those imprisoned in the name of the law and according to the law's timetable, there are people there to keep an eye on them and supervise them but also to listen to them, to guide them, and to encourage them to use their potential in ways other than unlawful acts. However, the main obstacle is a significant one: human beings by nature do not like being controlled and even less being confined. Working in a correctional facility thus presents numerous challenges to all those professionals required to deal with clients who do not want to be there. Because these people are there against their will, the correctional environment is under a continual state of siege.

Fear, whether real or anticipated, can never be eliminated from such an environment. For professionals working in secure custody (this applies to correctional officers as well as parole officers and teaching staff), it is rare not to have at some point experienced an incident, a stressful situation, a period of vulnerability both external and personal that predisposes them to fatigue or to mental or physical exhaustion and sometimes to both simultaneously. This is a normal response to the artificiality that arises for those who are continually being watched and those doing the watching.

This restrictive setting presents certain challenges considering all of the criminal types it brings together in the same space: organized crime (for example, in the Prairies Region, with the numerous enemy Aboriginal groups, or in Quebec with its biker gangs), sex offenders, murderers, drug traffickers, burglars, fraud artists, and so forth. In the United States, in a study of criminal gangs at 193 institutions in 49 states, one quarter (25.9%) of male inmates were identified as key members of criminal gangs recognized as such by police (Knox, 2004).

Another element is the range of coping strategies employed but that take on a whole other dimension for prison staff given that – and this part cannot be overstated – the clients are there against their wishes and their participation in programming, far from being motivated by a genuine and sincere desire to look within, is generally primarily motivated by the possibility of release (Kuck, 2003; Pollock, 2003; Larivière and Robinson, ibid.; Philliber, ibid.; Einhorn, 1980; Wicks, ibid. ).

Encouraging people to adopt a different type of behaviour by showing them what can be gained on one side and lost on the other becomes a political issue that encompasses the protection of the public, reintegration and potential risks. Helping, counselling and encouraging prisoners who are there against their will when they are not always ready to admit to their problems or interested in changing their behaviour or who may espouse values that are diametrically opposed to those held by the person working with them remain a challenge both for clinical staff and for those working on the front lines (Norland, Sowell and DiChiara, 2003; Trotter, 1999; Edmunds, 1997; Ivanoff, Blythe and Tripodi, 1994; Jones and Alcabes, 1993; Cooke, 1991).

Whether criminologist, psychologist, program officer, instructor, teacher, or member of the nursing or clerical staff, those who work in corrections know where they are once they have passed through that first metal gate. But of all these people, there is only one category that must stare this reality in the face by day and by night, on weekends and on holidays: correctional officers. In cases of absolute necessity, they alone are authorized to intervene physically. However, there are only two or three of them supervising the mass movements of prisoners leaving their cells, taking care of comings and goings from point A to point B, conducting searches, escorting, authorizing (or not authorizing) requests, each more urgent than the next, with as many requests as there are inmates, and some of which are made using a tone of voice and choice of words that no one would tolerate outside prison. And since they can neither see nor hear everything, they must always be on the alert and never let themselves get caught up in a routine that is nonetheless omnipresent.

Their sense of observation (one of the main skills recruits must possess) can be acquired only with time and experience. Unfortunately, this sense of observation and anticipation of violent acts of all kinds has its downsides20 (McCorkle, Miethe and Drass, 1995). We will see why and how this takes place a little later.

20 Although there is an important distinction to be made between provincial and federal corrections in Canada, the fact remains that in a recent study of a sample of 186 provincial correctional officers conducted in 6 different provinces, this occupation topped a list that included 11 others exposed to violence, with an incident rate nearly twice that of police officers (Boyd and Malm, 2002).

For the newly promoted recruit and the correctional officer with 20 years of experience alike, the particular characteristics of the prison environment can be broken down into two categories:

  1. A high level of risk with minor consequences; and
  2. A low level of risk with serious consequences.

Given its nature, its captive population, and the consequences associated with confinement in terms of prohibitions and staff, a penitentiary is a place that is risky but in which the security measures that are implemented ensure that the actual level of risk is low. Why is this? Largely because monitoring and observation of the environment by takes place over work shifts. Moreover, correctional officers are prepared for this type of situation and their work is to ensure there are no incidents. Thus there is low level of risk but serious consequences.

Beyond enhancing inmates' living conditions and upholding their rights the rule of law. The low level of physical incidents can partly be explained by the effectiveness of the work done by correctional officers. This point is very simple: how could a population of 300 people who are being held involuntarily possibly be contained without addressing all of the conditions that could contribute to a possible meltdown if there were no communication? But there is another side to every story. The fear associated with the anticipation of incidents that may occur has specific features for both sexes: assaults, injuries, hostage takings, mutiny, murder, and for female staff members, the possibility of sexual assault.

Aside from the anticipation of violence, though, what are the facts?

The Offender Management System (OMS)21 and the Security Branch annual report for 2004-2005 indicate that the number of serious incidents that has occurred at the 53 federal institutions in Canada over the past 10 years is as follows: 21

21 The OMS was introduced in 1993.

22 It should be noted that the number of incidents is presented for all workers and not for any one occupation in particular. Another point worth mentioning is that incidents are not always reported.

From 1995-1996 to 2004-2005 (May 31)
Internal incidents (n =)
Inmate murders 38
Hostage takings/unlawful confinements 29
Suicides 119
Assaults against staff 19
Assaults against inmates 428
Major disturbances 71
Violent incidents 552
Serious security-related incidents 797

These reported figures are supplemented by an annual average of 874 interventions that required the use of force. Over the past 12 years (from January 1, 1992 to May 5, 2005), out of a total of 13,185 incidents of all kinds, 11,096 had occurred at maximum and medium security institutions.23 When these figures showing incidents for which there was physical intervention are compared against the total number of inmates during the same 12-year period, we see that physical assaults do not occur frequently. But let us attempt to go beyond the relatively small number of incidents. As we saw earlier, by their nature and the type of population they hold, correctional institutions present a unique environment which cannot be compared with any other field and in which, because of the artificiality of the setting, an atmosphere of latent and sometimes imminent violence prevails.24 This violence manifests itself in four forms:

23 Report on the Use of Force (CSC), 2005.

24 70% of federally incarcerated inmates are serving sentences for violent offences (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2005).

  1. Physical (either with or without prior intent, whether foreseeable or not)
    1. deadly assault;
    2. injuries of varying degrees of severity (Light, 1991).
  2. Psychological
    1. threats made directly or through intermediaries;
    2. insults;
    3. discovery of prohibited or compromising items (weapons, letters, lists of names, maps, drugs);
    4. refusal to follow orders, which has direct consequences in the short and medium term because it forces the person who issues the offence report to take a stand vis-à-vis the person receiving it;
    5. passing on information about everything and nothing. This feeds a degree of insecurity regardless of whether or not the disclosure is valid; and
    6. incidents (assemblies, escapes or attempted escapes).
  3. Physical and psychological
  4. By indirect effect or by anticipation
    1. suicide, witnessing an assault or assisting someone who has been assaulted, whether a staff member or inmate (Hensley and Tewksbury, 2005; Seidman and Williams, ibid. );
    2. behaviour and interactions among inmates: what certain people say, think or are planning to do (conspiracies of all kinds, criminal acts described with pride);
    3. body language: an expressive movement, a smile or a mere look can sometimes be sufficient to convey meaning, dissuade or elicit (or fail to elicit) a response with a corresponding escalation of behaviour;
    4. the ongoing power relationship based on various levels of application of rules and regulations. For the prison population, this relationship is an outgrowth of the reality of confinement. For supervisory staff, it is more a matter of managing this coexistence behind an apparent routine that the correctional officer alone is truly able to understand and control; and
    5. a specific case that requires more sustained supervision, for one's own security as well as for that of the institution.

Although the Climate Indicators and Profiling System (CIPS) tends to show an overall decline in first level incidents25 at the national level, the conditions of incarceration associated with the security level of each institution inevitably lead to an atmosphere of tension. This finding is not new: 30 years ago, Cheatwood (1974) and, more recently, Cooke ( ibid.) and then Motiuk (1991) had reported it in their empirical analyses.

25 First level incidents are murder, assaults against staff, assaults against inmates, hostage taking, fights among inmates, major disturbances and minor disturbances.

The fact that this state of anticipation is permanent for correctional officers is a fine distinction that separates them from their counterparts in the police force (Childress, Talucci and Wood, 1999; Schaufeli and Peeters, ibid. ). It does not spring up on a street corner or in a particular neighbourhood; it is not provoked by the arrest of a suspect or by his immediate response to this situation. Rather, it arises within an area delineated by walls in which several hundred people are confined.

Furthermore, far from continually being confronted with criminal behaviour, on any given day police officers travel around town and come into contact with hundreds of new people who are in no way associated with any kind of violence. In their travels police officers are free to stop wherever they like. Responding to various incidents, whether critical or random, occupies less than half of an officer's daily activities especially when it is considered that they are regularly asked to testify in court (Paton, 2005; Ellison, 2004; Toch, 2002).

Given that the profile of the population they work with is continually changing but is always comprised of criminals, correctional officers find themselves in a permanent and stressful state of anticipation in their daily routines (McCraty et al., 2003). They must contend with human misery and loneliness and use their authority to intervene at the slightest indication of violence between two or three inmates which can quickly deteriorate into a riot; it may take nothing more than a word, a look, or it interpretation, based on someone's mood at the time, for an incident to break out.

Even the thought of suicide among correctional officers26 seems more pronounced, at least in the United States. In a study conducted in 21 states in 1990, the thought of suicide among correctional officers was 39% higher than for any other occupation (Stack and Tsoudis, 1997). One possible explanation is that, in the confined environment of a penitentiary, no one can remain unaffected by the impact of self-inflicted violence, inmates and staff alike. We know that the suicide rate among federally and provincially incarcerated inmates over the past five years was six times higher than for the general population for the same age groups27 (Canadian Journal of Public Health, 2004).

26 CSC does not record any data on this type of incident (verified with administrative services and with the union, UCCO-SACC-CSN).

27 The suicide rate for federally incarcerated inmates alone is four times higher than for the general population.

However, there are other aspects to this perception of how dangerous it is for both men and women to work in a correctional facility. The suffering felt by a person who is locked up, with all the risks of disorganization and unpredictability this can entail, is key to understanding what life in prison is like. This suffering manifests itself in many different ways: self-mutilation, attempted suicide, suicide; extreme agitation; crying because of anxiety and a sense of emptiness; hunger strikes; general fatigue; refusal to comply; and illicit actions (Borrill et al., ibid.; Gal, 2003; Lourel, 2001; Medlicott, 1999).

Let us stop here for a few moments to reflect on what is involved in this anticipation of danger among correctional officers, whether they have one or 20 years of experience. Let us take just two cases that are purely fictional but very real in terms of their day-to-day experiences.

1) First scenario: At 3:00 a.m., Paul, who has been working as a correctional officer for the past three years, is alone in the unit. He is making his night rounds and has 80 cells to check for a formal count. Flashlight in hand, he looks into the opening in each cell door to make sure the person is actually there, sweeps the light over him for a few seconds and sees a shape lying under a blanket in the shadows. He then moves on to the next without ever knowing what awaits him. The person might very well be waiting for the officer, his face pressed up against the opening or, especially if the officer is female, his position and hand movements may leave no doubt about what he is doing. The fear of finding a body hanging from a rope is never far from an officer's mind either. And is it a real suicide or a trick? Is the person still breathing? Regardless of the situation, an officer on duty will never open the door without the correctional supervisor, two other officers and the medical team being present and ready to intervene. Most of the time all is calm and quiet, but nothing is really natural until the shift change at 7:00 a.m. and afterwards? It is the events of the next 16 hours that will shape the next night shift.

2) Second scenario: It is almost 8:30 a.m. Sentenced to three years in prison for a series of break and enters, inmate Martin is sitting on his bed. He has been incarcerated for only two weeks. Since he did not see the inmate leave his cell, one of the officers on duty in the unit's control post goes over to the doorway and asks him what is wrong. Transfixed with fear, his face ashen, Martin hesitates for a minute before speaking. He is afraid. When the officer insists, he finally admits that he no longer wants to leave his cell and demands that he be placed in segregation as soon as possible. A few metres away, some other inmates who are watching all this make some comments, and one of them even screams out some insults and threats. The officer has no idea what is behind this, and it is almost too late to take a step back. Suspicion sets in. What really happened? The officer does not know at this point but in the meantime he orders the 10 inmates standing nearby to return to their cells immediately. They do so, but two of them continue to argue. The officer on duty at the control post sees all this unfold and calls for backup. Help will arrive in a matter of minutes but time always passes very slowly in such situations.

After violence, the second most significant of the perceived risks and sources of stress that correctional officers anticipate relates to infectious diseases (Dillon and Allwright, 2005; Canadian HIV / AIDS Legal Network, 2004; American Public Health Association, 2003; Dolan, Rutter and Wodak, 2003; Kamerman, 1991), followed by working with inmates with mental health problems (Brown, 2004; Edwards, 2000).

Testing for diseases such as HIV and hepatitis takes place on a voluntary basis in prison, which means that a person may have this illness without another party necessarily being aware of it. This is similar to what happens in the rest of society but the difference here is that there is a risk of violence associated with imprisonment.28

28 Being threatened with a needle, having blood spit or thrown into their face, and being bitten are acts to which officers might be exposed.

Working with people who have contracted a serious illness entails taking some basic precautions that are often overlooked by those who come in contact with inmates. They themselves may be sick without necessarily knowing it.29

29 1.8% of the prison population in Canada (male and female) is infected with HIV, a rate that is 10% higher than in the general population; in late 2002, the rate of HCV(Hepatitis C Virus) infection was 25.8%, 20 times higher than for the general population (Correctional Service of Canada, 2005; Canadian Journal of Public Health, 2004).

Medical personnel work with the entire population, whereas correctional staff are tied body and soul to the security aspect of corrections which does not always facilitate a helping relationship towards this type of situation, for which it does not feel prepared. In this environment, however, the support of both the medical team and the supervisor is needed (Krebs, 2002; Lhuilier, 2001; Milly, 2001; Dollard and Winefield, ibid.; Hughes, 1990). When the cell of a person with a communicable disease is searched, this presents real or heightened risks for the person conducting the search given that a syringe or contaminated object may be hidden in the bed frame, a crack in a cupboard or a pile of clothing. Although they attend two- or three-hour information sessions on infections diseases (not to be confused with training), correctional officers are not medical personnel. This could explain a certain reluctance to work with this type of client, regardless of whether or not they present violent behaviour.30 In a study of 957 correctional officers in the United States, only 21.4% of them said they were ready to take on their prevention role in this type of interaction (Godin, Gagnon, Alary and Morissette, 2001). Moreover, although this is extremely rare, cells can be infested with vermin such as fleas, lice, or cockroaches. This increases stress, frustration and the fear of taking action in what they might perceive as being an area outside the scope of their duties.

30 Commissioner's Directive 567 (para.18(j)) provides that all correctional officers shall be issued protective masks and gloves to be able to administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation while waiting for Health Services staff or the ambulance service.

For inmates with mental health problems, as a general rule correctional officers are assigned on a voluntary basis. Dealing with the suffering of such inmates requires a two-fold adjustment in that these inmates have been convicted of criminal offences as well as being afflicted with mental health problems.31 The overlap between these two conditions is by no means easy for officers, especially when the therapeutic staff is not present and during the emergencies that tend to occur during evenings, nights, weekends and holidays (Hickey, 2005; Dvoskin and Spiers, 2004; Fazel and Danesh, 2002; Appelbaum, Hickey and Packer, 2001; Tartaglini and Safran, 1997).

31 In 2005, 11% of inmates had been diagnosed with some form of mental illness, with 6% having been admitted to a hospital for a mental health problem prior to incarceration (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2005).

What is more, from dealing with a group of people who are there against their wishes and who have a multitude of problems – all of which are unique and urgent and must be handled immediately – and in the midst of crisis or apathy, correctional staff end up becoming desensitized. At least, that is how it appears, and that is the critical point here, because there is no getting used to the misfortunes of others. Whether members of the clinical, nursing or security staff, people who work in corrections cannot fail to be moved when faced with the body of an inmate who has just ended his own life (Callahan, 2004).

As we saw in the first part of this study, which introduces the subject of stress and includes a literature review on that subject (Bensimon, 2004), various researchers have begun analyzing the causes of burnout arising from compassion and empathy, not only for victims, but also among staff. In this confined space the suffering of others is seen and heard, and violence is graphically depicted in every assessment report, but there is also anger, powerlessness and the shock experienced in the face of certain types of sickening and sordid revelations (Finn and Kuck, 2003; Kadambi and Truscott, 2003; Serniclaes, 2003; Valent, 2002; Acker, 1999; Lusignan, 1999; Stamm, 1999; Figley, 2002; Schaufeli and Peeters, ibid.; Farrenkopf, 1992). This phenomenon gives rise to what is referred to as vicarious tramautization, a term used for the first time by McCann and Pearlman in 1990.

This phenomenon describes the various impacts, both psychological and physiological, entailed in working with involuntary and criminal clients. However, most of the authors writing on this subject looked at only two types of workers: those who are on the front lines on the outside, i.e., rescue workers, ambulance attendants and police officers, and those who intervene afterwards, i.e., psychologists, criminologists, social workers and psychiatrists who work with sex offenders (Way, VanDeusen, Martin, Applegate and Jandle, 2004).

Criminologists and psychologists in correctional institutions, who deal with all types of criminal behaviour, always work on an individual basis behind closed doors. Their perceptions of events are vivid and detailed because of the mental ability they have acquired through book learning to retranscribe, understand and analyze the reliving of events as communicated through the file and through inmates' self-revelations. Although they have access to that same information, correctional officers find themselves immersed in a sea of inmates. They are all right in front of them and, although the detailed facts are not always at hand, officers see all of these people through the lens of behaviours and attitudes that may be different from those the clinician sees in an interview.

3) Third and final disadvantage: environment and negative atmosphere. Correctional officers share this experience with a number of other occupations. Because of the confinement they experience, medical personnel are similarly disadvantaged, as if forced to practice a bargain-basement or second-rate type of medicine, to use Milly's image (ibid.). But first, what is meant by environmentand negative atmosphere, given that those words were written by the majority of respondents and for every period in the study?

Environment. It must be said that correctional facilities offer very little in the way of ergonomics to those who provide security from control posts within a unit or at a vantage point from which everything can be seen, generally surrounded by bars and armoured windows for when the doors are opened; control posts with screens linked to surveillance cameras; towers; or at the reception area, admissions, the kitchen, the laundry room, the visiting area, or along a walkway or in a shop. There are no potted plants, no decorative or personal objects, virtually no posters or pictures, furniture that has seen better days, fluorescent lights everywhere, and dull, cold, sombre colours, the ultimate testimony of the people who have been there for so long yet are only passing through. Nothing resembles a penitentiary or a prison more than another penitentiary or prison. This decor devoid of all personal touches cannot fail to have an impact on daily life. Correctional officers do not work at stores or in office towers.

Negative atmosphere. Many variables encountered by those who have just arrived from the staff college will influence their behaviour and attitudes. The research of Arnold (2005), McCoy and Evans (2005) and the American Correctional Association (2004) on this point refers to a deterioration in affect, motivation and performance that has an impact in virtually all areas of social life, both at and outside work. We will return to this point later when we address the themes of motivation for correctional work and intrinsic motivation towards work in general.

From the comments the new correctional officers wrote, job insecurity emerged as one of the elements of this atmosphere described as negative. The introduction of new policies, legislation and work tools32 in an environment that appears to be based on routine generates conflict at both an individual and a group level (resistance to change, criticism, cynicism, motivation based on purely extrinsic factors). This notion is addressed here under a number of different themes in turn (Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson and Anthony, 1999; Drory, 1993).

32 This did not apply to one of the more recent innovations: a new uniform. On June 1, 2005, a new uniform was introduced for all federal correctional officers. At this point it seems to have been well accepted, although for some the uniform itself represents an obstacle to free communication. For others, it clarifies roles in terms of security, respect for the position and upholding the law, especially at maximum- and medium-security institutions.

There has been a chain reaction over the past 20 years, with part-time employment on call and for an unspecified period contributing to a sense of uncertainty that is not very conducive to personal growth for those who are on call vis-à-vis those who are permanent employees (Sverke, Hellgren and Näswall, 2002). Nonetheless, this scenario is becoming more and more common in many fields. Let us take the example of the auto industry and the thousands of layoffs attributed to competition. In the United States and Canada, one of every five jobs is temporary (casual, temporary part-time or term), and this is a multidimensional source of stress. In Europe and Australia, such jobs account for 18 to 25% of the total payroll (Gallagher, 2005). And this economic reality affects corrections as well. There were 42 comments written in response to the qualitative questions that indicated dissatisfaction with the precarious nature of casual and term employment. Aside from attitudes relating to work, performance, and physical and psychological health, the waiting period for a potential appointment is one of the factors behind the high turnover rate for correctional staff. It can take years for a position to open up, which may cause the person to give up (Corrections Compendium, 2004; Lommel, 2004; Sverke and Hellgren, 2002). In the above-mentioned study by the American Correctional Association, the turnover rate ranged from 3.8% for the state of New York to 41% for Louisiana and 73% for Delaware. Some of the main reasons given were shift work, job insecurity, stress and a poor choice in the initial recruitment.

Moreover, as an inevitable outcome of the generational shift, attitudes are changing, and aspirations along with them. Until the late 1970s, correctional officers joined the Correctional Service of Canada with the sense that they were lucky to have found work that offered certain guarantees: stability, a steady income, and fringe benefits found only in the public sector. But many things have changed over the past 10 years. The position of correctional officer is increasingly being used as a gateway for climbing up through the ranks, for moving on to another career as a parole officer or program officer, or to gain access to another government department.

One other finding associated with the lack of job stability is withdrawal, which in turn is fed by a discretionary leeway that is becoming more and more restricted. This phenomenon inevitably leads to a decline in the level of job satisfaction (Johnson and Price, ibid.; Crouch, ibid. ). The scale for job satisfaction after the first year of service gives an overview of this trend.

CSC constitutes a single organization from one end of the country to the other. Institutions in western Canada must follow exactly the same criteria as their counterparts in the east, and every action taken must be based on the rule of law. Institutional heads are responsible for enforcing the law and ensuring that no distinct organizational feature differentiates one institution from another (as was the case previously). The disenchantment associated with the rate of turnover of institutional head, the requirement to manage based on the rule of law, and what is perceived as a loss of power in the position of correctional officer often lead the latter to avoid making decisions that could lead to what might be considered situations of their own making and ultimately to stick with the routine, i.e., the static aspect of security.

Not only did lack of autonomy and latitude in decision-making figure among the factors the officers identified as major disadvantages in our study, these two factors can also have an impact on stress and turnover rates, including the decision to take early retirement (Griffin, 2006; Turcotte and Schellenberg, 2005).

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 Officers. Please list them.

To the list of six key words previously identified for the Pre A and Post questionnaires, 11 others were added. However, of that list of 17 key words, only one category had a frequency of 10 or more responses: external influences.

 
Key words 3 months (n=38) 1 year (n=38)
External influences 10 10

Family, friends and acquaintances play an important role in the choice of this career, and this factor has an impact on the person in his or her work. For the Pre A period, of 233 participants, 73 mentioned family influence.

As we saw in the second part of this study, the pre-institutional perspective as evidenced by statements made by people with no experience in the field can change over time. Such a perspective is maintained partially by the various external influences (family, friends, and acquaintances).

Let us now look at the analysis of the 19 scales for the two measurement times (n = 38 for three months to one year) and by comparison of the two genders.33 As previously mentioned, each of the 19 scales is supported for illustrative purposes by the other three frequencies: (n = 70) for three months; (n = 51) for six months and (n = 47) for one year.34 However, attitudinal changes cannot be addressed without a description of the overall context. This means putting into perspective the new work environment in which the new recruits find themselves to put into perspective the new work environment in which the new recruits find themselves, This context has the most powerful influence on new arrivals since it is tied in with the methods used by existing correctional officers, with whom there will be a multitude of interactions in the very near future.

33 As was done for the Pre A and Postquestionnaires, the data were formatted using Excel so that descriptive analyses could be carried out using the SPSS 13 software and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) calculated (Neter, Wasserman & Kutner, 1990). The latter make it possible to show differences by gender for each of the 19 measurement scales. Tests of between- and within-subject effects were also calculated for each of the periods taken individually and for 3 months and 1 year.

34 See Appendix V.

It is thus impossible to address the theme of subculture and other related subjects without providing a few examples.

4) Attitudes towards correctional work

*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 way that an occupation is portrayed ties in with self-esteem, since it stays with people throughout their social and professional lives. Regardless of how useful they are, many occupations do not have a public profile. Nonetheless, they are all important in a society in which all members depend on their neighbours, be they garbage collectors, taxi drivers, locksmiths, plumbers or gravediggers. Some professions, like those of morticians and pathologists, provoke revulsion. Some, like that of high steel workers who help build skyscrapers, arouse fear. Others still invoke a mixture of different feelings: admiration (firefighters), scorn (tax collectors), and indifference (ushers). Some work, like that of exterminators, is thought of as peculiar. Finally, there are those whose image comes from stereotypes that are completely fabricated and widely maintained through books, movies and the media. Correctional officers fall into this latter category. This is widely reflected in all of the literature written on this subject, both in North America, as is the case in Canada with Farkas, (ibid.); Latulipe, (ibid.); Robinson, Porporino and Simour (ibid.); Plecas and Maxim, (ibid.); Tellier and Robinson, (ibid.); Cullen et al., (ibid.); Poole and Regoli (ibid.), and in Europe, with Mbanzoulou, (ibid.); De Coninck and Loodts (ibid.); Froment (ibid.); Benguigui, Chauvenet and Orlic, (ibid.); Aymard and Lhuilier (ibid.); Cario (ibid.); Montandon and Crettaz (ibid.).

On the other hand, this lack of proper recognition can mainly be attributed to the in the image constructed by the media, which invariably portray the inmate as a victim who has long since repented and the guard as his eternal executioner ready to lead him to the gallows. This represents a flagrant contradiction with the fact that a court of law has imposed a penalty on the perpetrator of a crime, for whom responsibility is then assigned to a peace officer. It is the former image that emerges from almost all of the Hollywood films made about prison ( Wilson and O'Sullivan, 2004; O'Sullivan, 2001) . Some of the most classic examples are Riot in Cell Block 11 (1954), Birdman of Alcatraz (1962), Cool Hand Luke (1967), Attica (1980), Brubaker(1980), and An Innocent Man (1989) as well as The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Dead Man Walking (1995), The Green Mile (1999) and Animal Factory (2000). And the cinematic repertoire in other countries is not much better: in France with Le Trou (1960) and Zonzon (1998), in Quebec with Le Party(1990), and in Germany with Das Experiment(2001), which is evocative of Stanley Milgram's work on obedience to authority in the perpetration of torture (1964).

This distortion is maintained by the depiction of these men and women as eager to inflict corporal punishment when, in fact, there exists an empathetic and helping relationship that is witnessed only by the inmates and the correctional officers within the correctional institution.

Before going any further with this first scale, the symbolism of authority, consistency and confinement first needs to be demystified. The following question may appear simplistic but is worthy of some consideration. What is a correctional officer? Do we really have an accurate idea of the role these people play, their duties, what they experience every day, and what sets their work apart from that of other peace officers?

One of the statements on the questionnaire pertains to the way in which the work of correctional officers is perceived by others: For various reasons, the type of work we do in corrections has a bad image with the public. It is very surprising to see how this attitude persisted throughout the five phases ( Pre A, Post, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year), in five different groups and in the five regions. This singular image remained unchanged during the training period and remained once people had entered the profession.

On the very first day of training at the staff college, 92 of the 233 (40%) participants said they agreed with this statement, as seen in the table for the Pre A period - For various reasons, the type of work we do in corrections has a bad image with the public:

PreA sec2 Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 92 39.5 39.8 39.8
False 139 59.7 60.2 100.0
Total 231 99.1 100.0  
Missing System missing 2 .9  
Total   233 100.0  

Among the 147 people who successfully completed their training after three months in class, the 144 who responded to the statement - For various reasons, the type of work we do in corrections has a bad image with the public, 57 (39%) said they agreed with this statement:

Post sec2 Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 57 38.8 39.6 39.6
False 87 59.2 60.4 100.0
Total 144 98.0 100.0  
Missing System missing 3 2.0  
Total   147 100.0  

After the first three months at an institution, 19 of the 69 respondents (27%) said they agreed with the statement. This period presented the highest numbers for satisfaction with regard to public attitudes towards the profession (71.4% as compared to 27.1%):

3mos-sec2-Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 19 27.1 27.5 27.5
False 50 71.4 72.5 100.0
Total 69 98.6 100.0  
Missing System missing 1 1.4  
Total   70 100.0  

The percentages for the 37 participants who responded to the three-month and one-year questionnaires were essentially the same as for the group at just 3 months (81.1% satisfied as compared to 19% who disagreed with the statement):

3mos-sec2-Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 7 18.9 18.9 18.9
False 30 81.1 81.1 100.0
Total 37 100.0 100.0  
Of 38 participants, only one did not answer the question, yielding 37 respondents.

After the half-year at an institution, of 50 responses, 21 (41%) said they agreed with the statement - For various reasons, the type of work we do in corrections has a bad image with the public.There was a change over time, given that the percentage for this negative image was 41.2% (true) as compared to 57% (false):

6mos-sec2-Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 21 41.2 42.0 42.0
False 29 56.9 58.0 100.0
Total 50 98.0 100.0  
Missing System missing 1 2.0  
Total   51 100.0  

This finding was similar to that obtained for the 37 participants who responded to the above statement at 3 months and 1 year:

6mos-sec2-Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 13 35.1 41.9 41.9
False 18 48.6 58.1 100.0
Total 31 83.8 100.0  
Missing System missing 6 16.2  
Total   37 100.0  
Of 38 participants, only one did not answer the question, yielding 37 respondents.

For the final questionnaire, administered after the first year spent at an institution, 17 of the 46 participants disagreed and 29 continued to believe that the public held a negative image of the work they do:

1yr-sec2-Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 17 36.2 37.0 37.0
False 29 61.7 63.0 100.0
Total 46 97.9 100.0  
Missing System missing 1 2.1  
Total   47 100.0  

The findings for the 37 participants who responded at 3 months and 1 year also showed a deterioration in this image:

1yr-sec2-Q2.9 acw9
  Valid Cumulative
  Frequency Percent percentage percentage
Valid True 15 40.5 40.5 40.5
False 22 59.5 59.5 100.0
Total 37 100.0 100.0  
Of 38 participants, only one did not answer the question, yielding 37 respondents.

In these three tables that present our core sample, women were less likely than men to believe that the type of work they do has a bad image with the public. The cross-tabulation table shows this difference in opinions regarding society's attitudes between the two periods:

Cross-tabulation 3mos-sec2-Q2.9 acw9*
1yr-sec2-Q2.9 acw9
Group size
    1yr-sec2-Q2.9 acw9  
    True False Total
3mos-sec2-Q2.9 acw9 True 6 1 7
False 9 21 30
Total   15 22 37

Is this merely a perception after a year of employment at the Correctional Service of Canada that the public has a bad image of corrections? No, it is a reality. This takes us back to the first questions, added in 1999 by Gannon (2004), with respect to the Canadian public's assessment of the prison system in general.

In his report on the General Social Survey, Gannon (op. cit.) tends to show that there has been a slight improvement over the past six years in the public's perception of corrections: 28% had a negative perception of the role of prisons in terms of rehabilitation in 1999 as compared to 23% in 2004. This image continues to apply. Close to one quarter of the Canadians surveyed (23%) were unable to give an opinion as to how prisons were performing in supervising and controlling inmates, and 24% had no opinion regarding the efforts made by correctional services towards helping prisoners become law-abiding citizens. Those percentages remained essentially the same for 1999 (22%) and 2004 (26%):

Canadians' assessment of prisons have improved since 1999

To put into perspective the opinions of Canadians, let us take another look at the work of correctional officers. It all starts with people who are arrested for committing one or more criminal offences. If they are found guilty, a judge hands down a prison sentence relative to the seriousness of the act, the circumstances surrounding the offence and the interpretation of those circumstances. That sentence is served in confinement, and without supervision no one would stay for longer than an hour. This requires an authority structure that is sufficiently present and flexible and that has a deterrent effect that prevents the person from escaping. Such structures have been continually evolving since the late 19 th century. Gone are the ball and chain, the striped outfit, the gallows and corporal punishment. Whether we like it or not however, there remains a duality, a type of imposed marriage between two counterparts condemned to live under the same roof: the inmate and the one whose job is above all to watch over him in the name of the law. This requires much more than a salary, fringe benefits, or a willingness to exercise what is referred to as static supervision alone (it will be recalled that affinity for security work no longer appears for any of the frequencies for any of the five administrative regions).

As is the case with medical personnel, police officers and soldiers, to wear this uniform you have to believe: believe that you can help your neighbour while keeping a person locked up in a respectful and humane manner; believe in the possibility that once this hardship intended to have a deterrent effect – incarceration – is over, the other person can choose never to return. Those who practise this profession must enjoy giving of themselves, know how to listen, be able to stop people from doing things without using force, and above all communicate. It is because correctional officers do believe, and because they are the glue that holds things together in the thousand-and-one interactions that occur every day, that order can be maintained within the prison population. Without the continual interrelationship known as communication, how else could this occur in a unit of 70 to 80 inmates with only two other officers? Unfortunately, although it is omnipresent, few researchers have shown an interest in the effects of socialization in correctional facilities.

In reality, as with many occupations, attitudes and behaviours may degenerate in some cases for many different reasons, but the correctional setting affords little place for a lack of belief or for improvisation. Otherwise, the inevitable result would be an absence of motivation, negativity and most likely abandonment while the person waited to find other work somewhere else. Time passes very slowly for someone who no longer believes but decides to stay anyway. Such a person's actions become mechanical, devoid of emotional involvement. Sarcasm and bitterness begin to emerge in the person's early thirties while he or she waits for retirement. To use the slang of this milieu, the officer ends up doing time also. However, as we will see in the following pages, the actual situation is much more complex.

As can be seen in the table below, out of a possible score of 12 on the scale measuring attitudes towards correctional work, our sample had a mean score of 10.4 at 3 months and 9.4 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 10.1; 6 months (n = 51) with 9.8; and 1 year (n = 47) with 9.3. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they are 9.9 and 8.2 respectively for the men and 10.7 and 10.2 for the women:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Attitudes towards Male 9.8933 1.69851 15
correctional work (3mos) Female 10.7312 1.66153 23
Total 10.4005 1.70451 38
Attitudes towards Male 8.2121 2.86073 15
correctional work (1yr) Female 10.1834 1.97507 23
Total 9.4053 2.52379 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that time had a significant effect (p = 0.002):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 22.555 1 22.555 11.496 .002
Greenhouse Geisser 22.555 1.000 22.555 11.496 .002
Huynh-Feldt 22.555 1.000 22.555 11.496 .002
Lower bound 22.555 1.000 22.555 11.496 .002
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 5.831 1 5.831 2.972 .093
Greenhouse Geisser 5.831 1.000 5.831 2.972 .093
Huynh-Feldt 5.831 1.000 5.831 2.972 .093
Lower bound 5.831 1.000 5.831 2.972 .093
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 70.631 36 1.962  
Greenhouse Geisser 70.631 36.000 1.962
Huynh-Feldt 70.631 36.000 1.962
Lower bound 70.631 36.000 1.962

The tests of between-subjects effects also show a significant difference for the two genders (p = 0.024):

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 6911.651 1 6911.651 1077.671 .000
Gender 35.823 1 35.823 5.586 .024
Error 230.886 36 6.414  

For the findings established on the basis of the 12 statements pertaining to Attitudes towards correctional work, the means for the two measurement times remain relatively high for both genders (according to the scoring scale) but showed a significant decrease over time. It will nonetheless be noted from this diagram that the profile shows a continual decrease for both genders that is much more pronounced for the men. With a mean score of 10 for the Post period, i.e., at the very end of the vocational training at the staff college (although the subjects are not the same), the group of men dropped to 9.2 after three months at an institution and then to 8.2 after a year:

Profile diagram: Attitudes towards correctional work

The mean score for the women, which was 10.5 after 3 months of training at staff college and 10.7 after the first 3 months at an institution, remained high after one year at 10.1 and no significant difference is recorded.

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

While we expect merchants to be happy and satisfied with the goods they sell to their customers, receptionists to be smiling and friendly with the people they deal with, and hospital staff to be truly compassionate in treating their patients, the situation is entirely different when dealing with a population involuntarily and permanently incarcerated. Every cell, every route taken from point A to point B, the slightest object, the smallest request, the fact of being held within these walls – all of these things remind inmates that they are physically confined, that the law requires that they be here and nowhere else. Those being guarded and those doing the guarding co-exist in close quarters, and no matter what inmates may have done to warrant being incarcerated, they must learn to get along with these professionals who are so much more visible than any other, if only because of the uniforms that set them apart.

Those who have been incarcerated must learn to live with this close proximity from the moment they first get up in the morning and at all hours of the day and night. They must adhere to rules and regulations symbolized by the uniform. However, regardless of the nature of this authority structure, behind the tendency to downplay the facts, the lying, the rationalization or the denial of a criminal act, deep down inmates are well aware of what they have done, what took place before, during and after the fact, and above all why they did what they did. But this is extremely difficult to accept, especially when the mere presence of those who represent this incarceration serves to charge, try and convict them a little more each day. For inmates to accept this situation, it would mean remaining silent in the face of what they no longer have: the freedom to come and go wherever they please, the loved ones who are so far away, the apartment or house now replaced by a 2.7 by 3 metre space devoid of furniture and any other personal effects, and neighbours whom they have not chosen and who, depending on their mood at the time, may make their presence known in different ways and for a wide variety of reasons.

The attitudes that correctional officers take towards inmates can be seen in the exchange of a simple look, a way of moving around on a range, of opening a cell door (which always makes noise because of its heavy hinges) and the manner and tone they use on the loudspeaker and through the confused look of family members who have just been checked at the entrance for visiting time. But that is not all. Behind the confinement are the images that get underneath an inmate's skin and against which he or she is powerless because they require reconciling yesterday's actions with what is being experienced today. What hope is there for recognition towards those who are experiencing such confinement? The reality is that both sides, the guard and the guarded, tend to come from the same social class and geographic environment and to have the same average age: 38 for inmates,35 41 for male officers and 37 for female officers.36

35 Source: OMS, December 31, 2004.

36 Source: Human Resources Management System (HRMS) at November 4, 2004. This represents a national average for all CSC correctional officers.

Seeing correctional officers in this light serves to support attitudes on both sides. To illustrate the chain reaction involving these two parties, let us take a purely fictional comment made by an officer that exemplifies this situation:

- I didn't go looking for you (...) and yet you've come back 3 times (...) it seems you like it here!

This simplistic and reductionist comment is strikingly banal in its everyday truth. This simple insult contains within it a multitude of behaviours and attitudes on the officer's part that invoke scorn, failure and a certain powerlessness in the face of the judicial process that seem to suggest it is all a matter of fate. It is true that correctional officers do not provide follow-up on the outside and see only those who return, for reasons they do not always seek to understand. The person has been tried, convicted and incarcerated – end of story. No, the officer did not set out to find him but it is because of him that he has a job, an exceedingly difficult job that deserves to be recognized for its true worth. What is more, behaviour is moulded by circumstances, places and individual personalities. This type of functionalist structure based on forced co-operation involves a series of mechanisms that neutralize the emotional dissonance generated by the seriousness of the environment and the imposition of a schedule based on the number of years to be served in prison. There is thus no reason to believe that the person becomes desensitized over the years.

That said, although the roles are no longer the same as they were 20, 30 or even 50 years ago, there will always be this barrier that separates those who are now captive from those who, in the interests of security, keep them captive – at least, for as long as there are prisons.

The effects of the power and authority structures in place may well determine the attitude to be adopted but do not necessarily mean that behaviours can be changed. In keeping with the objectives of institutional management, an officer may very well perform the assigned task without necessarily being motivated to do so. Others adopt a more coercive, formal or helpful approach according to a classification of behaviour (Bensimon, ibid.; Muir, 1977). And that is where all the difference lies. For the work to be done properly, a minimum of belief is required because in everyday life – and the literature proves this – correctional officers are able to exert a direct and highly positive influence on the prison population (Kratcoski, ibid.; Toch, 2004; Muraskin, ibid.; Gilbert, 1997; Seitz, 1989). Many of them do offer this type of compassion, which differs from that of a criminologist or psychologist. Because correctional officers are on the scene, many conflicts and high-risk situations can be defused, often without the person in question even being aware of these efforts. This phenomenon ties in with empathy, which we will examine at the end of this series of 19 scales.

That said, we cannot overstate the artificiality of the prison world and the attitudes to which it inevitably gives rise on both sides. From the time of Clemmer's work in 1940 to that of Sykes in the late 50s, there has been a series of studies on the effects of prisonization, or assimilation into the prison subculture and deprivation of social norms (Gillespie, ibid.; Jones and Schmid, ibid.; Zingraff, ibid.). Regardless of the provisions and measures taken by the penitentiary administration, prisonization cannot fail to have an impact on prison staff (Trotter, 1999; Ramirez, ibid.).

As shown by Etzioni in 1961, people who are new to an organization bring with them cultural baggage, well-entrenched habits, and acquired behaviours in terms of identification and perceptions, with or without outside influences from family, friends and acquaintances. Once the period of vocational training is over, there is a two-fold learning process that involves applying what has been learned and complying with the group, a process that applies to both genders (Hogan et al., 2004). This initial homogeneity for both sexes in terms of the work to be done is found among police officers as well and in certain high-risk situations, with women demonstrating the same skills in performance as their male colleagues (Paoline and Terril, 2004).

With the support of new legislation in both the United States and Canada, the increasingly frequent imprisonment of criminal gangs has radically transformed the profile of the prison population over the past two decades (Fleisher and Decker, 2001). With the enactment of subsection 467.11(1) of the Criminal Code, which deals with participation in the activities of a criminal organization, organized crime is becoming more and more present within prisons, to the point of having a direct influence on institutional security.37

37 Although it is difficult to precisely count them, the percentage of inmates affiliated with organized crime is estimated at approximately 15%, a 25% increase since 1996-97 (Nafekh & Stys, 2004).

The counterculture associated with the different types of inmates is often evoked as a substitute for what has long been commonly referred to as the prison subculture, which has split the prison world into two separate parts: those responsible for guarding inmates and those who were guarded. This phenomenon has become much more complex, partly because of the diversity of rival gangs, each with its own interests that are brought in from the outside, and with the images they use to clearly identify their differences (Rhodes, ibid.; Pollock, ibid.).

Plecas and Maxim (ibid.), and more recently Fisher-Giorlando and Jiang (2000), showed that after a six-year field study, the behaviour of both male and female recruits was less positive and that, with no significant differences in terms of race or age, this had to do with a certain rigidity inherent to the prison environment. The situation is slightly different in the United States, where a number of studies have shown that correctional officers who are members of visible minorities had a stronger presence in terms of reintegration (Crouch, 2003; Arthur, 1994). This is not the case in Canada, if only because of the geographic dispersal of the various types of prison populations and their low levels of ethnic representation as compared to the Caucasian majority.38 The diversity of national programs that have been started is unequalled by our neighbours to the south. CSC focuses above all on public safety through clinical assessment and support of offenders.

38 Of a total of 21,978 federally incarcerated inmates, the black population makes up 6.4%, with 16.1% for Aboriginals, 4.1% for Asians and 70.1% for Caucasians (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2005). For a profile of the demographics in prisons in the United States, the reader is encouraged to refer to America Behind Bars: Trends in Imprisonment, 1950 to 2000 (Ruddell, 2004).

According to Freeman (ibid.), shifts in correctional officers' attitudes towards inmates (regardless of their profile or membership in a criminal group) are based on seven types of power:

  1. Legitimate authority conferred by the law;
  2. Coercive authority prescribed by regulation for their work;
  3. The power of reward (discretionary role);
  4. The power of expertise (knowledge and control of the field);
  5. Bargaining power (recognition of their role when conflict arises);
  6. Discretionary power (discretionary power governed by the law) (Sater, 2003); and
  7. The power to make recommendations (active involvement of the officer in case management).

The nature of a correctional officer's work therefore stems to varying degrees from this position of authority and the dialectic surrounding control of inmates' use of time and space. This inevitably leads to behavioural responses towards these others who are physically and socially isolated. These attitudes are stronger in maximum- and medium-security institutions39 depending on the type of client (protection case, sex offender, high-profile case), and, as we will see a little later, in the description of officers' beliefs and values with respect to deterrence.

39 The percentage of the federally incarcerated prison population in maximum- and medium-security institutions is 15% and 64.5% respectively (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, ibid.).

One other characteristic that has an impact on attitudes towards inmates is largely associated with two incompatible elements: the coercive aspect of supervision (which requires a degree of physical separation) and the actions taken to facilitate optimal reintegration (which require both empathy and assistance) and thus greater closeness.

In the table below, we see that out of a possible score of 34 to 170, mean scores on the scale for Attitudes towards inmates were 115.9 at 3 months and 111.6 at 1 year. The findings were similar for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 116.0; 6 months (n = 51) with 114.4; and 1 year (n = 47) with 111.3:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Attitudes towards Male 108.8667 12.09998 15
inmates (3mos) Female 120.4484 12.89221 23
Total 115.8766 13.67988 38
Attitudes towards Male 102.2404 16.42025 15
inmates (1yr) Female 117.7228 13.40772 23
Total 111.6113 16.36236 38
Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 397.005 1 397.005 6.838 .013
Greenhouse Geisser 397.005 1.000 397.005 6.838 .013
Huynh-Feldt 397.005 1.000 397.005 6.838 .013
Lower bound 397.005 1.000 397.005 6.838 .013
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 69.071 1 69.071 1.190 .283
Greenhouse Geisser 69.071 1.000 69.071 1.190 .283
Huynh-Feldt 69.071 1.000 69.071 1.190 .283
Lower bound 69.071 1.000 69.071 1.190 .283
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 2090.217 36 58.062  
Greenhouse Geisser 2090.217 36.000 58.062
Huynh-Feldt 2090.217 36.000 58.062
Lower bound 2090.217 36.000 58.062

The above table of within-subjects effects shows that time had a significant effect ( p = .013) with positive attitudes towards inmates decreasing over time.

The table of between-subjects effects shows a significant gender effect ( p = .005):

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable:
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 916297.124 1 916297.124 2907.410 .000
Gender 3325.014 1 3325.014 10.550 .003
Error 11345.732 36 315.159  

For the 34 statements associated with Attitudes towards inmates, the results show a continual decrease in score over time for both genders indicating a less positive attitude toward inmates over time. The mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution were 108.9 and 102.2 respectively for the men and 120.4 and 117.7 for the women (according to the scoring scale). This diagram shows that the decrease is much more pronounced for the men:

Profile diagram: Attitudes towards inmates

Looking back for a moment, the Postperiod also showed a decrease for the men as compared to the Pre A. At the end of the college period, i.e., after three months of class, the mean scores with respect to Attitudes towards inmates were 118.4 for the men and 121.1 for the women. After one year at an institution, these scores had gone down by 16.6 for the men and 4.1 for the women.

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

It could be believed that positive attitudes towards rehabilitation diminish over the years, that officers are less inclined to believe in the individual's capacity for change (Saylor and Wright, 1992). However, such attitudes are not generalized and are not shared uniformly across institutions. It is often a response to the prison environment, the occupation's lack of visibility, or one or more recent incidents, or it may reflect an attitudinal detachment in light of the lack of recognition on the part of the clinical staff and administration as well as inmates, given that everything seems to start over again with the arrival of each new inmate (Tracy, 2004; Hemmens and Stohr, 2000). A number of variables come into play here: whether there is direct contact with the prison population (static or dynamic position), the occurrence of events that influence how reintegration is perceived (high-profile case, recent assault or threats against a staff member), the fact that correctional officers do not provide follow-up on the outside, or a refusal to recognize that rehabilitation can take place within the correctional setting. An officer's ability to act and his or her knowledge of the criminal world are bounded by the institution itself, to which both newcomers and repeat offenders are admitted.

In response to the questionnaire, and as a kind of outlet, respondents may have had a stronger tendency to attach much greater importance to the negative aspects (amplification) than to those that are positive. Sometimes as well, a person who initially had high hopes for either an organization or those in charge displays a negative attitude of the same magnitude (Brockner, Tyler and Cooper-Schneider, 1992). What the person once believed in terms of reciprocity is no longer there, or never existed. Robinson (1996) has described this situation as a breach of the psychological contract and of trust within an organization.

There are two points worthy of note here:

  1. It is a person's trust in those in charge and in the organization itself that will influence his or her effectiveness from the standpoint of reintegration; and
  2. A breach of the psychological contract is one of the major causes of the loss of trust (Skolnick, 2005; Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995).

In terms of skills, abilities and support for rehabilitation, Cheeseman, Mullings and Marquart (2001), Jurik (ibid.) and previously Sakowski (1990) have observed that there is often a gap between male and female correctional officers working at prisons for men. For Carlson (ibid.), Belknap (1991) and Pollock (1982), female officers are better than their male colleagues at interactions that combine counselling and creativity when a conflict arises. Farkas (1999 b ) contends quite the opposite: aside from confrontational situations, and despite vocational training that would tend to neutralize gender from the beginning, female officers generally conduct themselves in a way that is less indulgent, less friendly, more aggressive and stricter from a disciplinary standpoint but that is also more personalized than that of their male co-workers. The reason for this is that, in a male environment, female officers are intent on proving they have the same endurance because they feel their fellow officers are watching them much more closely, they do not have the same types of interactions (the women do not rely on physical strength) and they are also more inclined to experience pressure of all sorts, including from their co-workers. As well, the pressure that female officers feel is more pronounced than that experienced by their male colleagues (Savicki, Cooley and Gjesvold, 2003). With respect to reintegration programs, few studies to date have examined the characteristics that staff display in terms of how they deliver them and the impact they truly have on them (Figley, ibid.; Lösel, ibid.; Cullen, Latessa, Burton, Lombardo, 1993; Allen and Simonson, 1992).

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Support for Male 32.2667 4.58984 15
rehabilitation (3mos) Female 37.5000 3.77492 23
Total 35.4342 4.81295 38
Support for Male 29.0250 6.34080 15
rehabilitation (1yr) Female 34.8641 3.59666 23
Total 32.5592 2.52379 38

As can be seen from the above table, from a possible score of 9 to 45, the mean scores on the scale measuring support for rehabilitation were 35.4 at 3 months and 32.5 at 1 year. The findings were similar for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 35.2; 6 months (n = 51) with 33.9; and 1 year (n = 47) with 32.6.

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 156.818 1 156.818 18.131 .000
Greenhouse Geisser 156.818 1.000 156.818 18.131 .000
Huynh-Feldt 156.818 1.000 156.818 18.131 .000
Lower bound 156.818 1.000 156.818 18.131 .000
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 1.666 1 1.666 .193 .663
Greenhouse Geisser 1.666 1.000 1.666 .193 .663
Huynh-Feldt 1.666 1.000 1.666 .193 .663
Lower bound 1.666 1.000 1.666 .193 .663
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 311.365 36 8.649  
Greenhouse Geisser 311.365 36.000 8.649
Huynh-Feldt 311.365 36.000 8.649
Lower bound 311.365 36.000 8.649

The table of within-subjects effects shows that time had a significant effect ( p = .001 with support for rehabilitation decreasing during the course of the year).

The table below showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender had a significant effect (p = .005 with women generally showing more support for rehabilitation than the men):

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 81092.577 1 81092.577 2550.660 .000
Gender 556.537 1 556.537 17.505 .000
Error 1144.540 36 31.793  

For these 9 statements pertaining to Support for rehabilitation listed at the beginning of this sub-section, the difference for the 2 measurement times remains relatively higher than average (according to the scoring scale). The mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution were 32.2 and 29 respectively for the men and 37.5 and 34.8 for the women.

The profile diagram shows that the decrease in scores is continual for the men, with a score of 36.5 for the Post period,i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college. The same held true for the women, with a mean score of 37.7:

Profile diagram: Support for rehabilitation

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 by setting an example and showing others that crime does not pay.

* = Inverted question

As Herzog-Evans (1998) writes, institutions tend to be governed by a set of obligations, laws and rules that are tacitly accepted by their members but that, for many reasons, are often circumvented with full impunity. Laws and codes are violated in our everyday lives and standards are disregarded with no one really noticing, and this is such a part of our day-to-day lives that no thought is given to just how serious such transgressions are and the consequences they entail for oneself and others. Examples include working under the table, filing fraudulent tax returns, committing driving offences and driving while impaired.

Every society has its laws, morality and prohibitions, because it is human nature to want to do what is prohibited, or at least to bend the rules. Yet there is no comparison between " respect" for these rules in a free society with that which is systematically imposed on those who are serving prison sentences! How can it be believed that these people, who have committed every type of offence and who are all confined involuntarily in a place that limits their freedom to the fullest extent possible, would not attempt to challenge such prohibitions – especially when it is considered that over 50% of federally incarcerated offenders are recidivists, having received previous sentences of less than three years?40 All of this goes unseen and unknown. For the situation to be otherwise, this would require maintaining permanent supervision that the effects of routine would soon diminish, not to mention the breakdown and extreme tension that would ensue on all sides.

40 Source: Research Branch - Profiles and Forecasts, 2004.

Supervision and the maintenance of order operate along a continuum between two polar opposites: application of the rules versus violation of those rules when a person is caught. Internal rules are intended to promote an idyllic normalization of behaviour in an environment teeming with an offender population that is above all captive, itself governed by small organized crime groups that are growing in number and against which each region has had to take its own special measures. The phenomenon of Aboriginal gangs concentrated in the Prairies Region and the organized crime largely found in the Quebec Region are just two examples of this (Fleisher and Rison, 1999).

The desire to clean up such an environment is idealistic, if not utopian. This utopianism is all the more unrealistic in that applying to the letter all of the prohibitions for which the law provides would be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The catch phrase "zero tolerance", which largely served to legitimize police actions in the major cities in the early' 90s, was a blatant failure despite the billions spent and the use of military methods in the fight against drug trafficking (MacCoun and Reuter, 2001; Fabre, 2003; Greene, 1999; Layton MacKenzie and Craig, 1994; Gordon, 1994). But a prison is not a concentration camp.

For various reasons referred to earlier, rules are broken in every society and in the prison world in particular. Given the extremely heavy concentration and great diversity of crimes found therein, that world remains beyond all comparison (Lab, 2004; Boudon, 1977; Ignatieff, 1978; Pinatel, 1971; Becker, 1963; Sellin, 1938). Non-compliance and the transgression of established standards through the commission of unlawful acts also serve as ways of defusing the tension to which the institutional context gives rise (McCullough, 2006; Milgram, ibid.). It is for that reason that there is a prison within a prison for all those who have committed serious offences as well as for those who remain subject to so-called preventive measures. The latter include those who choose to seek refuge in this prison within a prison rather than face up to the fear of being assaulted, the fear of being afraid, the fear of time, and the fear of the system, to the detriment of all forms of encouragement or incentive to work on oneself in view of a potential release.

For correctional officers, deterrence and security are thus tools that exist only in relation to their opposite: the absence of security (Mbanzoulou, ibid.). Yet the conflicts that bring deterrence into play depending on the type of intervention to be undertaken in a particular situation fall under two categories: conflicts among inmates (the most common) and conflicts between inmates and staff members (far less common).

Conflicts among inmates are often related to various problems such as debts, and even the benign ones can quickly become blown out of proportion with rumours that begin circulating about a particular inmate, a response intended to redeem the person in other people's eyes or to make a name for himself, or the mere fact of also being suspected of informing. Other factors that come into play here are forced cohabitation and the nature of the offence – as if there were a scale that inmates could use to distinguish between a good and a bad criminal act. For example, sexual assault is judged more harshly than importing 10 kilograms of heroin, when the collateral damage from the latter results in thousands of victims; or someone may be targeted for no other reason than that he is too young or too old or is considered bothersome. It takes very little for attitudes to change on either side, which means that officers must step in and then intervene when the situation requires. In short, prison life influences a correctional officer's behaviour and attitudes. This can sometimes lead to demands to adopt more coercive measures (Samak, ibid.), a retreat into an approach based solely on deterrence and security, or a stronger focus on counselling through greater involvement in the case management process (Pallone and Hennessy, 2003).

As can be seen, the theme of deterrence remains extremely vast since it encompasses values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours and taps into the 22 themes presented in this study, with some inevitable overlap (see Correlation between scales for two measurement times: 3 months and 1 year, p. 153).

One final point pertains to the different types of prison populations. While deterrence is a method applied in accordance with very strict rules, the manner in which it is implemented also depends on the officer's and the inmate's personalities.

For many parents, educators, managers, judges, police officers and correctional officers, the imposition of penalties and deterrents is a fact of life, and its consequences are always serious (Oberlé and Gosling, 2004; Huesmann and Podolski, 2003; Fiske, 2000). For this to take place within the criminal justice system, there must first be a trial, a conviction and a classification of the person and the offence. Stereotypes provide a way of processing information very efficiently in that they require no verification and even less thoughtful reasoning as to the 'why' and 'how'. Other people are quickly sized up in what is often a second conviction with no right of appeal. This process is completed with the application of labels such as purse snatcher, junkie, rapist, murderer, space cadet, high maintenance, jailhouse lawyer.

How often do we hear that someone who received only a three-year sentence, for example, deserves to be put to death or locked away forever instead? However, there is nothing more challenging and less natural than becoming part of a prison population, which is nothing like returning to school or joining in group activities at summer camp. Although 51% of federally incarcerated inmates have previously served sentences as young offenders in a secure unit,41 many of them are unable to shake off the hold that incarceration places on them or reduce the tension between a world that was once familiar to them and the one in which they now feel so out of place, which is regimented down to the last detail. No, there is nothing more difficult than permanently bearing the stigma of being incarcerated. This is something that correctional officers, like all other staff members; tend to forget as time passes, especially with the comings and goings of new arrivals as part of the daily routine of this controlled environment.

41 Source: OMS, March 2005. However, this estimate is an under-representation, given the restrictions surrounding access to information under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Beyond this capacity to adapt, which differs from one person to the next, there is the normal and natural human response to being detained against one's will. At some point this will inevitably lead to varying degrees of dysfunctional behaviour as a result of the shock of incarceration, associating with other criminals, or both. And regardless of whether or not they are in segregation, most federally incarcerated inmates have many priority needs in the area of cognitive functioning: 60% for problem solving and 68% for impulsivity (Boe et al., 2003).

What is more, when we are talking about deterrence and beliefs such as the idea that punishing inmates is the only way to prevent them from committing other offences, it should be recalled that in the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, there were 48,732 placements in segregation at federal institutions in Canada, while the total number of inmates was 12,600 per year can inmate may be placed in segregation more than once (Wichmann and Nafekh, 2001). Short of eliminating this practice altogether, how can the number of placements in segregation be reduced in order to meet our objectives of reintegrating offenders, humanizing misunderstanding and reducing costs, if only in terms of the logistics of correctional facilities? How can new methods of deterrence be implemented while respecting people's most basic rights?

Of those 48,732 placements over five years, 10,087 were voluntary, and of that number, 93.8% were for reasons of personal safety. What does that last figure mean? The terminology used is very vague, and no institutional supervision or deterrence has ever managed to reduce it. Are we talking about personal safety or a lack thereof? This nuance in language is not the least of those that we find in one of the other five questions: Sending offenders to jail will not stop them from committing crimes.

The attitude of staff towards inmates in voluntary segregation, which reflects the prison subculture, should not be overlooked (Toch and Adams, 2002; Carriere, 1989). As previously noted by Tellier, Wormith and Gendreau in 1984 and then by Ellis (ibid.), the extreme dependency of this type of population towards the staff on site has a boomerang effect. What else remains for these inmates whose confinement is all the more pronounced given that they are separated even from the regular prison population? Their only point of contact is the correctional officer assigned to this unit to bring their meals and their mail, to take them out into the yard or simply to provide matches when they want to have a smoke.

Inmates in segregation often show a strong dependency on their correctional officers, which is understandable given that the latter are the only intermediary present for 3 shifts and often convey written requests. Because these inmates are isolated and even more restricted in their movements, attitudes towards deterrence and security will also influence the officers working there.

And then there are those who, for a thousand-and-one reasons, file complaints and grievances, either on an occasional basis for a specific reason or simply as a way of passing time by generating some 50 or so complaints a week. For many inmates, this is simply a way of saying, "I'm alive!" As a response to the physical states resulting from confinement, filing a complaint becomes a legitimate way of channelling one's energy. This type of legal procedure, even when taken to extremes, will always be preferable to any kind of verbal or physical assault.42 New correctional officers see this type of thing every day, in contrast with certain basic principles learned during training at the staff college.

42 Source: CSC Corporate Reporting System, 2005. Of a total of 18,958 complaints and grievances filed in 2004-2005, 3,466 (18%) were successful.

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Deterrence (3mos) Male 13.6000 3.04256 15
Female 12.6957 3.33623 23
Total 13.0526 3.21271 38
Deterrence (1yr) Male 15.2000 4.50714 15
Female 12.9130 3.24616 23
Total 13.8158 3.90326 38

As can be seen from the above table, on our scale measuring support for deterrence, from a possible score of 5 to 25, the mean scores were 13.0 at 3 months and 13.8 after 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 14.0; 6 months (n = 51) with 14.1; and 1 year (n = 47) with 13.5. It will be recalled that, in this case, the higher the score, the stronger the person's attitude with respect to the deterrent aspect of the occupation.

The table of within-subjects effects shows that time had a significant effect ( p = .05 with support for deterrence increasing over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 14.993 1 14.993 4.787 .035
Greenhouse Geisser 14.993 1.000 14.993 4.787 .035
Huynh-Feldt 14.993 1.000 14.993 4.787 .035
Lower bound 14.993 1.000 14.993 4.787 .035
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 8.678 1 8.678 2.771 .105
Greenhouse Geisser 8.678 1.000 8.678 2.771 .105
Huynh-Feldt 8.678 1.000 8.678 2.771 .105
Lower bound 8.678 1.000 8.678 2.771 .105
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 112.757 36 3.132  
Greenhouse Geisser 112.757 36.000 3.132
Huynh-Feldt 112.757 36.000 3.132
Lower bound 112.757 36.000 3.132

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 13438.232 1 13438.232 621.869 .000
Gender 46.232 1 46.232 2.139 .152
Error 777.939 36 21.609  

For the five statements pertaining to Deterrence, the results for the two measurement times remain within average range (according to the scoring scale). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first three months and after one year at an institution, they are 13.6 and 15.2 respectively for the men (slight increase in support of deterrence) and 12.7 and 12.9 for the women (a difference that is not significant). For the Post period (although the subjects are not the same), the mean was 13.4 for the men and 13.1 for the women.

Between three months and one year at an institution, support for deterrence increased significantly over time and for both genders. And yet, one cannot say that support for deterrence represents a dominant characteristic of new correctional officers, whether male or female, given that, even if their scores increased over time, they never got anywhere near the possible maximum score of 25:

Profile diagram: Deterrence

Clearly, though, many things can change over time. It should be recalled that in their study of federal correctional officers' Attitudes towards inmates, Larivière and Robinson (ibid.) had identified attitudes towards deterrence and punishment as comprising one of the key elements of the position of correctional officers.

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.

This scale measuring human service orientation is meant as a general indicator of a person's affinity for working with people and thereby making a contribution to society. Out of a possible score of 0 to 8 on Human service orientation, our sample showed a mean score of 6.4 at 3 months and 6.0 at 1 year, as seen in the table below. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 6.3; 6 months (n = 51) with 6.2; and 1 year (n = 47) with 5.9:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Human service Male 6.0667 1.90738 15
orientation (3mos) Female 6.5528 1.00121 23
Total 6.3609 1.42499 38
Human service Male 5.7067 2.13925 15
orientation (1yr) Female 6.1801 1.53513 23
Total 5.9932 1.78545 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 2.437 1 2.437 1.922 .174
Greenhouse Geisser 2.437 1.000 2.437 1.922 .174
Huynh-Feldt 2.437 1.000 2.437 1.922 .174
Lower bound 2.437 1.000 2.437 1.922 .174
Time * gender Sphericity assumed .001 1 .001 .001 .981
Greenhouse Geisser .001 1.000 .001 .001 .981
Huynh-Feldt .001 1.000 .001 .001 .981
Lower bound .001 1.000 .001 .001 .981
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 45.648 36 1.268  
Greenhouse Geisser 45.648 36.000 1.268
Huynh-Feldt 45.648 36.000 1.268
Lower bound 45.648 36.000 1.268

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subject effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 2726.210 1 2726.210 685.102 .000
Gender 4.180 1 4.180 1.050 .312
Error 143.254 36 3.979  

For these eight items associated with Human service orientation, the mean scores for the two measurement times remain very high. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first three months and after one year at an institution, they are 6 and 5.7 respectively for the men and 6.5 and 6.1 for the women (the difference is not significant for either time or gender):

Profile diagram:  Human service orientation

Looking back at the Post period (although the subjects are not the same), the mean scores for that time point were essentially the same, at 6.3 for the men and 6.5 for the women after three months of training at the staff college.

For both genders, Human service orientation (in contrast with what we saw earlier with regard to Deterrence) remains a dominant characteristic for correctional officers after their first year at an institution. The scores would indicate that the correctional officers did not focus on the deterrent or controlling aspects of the profession but rather on interpersonal communication and helping aspects. This was borne out by the responses to the two qualitative questions related to the skills and advantages the person believes he or she has before and after joining the Correctional Service of Canada.

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 someone?

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?

As was the case with the CTP period, because the respondents self-reported, they tended to put a positive slant on their responses. This is common in any kind of self-reporting. However, it should be recalled that it is attitudes and behaviour that are measured over time and not a set of responses on a specific theme.

As presented in the table below, out of a possible score of 0 to 10, our sample had a mean score of 5.7 at 3 months and 5.8 at 1 year on social desirability. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 5.5; 6 months (n = 51) with 5.5; and 1 year (n = 47) with 5.7:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Social desirability (3mos) Male 5.5704 1.95355 15
Female 5.7633 1.20432 23
Total 5.6871 1.52169 38
Social desirability (1yr) Male 5.8889 1.41234 15
Female 5.7391 1.25109 23
Total 5.7982 1.30036 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed .393 1 .393 .540 .467
Greenhouse Geisser .393 1.000 .393 .540 .467
Huynh-Feldt .393 1.000 .393 .540 .467
Lower bound .393 1.000 .393 .540 .467
Time * gender Sphericity assumed .533 1 .533 .732 .398
Greenhouse Geisser .533 1.000 .533 .732 .398
Huynh-Feldt .533 1.000 .533 .732 .398
Lower bound .533 1.000 .533 .732 .398
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 26.208 36 .728  
Greenhouse Geisser 26.208 36.000 .728
Huynh-Feldt 26.208 36.000 .728
Lower bound 26.208 36.000 .728

The following table shows that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 2393.385 1 2393.385 709.206 .000
Gender .008 1 .008 .003 .960
Error 121.491 36 3.375  

For these 10 statements pertaining to Social desirability, while not really standing out, the scores for the two measurement times remain slightly above the average on the scoring scale (.7). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they are 5.6 and 5.9 respectively for the men and 5.8 and 5.7 for the women. This is consistent with the findings for the previous theme pertaining to human service orientation. For the Post period (i.e., at the end of the first 3 months of training at the staff college) the mean for the men was 5.1 and 5.3 for the women:

Profile diagram: Social desirability

For both genders, Social desirability also remained a dominant characteristic for correctional officers after the first year at an institution.

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.

Correctional work has long served as a means of employment for many former members of the military and as a way of preserving their cultural heritage.43 The work of Jacobs in the late 70s (ibid.) showed that most correctional officers had not been attracted to this occupation out of a need to punish and even less to impose authority, but first and foremost by the extrinsic aspect of stable employment that is usually offered in rural areas and close to their homes. Traditionally, learning took place on the job after a very short period of training at the staff college. Although things have changed a great deal, prison remains what it was originally: a place of confinement based on discipline, rules and regulations.

43 To find examples of this, one need only refer to the structural and hierarchical organizational charts, the many acronyms, the uniform, and terms such as " officer", " recruit", " mess", " rounds", " guard", " infirmary", " shooting range", " temporary absence" and " canteen".

To become a correctional officer nowadays, the requirements with respect to vocational training extend well beyond a limited period of instruction. New methods and programs, not to mention opportunities for continuous learning, encourage those concerned to go beyond supervision and become more involved in relational aspects. This can cause friction between those who were trained 25 years ago and the new generation that is being asked to comply with this duality: security and helping relationships.

However, it would not be accurate to believe that correctional officers are unprepared for this. Their involvement in unit management is nothing new. It dates back to August 1971 with the creation of the position of living unit officer (LUO) for medium- and minimum-security institutions. For all three security levels, living unit officers became correctional officers II as of June 1, 1991.44

44 The work description for the Correctional Officer II (COII) is primarily focused on dynamic security with direct involvement in the management and follow-up of each inmate under the officer's supervision. The Correctional Officer I is responsible for static security (patrolling, rounds, tower, walkway, escorts).

In the face of this duality, motivation for correctional work involves a series of variables, each with its own unique elements: participation as a member of a multidisciplinary team, and personal investment in improving one's skills and motivation (which can be tied to a variety of factors ranging from personal involvement in various types of duties to the satisfaction of a job well done). With respect to intrinsic motivation, as we will see for the eleventh theme, it can originate from a need to learn, to improve one's knowledge (as in the case of continuous training) or to have studied in a parallel field.

In Correctional Officer Recruits during the Training Period: an Examination(Bensimon, ibid.), it was shown that 174 of the 233 recruits in the study (75%) had a college or university education. The situation was shown to be similar in the United States a decade earlier, when one-quarter of the officers surveyed had a university education, either with or without a degree (Blair and Kratcoski, ibid.). However, these authors failed to take into account the economic climate of the time, when many people with three years of university education obtained employment as correctional officers because they had no other options (thus leading to a high level of disenchantment and a much greater turnover rate given the high demands of this occupation) (Turcotte and Schellenberg, ibid.).

Motivation for correctional work is based on five variables that are present or that could develop over time:

  1. Through action, being in contact with various human problems on a daily basis or depending on the situation at the time;
  2. It may stem from a congruence between one's own social values and the desire to transmit them to others through one's work (a number of recruits expressed this in their qualitative response);
  3. Wanting to be a correctional officer can also stem from the influence of family or acquaintances, as we saw earlier for question 4 in Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work;
  4. Motivation can also be based on one or more extrinsic aspects of the profession (pay, fringe benefits, job stability, good working conditions) (Amabile, ibid.). This theme is also addressed in Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work;
  5. Lastly, the person's choice may be a matter of opportunity: because of geographic location, with the economic recovery of a remote area (as with Port-Cartier in Quebec after the closing of St-Vincent-of-Paul, or Drumheller in the Prairies Region), or simply as a second choice when the first one did not work out.

Fringe benefits, job security and pay are not sufficient to offset some of the downsides because, unless it is revitalized, intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation ultimately fades. Chiffre and Teboul (1988) showed that over time a lack of motivation inevitably leads to a gradual deterioration in work, with all of the spinoffs this could entail. In this case, a lax attitude, decreasing quality and quantity of the work, failure to abide by standards and rules, and making mistakes gradually lead the person into a culture of absenteeism in the form of sick leave. This culture and mentality in turn contribute to the number of overtime hours taken under the rotating replacement (roster) system that is its inevitable counterpart. This phenomenon is extremely costly in both human and financial terms and is difficult to control. Recruits cannot escape from this hold, to which they will very quickly have to submit and then adjust. What are some examples of this?

In England, this culture of absenteeism among correctional officers was shown in the fact that from 2002 to 2003 there was an increase of 23%, or 668,337, in the number of days of paid sick leave. This figure equals the number of authorized days of sick leave (14.7 days) for all of the 45,500 staff members assigned to correctional institutions (Great Britain, National Audit Office, 2004; Iverson, Olekalns and Erwin, 1998).

In the United States, the average of absenteeism is approximately six days per year for federal facilities, whereas this proportion is in fact more than double (Turner, 1998).

In Canada, for the five administrative regions, overtime for correctional officers is also part of a dominant culture based on the accumulation of sick days as a way of supplementing vacation leave, depending on the person's specific needs (since there is no longer a payout for the sick leave that has been accumulated at the time of retirement). In 2005, there were 763,349 hours of sick leave, either with or without a doctor's certificate. If we take the number of hours allowed each year (which amounts to 15 days with pay) and add two additional days with pay beyond the allowable limit without a doctor's certificate, we arrive at a total of 100,300 hours. In 2005, 593,692 hours could be attributed to this type of uncertified sick leave – 6 times more than the official estimated norms.

For the three above-mentioned countries, namely England, the United States and Canada, this type of leave, which is embedded as an acquired right, is part of the extrinsic advantages of the profession and allows the opportunity to participate in personal recreational activities such as hunting and fishing. In Canada, as of March 31, 2005, out of 6,653 correctional officers, 5,941 had accounted for over $29.4 million in overtime pay, as compared to $21.4 million in 2002-2003. Of these 5,941 correctional officers, 16% had already earned more than $10,000 in overtime. Depending on the region and the seasons associated with the latter, the hours in question related to very specific times of the year.45

45 The start of hunting and fishing season can be determined by referring to the calendar for the regional sites.

Let us look at the record of overtime hours for the five regions over the past five years (2001- 2005). From east to west, the curves are roughly the same.46 In addition to July and August (summer holidays), there is also a peak at the end of March (fiscal year-end), when employees lose any days not taken; September and October, for hunting and fishing; and December for the Christmas holidays. January and February show the lowest levels in terms of both absenteeism and overtime for all five administrative regions:

46 Source: Salary Management System (June 2005).

Overtime Hours - All CSC - 5 Year Comparison

Going back 10 years (1995-2005), we end up with the same type of curve (except for 1998-1999 when correctional officers were on strike):

Overtime Hours - All CSC - 10 Year Comparison

The pay that employees receive depends on their position and the number of hours they work, supplemented by overtime. Although no one talks about it openly, it has become normal to think of over time as a way of increasing one's salary. This type of behaviour is unproductive since it focuses on monetary gains alone, and inevitably leads to disenchantment with correctional work in and of itself and for some, who have no other option, a change of assignment when the stagnation of routine sets in (Fox, Spector and Miles, 2001; Byrd et al., 2000).

For our neighbours to the south, the rate of turnover attributed to reassignments, departures and early retirement was 16.1% in 2000, as compared to 12.6% in 1995. Lommel (ibid.) proposed four main reasons for why people left, especially young correctional officers with less than three years of service:

  1. Work description and shift work;
  2. Pay and benefits;
  3. Stress and burnout; and
  4. Poor choice from the beginning of training.

Of the four factors reported in the United States, we note that points 2 and 4 do not correspond to the conditions of CSC correctional officers according to our study.

With regard to point 2, the vast majority of officers (for all measurement times) considered pay to be one of the major advantages associated with this occupation.

With regard to point 4, consider that the average age for the core sample, at 33 years, was much higher than for all other categories of vocational training together. These people have some experience in society, thus allowing them to develop better judgment. Furthermore, the intensive and homogeneous training at the five CSC colleges theoretically eliminates anyone who does not meet the organization's expectations and objectives.

Participants in our study were presented with the six statements listed at the beginning of this sub-section to measure their attitudes in relation to sources of motivation for correctional work. The possible range of scores was 6 to 30. We found that mean scores were 25.2 at 3 months and 24.6 at 1 year, as seen in the table below. The findings were similar for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 24.4; 6 months (n = 51) with 25.4; and 1 year (n = 47) with 24.5:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
motivation for correctional Male 25.2000 3.25576 15
work (3mos) Female 25.3478 2.74042 23
Total 25.2895 2.91230 38
motivation for correctional Male 24.6000 3.69942 15
work (1yr) Female 24.5217 3.97572 23
Total 24.5526 3.81815 38

The tests of within-subjects effects indicate that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 9.232 1 9.232 1.262 .269
Greenhouse Geisser 9.232 1.000 9.232 1.262 .269
Huynh-Feldt 9.232 1.000 9.232 1.262 .269
Lower bound 9.232 1.000 9.232 1.262 .269
Time * gender Sphericity assumed .232 1 .232 .032 .860
Greenhouse Geisser .232 1.000 .232 .032 .860
Huynh-Feldt .232 1.000 .232 .032 .860
Lower bound .232 1.000 .232 .032 .860
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 263.452 36 7.318  
Greenhouse Geisser 263.452 36.000 7.318
Huynh-Feldt 263.452 36.000 7.318
Lower bound 263.452 36.000 7.318

The table showing between-subject effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 45095.232 1 45095.232 2753.887 .000
Gender .022 1 .022 .001 .971
Error 589.504 36 16.375  

For the six statements pertaining to the Sources of motivation for correctional work, the mean scores for both measurement times remained relatively high. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 25.2 and 24.6 respectively for the men and 25.3 and 24.5 for the women. These differences were not significant:

Profile diagram: Sources of motivation for correctional work

Although the mean score was high and the decrease in that score was not significant, a reduction in motivation for correctional work was recorded over time (and was slightly more pronounced for the women) when compared to the Postperiod (i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college). The mean Post scores were 26.9 for the women and 25.8 for the men.

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.

Based on the work of Tschan, Semmer and Inversin (2004) on the different types of interactions in the workplace, those of correctional officers fall under two categories: work-related interactions and private interactions that also take place during the work day. To take just one example, three correctional officers at a maximum-security institution are on duty at a control post. They monitor the comings and goings of the prison population on 2, 3 or 4 ranges, issue authorizations to go from point A to point B upon request, distribute the mail, supervise meal breaks, conduct searches, and intervene as circumstances dictate. Because dealing with 60 to 80 inmates means that something unexpected could happen at any time, this work requires a great deal of attention, but it does not prevent the officers from interacting socially with one another. Moreover, work groups will form based on the affinities between the various officers, resulting in a social environment based on each one's responsibilities and abilities.

Performing one's work with the mastery and knowledge acquired through upgrading courses (working with various computer tools) and training in various aspects of criminology (case analysis, interview techniques, counselling, follow-up, accountability, confidentiality, updating of knowledge regarding the application of legislation) helps to develop a sense of self-efficacy and self-confidence in terms of both performance and personal well-being. Without this, officers would tend to avoid tasks perceived as threatening and thereby become entrenched in a routine that puts them out of touch with reality ( Braggins and Talbot, 2005; Winstok and Enosh, 2004; Haass and Alpert, 1995). The result would be felt after years on the job when the officer had to manage a career plan over an average of 3 decades.

On our scale measuring intrinsic job motivation, scores could have ranged from 6 to 42. Among our participants, the mean scores were 33.9 at 3 months and 34.1 at 1 year, as seen in the table below. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 34.7; 6 months (n = 51) with 35.6; and 1 year (n = 47) with 34.3:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Intrinsic job motivation Male 34.8667 3.11372 15
(3mos) Female 33.3478 3.31126 23
Total 33.9474 3.27932 38
Intrinsic job motivation Male 34.0667 4.58984 15
(1yr) Female 34.2174 3.14724 23
Total 34.1579 3.72375 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed .022 1 .022 .003 .954
Greenhouse Geisser .022 1.000 .022 .003 .954
Huynh-Feldt .022 1.000 .022 .003 .954
Lower bound .022 1.000 .022 .003 .954
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 12.654 1 12.654 1.943 .172
Greenhouse Geisser 12.654 1.000 12.654 1.943 .172
Huynh-Feldt 12.654 1.000 12.654 1.943 .172
Lower bound 12.654 1.000 12.654 1.943 .172
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 234.504 36 6.514  
Greenhouse Geisser 234.504 36.000 6.514
Huynh-Feldt 234.504 36.000 6.514
Lower bound 234.504 36.000 6.514

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 84578.813 1 84578.813 4646.530 .000
Gender 8.497 1 8.497 .467 .499
Error 655.293 36 18.203  

For the six statements pertaining to Intrinsic motivation for work (without specific reference to the field of corrections), the mean scores for both measurement times remained relatively high. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first three months and one year at an institution, the scores were 34.9 and 34.0 respectively for the men and 33.3 and 34.2 for the women (an increase of .9). Here also, as for Human service orientation and Social desirability, no significant difference was recorded over time, but the fact remains that both genders appeared quite highly intrinsically motivated towards their work.

The same observation could be made for the Postperiod (i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college), regardless of frequency. For men, the level of intrinsic motivation was 35.7, and for women it was 35.5:

Profile diagram: Intrinsic motivation for work

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

CSC and all other work organizations have their own standards and rules and a philosophy based on objectives that provide direction for management, supervisors and front-line workers. That said, human beings have a tendency to think, reflect, criticize and question what once seemed to be the only way to do things, but they cannot live by continually reinventing the wheel. Over time, organizational cultures end up generating and then establishing habits. Those habits inevitably take hold and become entrenched until they instil resistance to all change (Poitras and Ladouceur, 2004). Change, be it restructuring, the introduction of new technologies or the application of the law with a change in procedures, is often perceived as a threat coming from the outside, whereas continuity is seen as positive.

Many recruits are caught between the principles they learned at the college and what they have heard from their "elders". "The more things change, the more they stay the same" is an example that seems contradictory, to say the least, but that is heard by every generation for a wide variety of reasons and in almost every part of society. For those just starting their careers, there is no possible comparison between what was done yesterday but no longer is. However, with time and experience, each generation eventually ends up developing this same kind of mechanism.

As a leader in the field of corrections, CSC is continually evolving, and it must be understood that any changes will give rise to a temporary state of imbalance, the purpose being always to improve an existing situation. This same phenomenon has applied to all organizations over the centuries. Obviously, human beings are not always able to adjust quickly. Not only are they not alone, since they are continually interacting with others, but the prison world has its own unique characteristics given the nature of its activities and its physical environment: " Futura recipere".

Despite all of the changes inherent in cultural development within an organization, there has been little research to date on the potential impact of staff working in a correctional facility with a prison population on the staff concerned. In response to the social, emotional, family and sexual implications of such work, correctional staff have 2 choices: to stay or to go. When a person decides to stay merely for practical reasons, the sense that he or she has given up is felt day in and day out, with nothing to hope for but retirement (Byrd et al., 2000; Grossi, Keil and Vito, 1996; Stohr, Self and Lovrich, ibid .). There are a number of reasons for this unfortunate situation, in both Canada and the United States. Clearly, while discussing this topic has its pitfalls, it nonetheless provides a worthwhile avenue towards developing possible tools and resources for addressing this substantial loss in both human and financial terms (Spreitzer and Mishra, 2002; Walters, 1996).

The first question is as follows: Can we truly be prepared to confront a wide range of criminal behaviour and come out psychologically unscathed?

The second pertains to the personality of the workers and their ability to keep the criminality to which they are continually subject at bay. To what extent does the detailed repetition of certain criminal acts that are sordid to say the least take root in one's own behaviour?

Third and final question: With caseloads being what they are, how do workers react when assigned a difficult case when they are working in a unit that already has other problem cases?

It is understood that such an impact will be felt in various ways depending on age, gender, life experience, the worker's training and his or her capacity for building into relationships with others and for making connections in order to formulate an assessment and prognosis for the person he or she is dealing with. But who really cares about those who, irrespective of their academic background or specialization, become a kind of repository for criminal behaviour?

Our scale measuring correctional self-efficacy presented 15 statements, and was scored on a scale ranging from 15 to 105. The mean scores among correctional officers were 88.4 at 3 months and 87.5 at 1 year, as seen in the table below. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 89.2; 6 months (n = 51) with 88.2; and 1 year (n = 47) with 87.2:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Correctionnel self-efficacy Male 88.6000 9.14799 15
(3mos) Female 88.2981 8.04808 23
Total 88.4173 8.37855 38
Correctionnel self-efficacy Male 88.6667 11.22921 15
work (1yr) Female 86.7391 9.60217 23
Total 87.5000 10.17084 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 10.110 1 10.110 .212 .648
Greenhouse Geisser 10.110 1.000 10.110 .212 .648
Huynh-Feldt 10.110 1.000 10.110 .212 .648
Lower bound 10.110 1.000 10.110 .212 .648
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 11.997 1 11.997 .251 .619
Greenhouse Geisser 11.997 1.000 11.997 .251 .619
Huynh-Feldt 11.997 1.000 11.997 .251 .619
Lower bound 11.997 1.000 11.997 .251 .619
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 1717.669 36 47.713  
Greenhouse Geisser 1717.669 36.000 47.713
Huynh-Feldt 1717.669 36.000 47.713
Lower bound 1717.669 36.000 47.713

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 563430.675 1 563430.675 4340.876 .000
Gender 22.562 1 22.562 .174 .679
Error 4672.675 36 129.797  

For the 15 statements pertaining to Correctional self-efficacy, the mean scores for both measurement times remained relatively high. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 88.6 and 88.7 respectively for the two measurement times for the men and 88.3 and 86.7 for the women. For the latter, the decrease between the 3-month and 1-year periods was not statistically significant.

For the Post period (i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college), the mean scores were 89.2 for the men and 98.1 for the women with the scores for women after 3 months and after 1 year at institution thus representing a notable decrease. Nonetheless, the consistently high scores at both the 3 month and 1 year periods at an institution show that the correctional officers' perceptions of their ability to do their work were quite stable and positive:

Profile diagram: Correctional self-efficacy

13) Post-Correctional Officer recruit perception of training

1) The CTP did provide me with the skills and abilities required to effectively deal with a conflict situation.

2) The CTP has informed me of my roles and responsibilities as a Correctional Officer during an emergency situation.

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

4) CTP addressed the preventative measures to reduce the risk of transmitted diseases.

5) CTP did inform me of my legal obligations with respect to inmate rights and privileges.

6) The CTP provided me with the knowledge and skills to effectively deal with a diverse offender population.

7) The CTP addressed offenders' special needs.

*8) The training did not provide me with all the necessary abilities and skills to effectively fulfill my job requirements.

9) The training did encourage a healthy and positive working environment among other Correctional Officers.

10) The CTP encouraged staff/offender relationships.

11) The instructors provided training from a non-biased position.

12) The CTP instructors took a rehabilitative position.

* = Inverted question

In this scale, which was scored from 12 to 60, we sought to measure correctional officers' perceptions of their training once they were on the job. The mean score on this scale were 30.6 at 3 months and 30.4 at 1 year, as seen in table below. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 31.1; 6 months (n = 51) with 30.8; and 1 year (n = 47) with 30.4:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Perceptions Male 30.4000 2.19740 15
(3mos) Female 30.7391 4.05886 23
Total 30.6053 3.41332 38
Perceptions Male 30.8667 4.34029 15
(1yr) Female 30.1739 3.98465 23
Total 30.4474 4.08489 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed .044 1 .044 .008 .931
Greenhouse Geisser .044 1.000 .044 .008 .931
Huynh-Feldt .044 1.000 .044 .008 .931
Lower bound .044 1.000 .044 .008 .931
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 4.834 1 4.834 .842 .365
Greenhouse Geisser 4.834 1.000 4.834 .842 .365
Huynh-Feldt 4.834 1.000 4.834 .842 .365
Lower bound 4.834 1.000 4.834 .842 .365
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 206.693 36 5.741  
Greenhouse Geisser 206.693 36.000 5.741
Huynh-Feldt 206.693 36.000 5.741
Lower bound 206.693 36.000 5.741

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 67764.726 1 67764.726 2916.773 .000
Gender .568 1 .568 .024 .877
Error 836.380 36 23.233  

For the 12 statements pertaining to Post -perceptions (it is no longer a matter of expectations but of perceptions) of new correctional officers towards their training, the mean scores for both measurement times remained very mixed, remaining close to the mid-point on the scale i.e., around 30 on scale ranging from 12 to 60. The mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution were 30.4 and 30.8 respectively for the men and 30.7 and 30.2 for the women. Although neither time nor gender had a significant effect (since no substantial change was recorded), the fact remains that these mean scores point to a dissatisfaction with the CTP in terms of the expectations associated with it (scale for correctional officers' initial expectations of training) and practical application in the field (perception).

When we compare these results with the results for the Post period (i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college), we see a decrease with respect to the overall perception of the CTP that is almost identical for both genders (irrespective of frequency): 33.6 for the men and 33.9 for the women at Post versus 30.8 for the men and 30.2 for the women after one year at an institution. A similar decrease is found for the six observation periods and for both genders:

Profile diagram: Post -Correctional Officer recruitperceptions of training

14) Post -Group environment questionnaire

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

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

*3) I did not like the way that we accomplished our group tasks.

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

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

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

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

* = Inverted question

By way of a basic definition, a group is comprised of two or more people who interact with each other such that each individual influences and/or is influenced by the other members. For a group to be created, four conditions must be present:

  1. There must be one or more common objectives;
  2. There must be agreement on how those objectives are to be achieved;
  3. Standards must be established and responsibilities assigned; and
  4. There must be a control system.

The 7 statements listed above were designed to measure correctional officers' perceptions of the group environment at CTP Post CTP. Scores could range from 7 to 35. The mean scores were 23.7 at 3 months and 22.9 at 1 year, as seen on the table. Although this did not apply to the 3-month group (n = 70) with a mean score of 31.1, the findings were similar for the 2 other groups taken individually: 6 months (n = 51) with 30.8 and 1 year (n = 47) with 30.4:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Group atmosphere (3mos) Male 23.9222 3.48743 15
Female 23.5978 4.33455 23
Total 23.7259 3.97481 38
Group atmosphere (1yr) Male 24.0667 3.65409 15
Female 22.1304 3.75747 23
Total 22.8947 3.79038 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 7.945 1 7.945 1.877 .179
Greenhouse Geisser 7.945 1.000 7.945 1.877 .179
Huynh-Feldt 7.945 1.000 7.945 1.877 .179
Lower bound 7.945 1.000 7.945 1.877 .179
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 11.794 1 11.794 2.786 .104
Greenhouse Geisser 11.794 1.000 11.794 2.786 .104
Huynh-Feldt 11.794 1.000 11.794 2.786 .104
Lower bound 11.794 1.000 11.794 2.786 .104
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 152.376 36 4.233  
Greenhouse Geisser 152.376 36.000 4.233
Huynh-Feldt 152.376 36.000 4.233
Lower bound 152.376 36.000 4.233

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 39869.762 1 39869.762 1545.376 .000
Gender 23.199 1 23.199 .899 .349
Error 928.778 36 25.799  

For the seven statements pertaining to the Group environment after participation in the CTP, the scores for both measurement times remained well within average range (according to the scoring scale). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 23.9 and 24.0 respectively for the men (a very slight increase) and 23.6 and 22.1 for the women. The results here are not statistically significant other than the fact that the mean scores are relatively low for both genders, in keeping with the findings for the previous theme ( Postperceptions of training). The Post period (i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college) also presented a critical mean score for the group: 28.1 for the men and 26.5 for the women, quite a bit higher than the scores we later found after 3 months and after 1 year at an institution.

Profile diagram: Post -group environment

There are many possible explanations for the changes in the group over time. The group was relatively limited, confined in space and time, and dispersed according to administrative requirements. When people step back and look at the demands being placed on them, they tend to become more critical. But there is another important factor here: irrespective of the staff member's gender, the world of prison is primarily populated by men (Moreland, 1987).

15) Post -Correctional Officer social cohesiveness

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

2) I felt loyalty towards my CTP classmates.

*3) This CTP class was one of the best groups of which I had been a part.

4) My CTP classmates stood up for me.

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

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

*7) I often felt that I had very little in common with my CTP classmates.

* = Inverted question

In the second part of our research study (phase pertaining to the staff college), it was noted that the vocational training caused the participants to respond to themselves and to others, particularly in an environment of assimilation and compliance. Like the colleges, institutions in the various regions also present a context of assimilation and compliance that temporarily wipe out the diversity and creativity that each person represents. This results in a degree of personal subjectivity in response to those responsible for ensuring that such homogeneous training is delivered in accordance with CSC's values and principles.

The above-mentioned seven statements were used to measure the extent to which correctional officers felt, once they were in the field, that there had been social cohesiveness during their CTP. Possible scores on this scale ranged from 7 to 35. As can be seen from the table below, the comparative means were 22.8 at 3 months and 22.1 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 23.5; 6 months (n = 51) with 23.3; and 1 year (n = 47) with 22.6:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Social cohesiveness (3mos) Male 23.4000 2.52982 15
Female 22.3913 5.14993 23
Total 22.7895 4.29429 38
Social cohesiveness (1yr) Male 22.6000 3.52136 15
Female 21.7826 4.78593 23
Total 22.1053 4.29827 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 9.008 1 9.008 2.368 .133
Greenhouse Geisser 9.008 1.000 9.008 2.368 .133
Huynh-Feldt 9.008 1.000 9.008 2.368 .133
Lower bound 9.008 1.000 9.008 2.368 .133
Time * gender Sphericity assumed .166 1 .166 .044 .836
Greenhouse Geisser .166 1.000 .166 .044 .836
Huynh-Feldt .166 1.000 .166 .044 .836
Lower bound .166 1.000 .166 .044 .836
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 136.939 36 3.804  
Greenhouse Geisser 136.939 36.000 3.804
Huynh-Feldt 136.939 36.000 3.804
Lower bound 136.939 36.000 3.804

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 36911.979 1 36911.979 1094.903 .000
Gender 15.137 1 15.137 .449 .507
Error 1213.652 36 33.713  

For the seven statements pertaining to Post -Correctional Officer social cohesiveness, the scores for both measurement times remained within average range. The mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution were 23.4 and 22.6 respectively for the men and 22.4 and 21.8 for the women. As for the two previous themes associated with the CTP, although neither time nor gender had a significant effect, these mean scores reflect a common vision of the training, the atmosphere within the group and its social cohesiveness.

For the Postperiod (i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college), the means had been 25.9 for the men and 24.9 for the women, quite a bit higher than they were after 3 months and after 1 year at an institution:

Profile diagram: Post -Correctional Officer social cohesiveness

16) Post-Credibility

1) My instructors were credible.

2) My instructors were competent.

3) I trusted my instructors.

4) My instructors did what they said they would.

*5) My instructors did not know correctional work well.

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

* = Inverted question

On this scale, with a possible score of 6 to 30, the mean scores were 21.7 at 3 months and 19.6 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 22.6; 6 months (n = 51) with 22.1; and 1 year (n = 47) with 20.3:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Credibility (3mos) Male 22.4667 3.85202 15
Female 21.2609 4.45398 23
Total 21.7368 4.21506 38
Credibility (1yr) Male 18.9333 4.74291 15
Female 20.0870 4.16602 23
Total 19.6316 4.37697 38

The table showing within-subjects effects indicates that time had a significant effect ( p = .016, with the perceived credibility of CTP instructors decreasing over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 100.586 1 100.586 6.336 .016
Greenhouse Geisser 100.586 1.000 100.586 6.336 .016
Huynh-Feldt 100.586 1.000 100.586 6.336 .016
Lower bound 100.586 1.000 100.586 6.336 .016
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 25.271 1 25.271 1.592 .215
Greenhouse Geisser 25.271 1.000 25.271 1.592 .215
Huynh-Feldt 25.271 1.000 25.271 1.592 .215
Lower bound 25.271 1.000 25.271 1.592 .215
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 571.519 36 15.876  
Greenhouse Geisser 571.519 36.000 15.876
Huynh-Feldt 571.519 36.000 15.876
Lower bound 571.519 36.000 15.876

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 31082.697 1 31082.697 1454.334 .000
Gender .012 1 .012 .001 .981
Error 769.409 36 21.372  

For the six statements pertaining to Post-Credibility, the scores for the two measurement times show a significant decrease (according to the scoring scale). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 22.5 and 18.9 respectively for the men and 21.3 and 20.0 for the women. Looking briefly at the Post period ( i.e., after 3 months of training at the staff college), the men posted a mean score of 27.1 and the women 26.2, scores that were considerably higher than those that would be registered after 3 months and after 1 year on the field:

Profile diagram: Post-credibility

Spread out over a period of 15 months, the four themes associated with the CTP – 1, 2, 3, 4 - showed a continual decrease in scores, whether after 3 months of training at the staff college or after 3 months and 1 year at an institution. However, it is important to note that only post-credibility showed a significant decrease between 3 months and 1 year:

  1. Post-perceptions of training of new correctional officers;
  2. the Group environment after participation;
  3. Previous social cohesiveness of correctional officers;
  4. Post-credibility.

It should be noted nonetheless that there is a sense of defeat that sets in during the period between the first steps on the job and total immersion in it, as often happens in a prison environment. This phenomenon is all the more pronounced if the new officer is assigned to a maximum-security institution.

Note: For the following six scales, there will be no comparison with the Post period since the latter are specific to the three periods in an institutional setting. The other three frequencies taken individually over time (3 months, 6 months and 1 year) will be retained for information purposes only.

17) Organizational commitment

1) I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.

2) I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for.

*3) I feel very little loyalty to this organization.

4) I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.

5) I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar.

6) I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.

*7) I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was similar.

8) This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.

*9) It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization.

10) I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined.

*11) There's not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely.

*12) Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization's policies on important matters relating to its employees.

13) I really care about the fate of this organization.

14) For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.

*15) Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part.

* = Inverted question

While commitment towards an organization represents a symbiosis between the latter's values and those of its members, both as a group and individually, it is also a predictor of certain behaviours such as absenteeism, turnover, reassignment and transfer requests (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1982). Why is this? Quite simply because the values and beliefs that are acquired and then entrenched at a very early point in a person's life can change over time in accordance with the person's experience. In many cases, people stay with an organization because there are no other opportunities, they do not have enough time or would find it too difficult to look elsewhere, they lack other skills or they are afraid of the unknown (Ugboro, 2003).

Meyer and Allen (1991) propose three components of organizational commitment:

  1. Affective commitment – the person feels an attachment to the organization and stays there because he or she wants to and believes in it;
  2. Normative commitment – the person feels a sense of loyalty and duty towards the organization and stays there because he or she must; and
  3. Continuance commitment – the person calculates the consequences of leaving and stays after weighing the pros and cons.

A fourth aspect could be added to this list. A person might in fact present one of these three types of commitment without necessarily feeling a sense of commitment towards those in authority. To be loyal to one's organization is one thing; to be loyal to a particular authority figure is quite another (Becker and Kernan, 2003). The two do not necessarily overlap.

The 15 statements presented above were designed to assess correctional officers' level of commitment to the organization (CSC). Possible scores were between 15 and 105. The table below shows that the scores were 75.8 at 3 months and 70.8 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 77.2; 6 months (n = 51) with 74.2; and 1 year (n = 47) with 71.5:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Organizational Male 78.4667 9.22626 15
commitment (3mos) Female 74.0435 10.22687 23
Total 75.7895 9.95981 38
Organizational Male 72.6667 11.32423 15
commitment (1yr) Female 69.5217 12.16504 23
Total 70.7632 11.78738 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show a significant difference over time (p = .005, with the level of organizational commitment decreasing over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 483.628 1 483.628 11.576 .002
Greenhouse Geisser 483.628 1.000 483.628 11.576 .002
Huynh-Feldt 483.628 1.000 483.628 11.576 .002
Lower bound 483.628 1.000 483.628 11.576 .002<
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 7.417 1 7.417 .178 .676
Greenhouse Geisser 7.417 1.000 7.417 .178 .676
Huynh-Feldt 7.417 1.000 7.417 .178 .676
Lower bound 7.417 1.000 7.417 .178 .676
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 1504.070 36 41.780  
Greenhouse Geisser 1504.070 36.000 41.780
Huynh-Feldt 1504.070 36.000 41.780
Lower bound 1504.070 36.000 41.780

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 394240.741 1 394240.741 2016.092 .000
Gender 260.005 1 260.005 1.330 .256
Error 7039.693 36 195.547  

For these 15 statements pertaining to Organizational commitment, the scores for both measurement times remained within average range. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 78.5 and 72.7 respectively for the men and 74.0 and 69.5 for the women. There was no significant difference for the two genders, but there was a significant decrease over time for both the men and the women:

Profile diagram: Organizational commitment

It might be suggested that this continual decrease in organizational commitment between the three-month period and the end of the first year at an institution could stem from the need that new correctional officers feel to become more involved in counselling/helping and social work (as the qualitative and quantitative results show), while most are limited to static supervision roles.

18) Role conflict

1) I have enough time to complete my work.

2) I feel certain about how much authority I have.

3) I perform tasks that are too easy or boring.

4) Clear, planned goals and objectives for my job.

5) I have to do things that should be done differently.

6) Lack of policies and guidelines to help me.

7) I am able to act the same regardless of the group I am with.

8) I am corrected or rewarded when I really don't expect it.

9) I work under incompatible policies and guidelines.

10) I know that I have divided my time properly.

11) I receive year assignment without the manpower to complete it.

12) I know what my responsibilities are.

13) I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out year assignment.

14) I have to "feel my way" in performing my duties.

15) I receive assignments that are within my training and capability.

16) I feel certain how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion.

17) I have just the right amount of work to do.

18) I know that I have divided my time properly.

19) I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently.

20) I know exactly what is expected of me.

21) I receive incompatible requests from two or more people.

22) I am uncertain as to how my job is linked.

23) I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others.

24) I am told how well I am doing my job.

25) I receive year assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it.

26) Explanation is clear of what has to be done.

27) I work on unnecessary things.

28) I have to work under vague directives or orders.

29) I perform work that suits my values.

30) I do not know if my work will be acceptable to my boss.

This scale, established in 1970 by Rizzo, House and Lirtzman, has been the subject of a fair amount of criticism over the past 30 years with regard to how its 29 items47 were formulated and are to be interpreted (Rick, Briner, Daniels, Perryman and Guppy, 2001; Gonzalez-Roma and Lloret, 1998; Smith, Tisak and Shmieder, 1993; Kelloway and Barling, 1990; Tracy and Johnson, 1981). This criticism has led to the development of factorial models that are better suited to current needs in the business world. The scale is nonetheless relevant in our study since this area of endeavour does not deal with high technology but rather with the reproductibility of behaviours and attitudes in the field of social science – in other words, what people perceive and feel in relation to their jobs and their working conditions. The questionnaire offers respondents full latitude to state what they believe and perceive. The original 30 item scale was broken down into two subscales for our research, each with 15 questions as follows:

47 It should be noted that the questionnaire originally comprised of 30 questions contained one question that was repeated twice (items 10 and 18 - I know that I have divided my time properly). After careful consideration, question 18 has not been deleted since the 3 authors, Rizzo, House and Lirztman (ibid.), acknowledge this error themselves on page 156 of their work, stating, " Items 10 and 18 on this administration were identical, owing to a clerical error. Items 10 and 18 were identical; only item 10 was scored." This explains why there are 30 questions.

  1. Role conflict: questions 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 and 29;
  2. Role ambiguity: questions 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30.

Role conflictoccurs when people must deal with expectations from their immediate supervisors and colleagues that are incompatible or conflict with their own values, beliefs and objectives and with the relevance of the work they have been asked to do.

Role conflict

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Role conflict (3mos) Male 57.2000 5.68457 15
Female 60.0435 4.90341 23
Total 58.9211 5.33921 38
Role conflict (1yr) Male 63.0000 5.92814 15
Female 62.5652 5.03466 23
Total 62.7368 5.33061 38

The above table shows that the scores on role conflict were means 58.9 at 3 months and 62.7 at 1 year ( scores of 30 or more were considered critical). Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 59.1; 6 months (n = 51) with 60.2; and 1 year (n = 47) with 62.1.

The tests of within-subjects effects show a significant difference for time (p = .001, with role conflict increasing over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 314.365 1 314.365 18.986 .000
Greenhouse Geisser 314.365 1.000 314.365 18.986 .000
Huynh-Feldt 314.365 1.000 314.365 18.986 .000
Lower bound 314.365 1.000 314.365 18.986 .000
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 48.786 1 48.786 2.946 .095
Greenhouse Geisser 48.786 1.000 48.786 2.946 .095
Huynh-Feldt 48.786 1.000 48.786 2.946 .095
Lower bound 48.786 1.000 48.786 2.946 .095
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 596.070 36 16.557  
Greenhouse Geisser 596.070 36.000 16.557
Huynh-Feldt 596.070 36.000 16.557
Lower bound 596.070 36.000 16.557

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 267629.495 1 267629.495 6714.335 .000
Gender 26.337 1 26.337 .661 .422
Error 1434.939 36 39.859  

For the 15 statements pertaining to Role conflict, the scores for the 2 measurement times show a critical level. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 57.2 and 63.0 respectively for the men and 60.0 and 62.6 for the women:

Profile diagram: Role conflict

For both genders, perceptions of the work to be performed remained negative and intensified over time.

Second subscale: role ambiguity. The latter does not occur when a person's perceptions conflict with those of his or her co-workers, but rather is based on what the person feels and experiences in dealing with a work description considered uncertain, goals and expectations that should be clear but are not, inappropriate time management, insufficient knowledge/training for the assigned position, the consequences associated with the

performance of the duties, and not being empowered to perform the work (Hogan et al., 2006; Rizzo, House and Lirtzman, ibid.):

Role ambiguity

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Role ambiguity (3mos) Male 63.4000 7.36594 15
Female 62.1304 7.29448 23
Total 62.6316 7.25006 38
Role ambiguity (1yr) Male 62.9429 8.33532 15
Female 62.7453 4.31827 23
Total 62.8233 6.11441 38

In the above table, the scores on the subscale for role ambiguity were means 62.6 at 3 months and 62.8 at 1 year ( only scores of 30 or more were considered) . Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 62.5; 6 months (n = 51) with 62.1; and 1 year (n = 47) with 62.8.

The table showing the results of the tests of within-subjects effects indicates that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed .113 1 .113 .003 .958
Greenhouse Geisser .113 1.000 .113 .003 .958
Huynh-Feldt .113 1.000 .113 .003 .958
Lower bound .113 1.000 .113 .003 .958
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 5.217 1 5.217 .130 .721
Greenhouse Geisser 5.217 1.000 5.217 .130 .721
Huynh-Feldt 5.217 1.000 5.217 .130 .721
Lower bound 5.217 1.000 5.217 .130 .721
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 1447.748 36 40.215  
Greenhouse Geisser 1447.748 36.000 40.215
Huynh-Feldt 1447.748 36.000 40.215
Lower bound 1447.748 36.000 40.215

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 286489.824 1 286489.824 5528.943 .000
Gender 9.770 1 9.770 .189 .667
Error 1865.390 36 51.816  

The 15 statements associated with this Role ambiguity scale show mean scores that were even more critical for both measurement times than those for Role conflict. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 63.4 and 62.9 respectively for the men (a decrease that is not significant) and 62.1 and 62.7 for the women (an increase that is not significant over time):

Profile diagram: Role ambiguity

Both genders tended to describe a lack of supervision and self-confidence and of knowledge of the work to be performed in a correctional facility. This is not dissimilar to the results for the four questionnaires pertaining to Group environment, Social cohesiveness, Credibility, and differences with respect to expectations and perceptions of training.

19) Supervisory support

1) The people I work with often have the importance of their job stressed to them by their supervisors.

2) My supervisors often encourage the people I work with to think of better ways of getting the work done which may never have been thought of before.

3) My supervisors often encourage us to do the job in a way that we really would be proud of.

4) My supervisors often encourage the people I work with if they do their job well.

5) My supervisors often blame others when things go wrong, which is possible not fault of those blamed.

6) When my supervisors have a dispute with one of the fellow guards they usually try to handle it in a friendly way.

Supervisory support plays a key role in personal commitment to an organization. As has been shown by a number of studies (Braggins and Talbot, ibid; Lambert, 2004; Croft, 2003; Fox, Spector and Miles, ibid; Porporino and Simourd, ibid; Van Voorhis et al., ibid; Cullen et al., ibid.), such support is crucial in determining organizational commitment, role conflict, stress, credibility, group environment, social cohesiveness and the difference between expectations (theory) and perceptions (practice).

As show in table below, the mean scores for supervisory support among the correctional officers in our study were 24.4 at 3 months and 22.3 at 1 year, on a scoring scale ranging from 6 to 42. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 24.7; 6 months (n = 51) with 23.5; and 1 year (n = 47) with 22.7:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Supervisory support Male 24.9333 4.77294 15
(3mos) Female 24.0870 5.22157 23
Total 24.4211 5.00071 38
Supervisory support Male 21.0000 6.55744 15
(1yr) Female 23.1739 3.37978 23
Total 22.3158 4.92158 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show a slight difference over time (p = .05, with ratings of supervisory support decreasing over time). This could be described as a trend:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 106.620 1 106.620 4.296 .045
Greenhouse Geisser 106.620 1.000 106.620 4.296 .045
Huynh-Feldt 106.620 1.000 106.620 4.296 .045
Lower bound 106.620 1.000 106.620 4.296 .045
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 41.410 1 41.410 1.669 .205
Greenhouse Geisser 41.410 1.000 41.410 1.669 .205
Huynh-Feldt 41.410 1.000 41.410 1.669 .205
Lower bound 41.410 1.000 41.410 1.669 .205
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 893.380 36 24.816  
Greenhouse Geisser 893.380 36.000 24.816
Huynh-Feldt 893.380 36.000 24.816
Lower bound 893.380 36.000 24.816

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 39426.053 1 39426.053 1615.299 .000
Gender 8.000 1 8.000 .328 .571
Error 878.684 36 24.408  

For the six statements pertaining to Supervisory support, the scores for the two measurement times remained just above average (6 to 42 scoring scale). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 24.9 and 21.0 respectively for the men and 24.1 and 23.2 for the women:

Profile diagram: Supervisory support

Aside from a downward trend over time, the results for this scale point to a lack of supervisory support, with new arrivals at an institution feeling largely that they have been left to their own devices. There was almost no transition period between the training and their entry into a world that is unlike any other (7 of the 38 participants went directly to a maximum-security institution).

These findings overall cast a negative light on the instructors and the training period but also on correctional supervisors in terms of guidance and supervision.

20) Job stress

1) I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job.

2) My job gets to me more than it should.

3) I spend too much time at work; I can't see the forest for the trees.

4) There are a lot of times when my job drives me right up the wall.

5) Working here leaves little time for other activities.

6) Sometimes when I think about my job I get a tight feeling in my chest.

7) I frequently get the feeling I am married to the Detention Centre.

8) I have too much work and too little time to do it in.

9) I feel guilty when I take time off from my job.

10) I sometimes dread the phone calls at home because they might be job related.

11) I feel like I never have a day off.

12) Too many people at my level get burned out by job demands.

Although not specifically related to the field of corrections and to the anticipation of danger already highlighted in the list of disadvantages of the job, this questionnaire on job stress ties in with the one on role conflict. It involves two subscales worth a total of 84 points:

  1. The anxiety or anguish the person feels in relation to the position (questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 9), with scores of 7 to 35 points; and
  2. The pressure the person feels with respect to the lack of time to perform his or her work (questions 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12), with scores of 7 to 49 points.

Before proceeding to the two subscales, let us take a look at the following general linear model for scores on the job stress scale as while. In the table below we see the mean scores on the job stress scale were 35.8 at 3 months and 41.3 at 1 year, of a possible 84 points):

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Job stress (3mos) Male 32.2667 6.65976 15
Female 38.1739 7.90657 23
Total 35.8421 7.90664 38
Job stress (1yr) Male 39.2000 8.58737 15
Female 42.6522 9.46097 23
Total 41.2895 9.16783 38

The table of within-subjects effects shows that time had a significant effect ( p = .001, with job stress increasing significantly over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 591.151 1 591.151 16.570 .000
Greenhouse Geisser 591.151 1.000 591.151 16.570 .000
Huynh-Feldt 591.151 1.000 591.151 16.570 .000
Lower bound 591.151 1.000 591.151 16.570 .000
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 27.361 1 27.361 .767 .387
Greenhouse Geisser 27.361 1.000 27.361 .767 .387
Huynh-Feldt 27.361 1.000 27.361 .767 .387
Lower bound 27.361 1.000 27.361 .767 .387
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 1284.336 36 35.676  
Greenhouse Geisser 1284.336 36.000 35.676
Huynh-Feldt 1284.336 36.000 35.676
Lower bound 1284.336 36.000 35.676

The table below shows that gender did not have a significant effect (p = .0057):

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 105284.389 1 105284.389 1020.659 .000
Gender 397.652 1 397.652 3.855 .057
Error 3713.519 36 103.153  

For the 12 statements pertaining to the two subscales for Job stress, the scores for the two measurement times remained higher than average. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 32.3 and 39.2 respectively for the men and 38.2 and 42.7 for the women. Time had a significant effect but gender did not. Stress-related feelings of anxiety and time pressure in relation to doing what needs to be done every day increased over time:

Profile diagram: Stress

Let us look now at the results for both subscales at 3 months and 1 year. The table below presents the results for subscale on Stress-related feelings of anxiety. The mean scores on this subscale were 15.7 at 3 months and 17.4 at 1 year (7 to 35 scoring scale). Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 15.2; 6 months (n = 51) with 15.8; and 1 year (n = 47) with 16.8:

Stress-related feelings of anxiety

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Job stress (3mos): anxiety Male 14.3333 3.75436 15
Female 16.5652 4.20850 23
Total 15.6842 4.13361 38
Job stress (1yr): anxiety Male 16.4000 4.73286 15
Female 18.1304 5.09281 23
Total 17.4474 4.96309 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that time had a significant effect ( p = 0.011, with stress-related feelings of anxiety increasing over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 59.878 1 59.878 7.178 .011
Greenhouse Geisser 59.878 1.000 59.878 7.178 .011
Huynh-Feldt 59.878 1.000 59.878 7.178 .011
Lower bound 59.878 1.000 59.878 7.178 .011
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 1.141 1 1.141 .137 .714
Greenhouse Geisser 1.141 1.000 1.141 .137 .714
Huynh-Feldt 1.141 1.000 1.141 .137 .714
Lower bound 1.141 1.000 1.141 .137 .714
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 300.293 36 8.341  
Greenhouse Geisser 300.293 36.000 8.341
Huynh-Feldt 300.293 36.000 8.341
Lower bound 300.293 36.000 8.341

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 19433.270 1 19433.270 597.486 .000
Gender 71.270 1 71.270 2.191 .147
Error 1170.901 36 32.525  

For the first subscale, that pertaining to Stress-related feelings of anxiety, the mean scores for both measurement times remain relative (according to the scoring scale), the profile diagram indicating an increase in scores over time in relation to actual experience in the field. The mean scores for both genders on stress-related feelings of anxiety after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution were 14.3 and 16.5 respectively for the men and 16.5 and 18.1 for the women:

Profile diagram: Stress-related feelings of anxiety

The second subscale looked at Stress under substantial time pressure. The scoring scale ranged from 7 to a possible maximum of 49. The mean scores on this subscale were 20.2 at 3 months and 23.8 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 19.8; 6 months (n = 51) with 20.1; and 1 year (n = 47) with 23.0:

Stress under substantial time pressure

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Job stress (3mos): Male 17.9333 4.33370 15
time pressure Female 21.6087 4.61952 23
Total 20.1579 4.80724 38
Job stress (1yr): Male 22.8000 5.22631 15
time pressure Female 24.5217 5.50099 23
Total 23.8421 5.39031 38

The tests of within-subjects effects show that time had a significant effect (p = .001, with feelings of time pressure increasing over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 274.747 1 274.747 14.702 .000
Greenhouse Geisser 274.747 1.000 274.747 14.702 .000
Huynh-Feldt 274.747 1.000 274.747 14.702 .000
Lower bound 274.747 1.000 274.747 14.702 .000
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 17.326 1 17.326 .927 .342
Greenhouse Geisser 17.326 1.000 17.326 .927 .342
Huynh-Feldt 17.326 1.000 17.326 .927 .342
Lower bound 17.326 1.000 17.326 .927 .342
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 672.780 36 18.688  
Greenhouse Geisser 672.780 36.000 18.688
Huynh-Feldt 672.780 36.000 18.688
Lower bound 672.780 36.000 18.688

Aside from somewhat of a trend in scores, the table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 34251.755 1 34251.755 1113.103 .000
Gender 132.229 1 132.229 4.297 .045
Error 1107.771 36 30.771  

For this second subscale pertaining to Stress under substantial time pressure, the mean scores for both measurement times also remained relative in relation to the scoring scale. With respect to the change between the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution (which constitutes a trend), the scores were 17.9 and 22.8 respectively for the men and 21.6 and 24.5 for the women. The profile diagram in this case also shows that stress arising from insufficient time to perform the work that needs to be done was significant, with the gap between needs and perceptions increasing during the period between the 3-month and 1-year points:

Profile diagram: Stress under substantial time pressure

The question remains: what will the situation be like in 5 or 10 years?

21) Job satisfaction

1) The physical work conditions.

2) The freedom to choose your own method of working.

3) Your co-workers.

4) Your immediate boss.

5) Your rate of pay.

6) The amount of respect you are given.

7) Your rate of pay.

8) Your opportunity to use your abilities.

9) Industrial relations between management and workers in your firm.

10) Your chance of promotion.

11) The way your firm/business is managed.

12) The attention paid to suggestions you make.

13) Your hours of work.

14) The amount of variety in your job.

15) Your job security.

16) Now, taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?

The theme of job satisfaction encompasses various facets of the work to be performed and its potential impact on daily life. People who are very satisfied with their work can still have problems with their supervisors; they may like their immediate work environment while at the same time criticize the lack of support from those in authority (Fisher, 2000; Hopkins, 1983); they may or may not have a higher level of education and appreciate the extrinsic factors associated with their employment. They find their jobs adequate but nothing more (Rogers, 1991).

Inadequate recognition and the lack of support, guidance and autonomy experienced by correctional officers are reported for most of the themes for this study, and are also found in the literature (Brown, 1999; Stohr, Lovrich and Wilson, 1994; Hepburn, 1987; Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987). However, this need for social and public recognition arises through a matrix that is difficult to avoid: incarceration. Alongside this, the past 25 years have witnessed the emergence of professionals in the field of clinical assessment, reintegration programs, the rule of law (1984) and the Mission of the Correctional Service of Canada, which came into effect in 1988 (Correctional Service of Canada, 2003).

To take the example of psychologists working in corrections, despite high levels of autonomy, accountability and responsibility, decent pay, and a sense of accomplishment in their work, psychologists experience dissatisfaction in some of the same areas as correctional officers, specifically in terms of the prestige associated with a job in which roughness is encountered as a matter of course. After several years of service, a sense of social isolation begins to set in and automatic responses develop, as determined by series analysis (Leavitt, 2004; Froment, ibid.; Gal, 2003; Lohr, Stevens and Lilienfeld, 2003; Boothby and Clements, 2002; Wampold, 2001; Cullen et al., 1989; Zamble and Porporino, 1988; Lindquist and Whitehead, 1986).

The 16-items scale on Job satisfaction for our study was scored on a scale from 16 to 112. The mean scores were 68.9 at 3 months and 70.0 after 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 69.8; 6 months (n = 51) with 70.6; and 1 year (n = 47) with 70.5:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Job satisfaction (3mos) Male 70.7378 10.33424 15
Female 67.4400 12.44180 20
Total 68.8533 11.54217 35
Job satisfaction (1yr) Male 70.8489 6.96451 15
Female 69.2867 9.12840 20
Total 69.9562 8.19470 35

The tests of within-subjects effects indicate that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 16.427 1 16.427 .163 .689
Greenhouse Geisser 16.427 1.000 16.427 .163 .689
Huynh-Feldt 16.427 1.000 16.427 .163 .689
Lower bound 16.427 1.000 16.427 .163 .689
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 12.909 1 12.909 .128 .723
Greenhouse Geisser 12.909 1.000 12.909 .128 .723
Huynh-Feldt 12.909 1.000 12.909 .128 .723
Lower bound 12.909 1.000 12.909 .128 .723
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 3329.843 33 100.904  
Greenhouse Geisser 3329.843 33.000 100.904
Huynh-Feldt 3329.843 33.000 100.904
Lower bound 3329.843 33.000 100.904

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 331964.192 1 331964.192 3251.880 .000
Gender 101.227 1 101.227 .992 .327
Error 3368.765 33 102.084  

For the 16 statements pertaining to Job satisfaction, the scores for both measurement times remained relatively within average range. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 70.7 and 70.9 respectively for the men and 67.4 and 69.3 for the women:

Profile diagram: Job satisfaction

Although increases in Job satisfactionwere noted over time (especially for the women after a year), neither time nor gender had a statistically significant effect.

22) Interpersonal Reactivity Index - Empathy

1) I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things that might happen to me.

2) I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

*3) I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view.

*4) Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems.

5) I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel.

6) In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill at ease.

*7) I am usually objective when I watch a movie or play and I don't often get completely caught up in it.

8) I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision.

9) When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.

10) I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation.

11) I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective.

*12) Becoming extremely involved in a good book or movie is somewhat rare for me.

*13) When I see someone get hurt, I tend to remain calm.

*14) Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.

*15) If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste time listening to other people's arguments.

16) After seeing a play or movie, I have felt as though I were one of the characters.

17) Being in a tense emotional situation scares me.

*18) When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for them.

*19) I am usually pretty effective in dealing with emergencies.

20) I am often quite touched by things I see happen.

21) I believe that there are two sides to every question and I try to look at them both.

22) I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

23) When I watch a good movie, I can very easily put myself in the place of a leading character.

24) I tend to lose control during emergencies.

25) When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while.

26) When I am reading year interesting story or novel, I imagine how I would feel if the events in the story were happening to me.

27) When I see someone who badly needs help in year emergency, I go to pieces.

28) Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.

* = Inverted question

People who spend time in a prison setting will gradually be led towards an emotional detachment. Regardless of their position, they will no longer see the walls, the chain-link fence, the doors that unfailingly open and shut before and behind them. They feel them, but they no longer see them.

Developed by Davis (1994), the scale known as the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is used in various studies and fields of analysis, including that of sex offenders (Salter, 1988).

It is comprised of four subscales:

  1. Perspective taking (the ability to see situations, events and comments from someone else's perspective);
  2. Empathic concern (being compassionate and feeling sympathy);
  3. Fantasy(ability to project oneself into a fictional situation); and
  4. Personal distress(emotional response to another's extreme dismay).

Let us take a look at the first subscale, Perspective taking:

1. Perspective Taking 3 , 8, 11, 15 , 21, 25, 28

Gross scores

Significance

9 and under

Less than average

10-13

Slightly less than average

14-22

Within average range

23-27

Slightly higher than average

28 and over

Higher than average

Inverted questions: 3, 15.

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Empathy (3mos): Male 26.4000 2.38447 15
perspective taking Female 28.4348 2.53747 23
Total 27.6316 2.64494 38
Empathy (1yr): perspective Male 26.0667 3.10453 15
taking Female 28.0435 2.60207 23
Total 27.2632 2.93795 38

As indicated in the table above, the correctional officers in our study had mean scores of 27.6 at 3 months and 27.3 at 1 year on Perspective taking. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 27.5; 6 months (n = 51) with 27.6; and 1 year (n = 47) with 27.1.

The table below showing the results of the tests of within-subjects effects indicates that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect on Perspective taking:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 2.384 1 2.384 .890 .352
Greenhouse Geisser 2.384 1.000 2.384 .890 .352
Huynh-Feldt 2.384 1.000 2.384 .890 .352
Lower bound 2.384 1.000 2.384 .890 .352
Time * gender Sphericity assumed .015 1 .015 .006 .940
Greenhouse Geisser .015 1.000 .015 .006 .940
Huynh-Feldt .015 1.000 .015 .006 .940
Lower bound .015 1.000 .015 .006 .940
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 96.406 36 2.678  
Greenhouse Geisser 96.406 36.000 2.678
Huynh-Feldt 96.406 36.000 2.678
Lower bound 96.406 36.000 2.678

The table of between-subjects effects shows that gender had a significant effect (p = 0.016):

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 53879.001 1 53879.001 4745.466 .000
Gender 73.053 1 73.053 6.434 .016
Error 408.736 36 11.354  

For the seven statements pertaining to perspective taking, the score for both measurement times is slightly above average (according to scoring scale 1). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 26.4 and 26.0 respectively for the men (slightly higher than average) and 28.4 and 28.0 for the women (higher than average). As can be seen from the profile diagram, gender had a significant effect: the women displayed a greater capacity for understanding different perspectives on a given situation, incident or comment than the men did:

Profile diagram: Perspective taking

The second subscale addressed Empathic concern:

2. Empathic concern 2, 4 , 9, 14 , 18 , 20, 22

Gross score

Significance

11 and under

Less than average

12-15

Slightly less than average

16-24

Within average range

25-27

Slightly higher than average

28 and over

Higher than average

Inverted questions: 4, 14, 18

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Empathy (3mos): Male 24.4000 4.38830 15
empathic concern Female 26.0000 3.14787 23
Total 25.3684 3.71572 38
Empathy (1yr): empathic Male 22.2667 3.17280 15
concern Female 25.5217 1.85545 23
Total 24.2368 2.90790 38

The above table shows that the mean scores for Empathic concernamong the correctional officers were 25.3 at 3 months and 24.2 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 25.1; 6 months (n = 51) with 25.1; and 1 year (n = 47) with 24.2.

The tests of within-subjects effects show that time had a significant effect (p = 0.013, with scores for Empathic concerndecreasing over time):

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 30.961 1 30.961 6.849 .013
Greenhouse Geisser 30.961 1.000 30.961 6.849 .013
Huynh-Feldt 30.961 1.000 30.961 6.849 .013
Lower bound 30.961 1.000 30.961 6.849 .013
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 12.435 1 12.435 2.751 .106
Greenhouse Geisser 12.435 1.000 12.435 2.751 .106
Huynh-Feldt 12.435 1.000 12.435 2.751 .106
Lower bound 12.435 1.000 12.435 2.751 .106
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 162.736 36 4.520  
Greenhouse Geisser 162.736 36.000 4.520
Huynh-Feldt 162.736 36.000 4.520
Lower bound 162.736 36.000 4.520

The table of between-subjects effects shows that gender had a significant effect (p = 0.001):

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 43764.898 1 43764.898 2909.383 .000
Gender 107.003 1 107.003 7.113 .011
Error 541.536 36 15.043  

For the seven statements pertaining to empathic concern, the scores at 3 months remained higher than average (see scoring scale 2) and then declined after a year. With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 24.4 and 22.3 respectively for the men and 26.0 and 25.5 for the women. The profile diagram shows the significant effects of both time and gender:

Profile diagram: Empathic concern

The women showed greater empathy and a stronger tendency to be compassionate and to feel sympathy for others than the men did.

The third subscale measured Fantasyor the ability to project oneself into a fictional situation:

3. Fantasy scale 1, 5, 7 , 12 , 16, 23, 26

Gross score

Significance

9 and under

Less than average

10-13

Slightly less than average

14-22

Within average range

23-27

Slightly higher than average

28 and over

Higher than average

Inverted questions: 7 and 12

As can be seen from the table below, the mean scores on the Fantasysubscale were 20.9 at 3 months and 21.7 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 20.0; 6 months (n = 51) with 21.7; and 1 year (n = 47) with 21.5:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Empathy (3mos): fantasy Male 19.9333 4.07898 15
Female 21.4783 5.18625 23
Total 20.8684 4.78269 38
Empathy (1yr): fantasy Male 21.4000 3.39748 15
Female 21.9565 4.70472 23
Total 21.7368 4.19578 38

The table showing the results of the tests of within-subjects effects indicates that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 17.172 1 17.172 2.634 .113
Greenhouse Geisser 17.172 1.000 17.172 2.634 .113
Huynh-Feldt 17.172 1.000 17.172 2.634 .113
Lower bound 17.172 1.000 17.172 2.634 .113
Time * gender Sphericity assumed 4.435 1 4.435 .680 .415
Greenhouse Geisser 4.435 1.000 4.435 .680 .415
Huynh-Feldt 4.435 1.000 4.435 .680 .415
Lower bound 4.435 1.000 4.435 .680 .415
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 234.736 36 6.520  
Greenhouse Geisser 234.736 36.000 6.520
Huynh-Feldt 234.736 36.000 6.520
Lower bound 234.736 36.000 6.520

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects indicates that gender also did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 32618.994 1 32618.994 948.156 .000
Gender 20.047 1 20.047 .583 .450
Error 1238.493 36 34.403  

For the seven statements pertaining to fantasyrelated to empathy, the scores for both measurement times remain within average range (according to scoring scale 3). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 19.9 and 21.4 respectively for the men and 21.5 and 22.0 for the women :

Profile diagram: Fantasy related to empathy

The profile diagram confirms that neither time nor gender had a significant effect. Both genders seemed to have the same ability to imagine themselves in a fictional scenario.

The fourth and final subscale measured Personal distress in relation to another's dismay:

4. Personal Distress 6, 10, 13 , 17, 19 , 24, 27

Gross score

Significance

9 and under

Less than average

10-13

Slightly less than average

14-22

Within average range

23-27

Slightly higher than average

28 and plus

Higher than average

Inverted questions: 13 and 19

The latter table shows that the mean scores for Personal distress were 14.8 at 3 months and 15.1 at 1 year. Similar findings were obtained for the groups taken individually: 3 months (n = 70) with 14.6; 6 months (n = 51) with 14.6 as well; and 1 year (n = 47) with 14.9:

Descriptive statistics
  Gender Mean Std. deviation N
Empathy (3mos): personal distress Male 13.8667 3.56304 15
Female 15.3913 3.01118 23
Total 14.7895 3.28105 38
Empathy (1yr): personal distress Male 14.1333 4.29063 15
Female 15.6957 1.98711 23
Total 15.0789 3.14842 38

The table showing the results of the tests of within-subjects effects indicates that there was no interaction and that time did not have a significant effect:

Tests of within - subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source   squares dof square F Significance
Time Sphericity assumed 1.480 1 1.480 .306 .583
Greenhouse Geisser 1.480 1.000 1.480 .306 .583
Huynh-Feldt 1.480 1.000 1.480 .306 .583
Lower bound 1.480 1.000 1.480 .306 .583
Time * gender Sphericity assumed .006 1 .006 .001 .971
Greenhouse Geisser .006 1.000 .006 .001 .971
Huynh-Feldt .006 1.000 .006 .001 .971
Lower bound .006 1.000 .006 .001 .971
Error(time) Sphericity assumed 173.901 36 4.831  
Greenhouse Geisser 173.901 36.000 4.831
Huynh-Feldt 173.901 36.000 4.831
Lower bound 173.901 36.000 4.831

The table showing the results of the tests of between-subjects effects also indicates that gender did not have a significant effect:

Tests of between-subjects effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed variable: Mean
  Type III sum of   Mean    
Source squares dof square F Significance
Constant 15848.521 1 15848.521 1041.309 .000
Gender 43.258 1 43.258 2.842 .100
Error 547.913 36 15.220  

For the seven statements pertaining to personal distress related to empathy, although borderline, the scores for both periods remained within average range (according to scoring scale 4). With respect to the mean scores for both genders after the first 3 months and after 1 year at an institution, they were 13.9 and 14.1 respectively for the men and 15.4 and 15.7 for the women.

The profile diagram shows that neither time nor gender had a significant effect. The men and women seemed to have the same emotional responses to another person's despair:

Profile diagram: Personal distress related to empathy

These four empathy subscales show that after a year at an institution, correctional officers had an above average ability to understand different perspectives, their empathic concern for others was within average range and the ability to imagine themselves in a fictional scenario was also within average range, as was their potential for emotional responsivity.

Based on these results and the existing literature, no data for any of the five groups showed scores on the various dimensions of empathy that were below or even slightly below average according to the scoring scale created by Davis (ibid.).

 

Correlation between scales for 2 measurement times: 3 months and 1 year

Correlations
 
  Motivation for correctional work (3mos) Human service orientation (3mos) Attitudes towards correctional work (3mos) Social desirability (3mos) Intrinsic job motivation (3mos) Correctional self-efficacy (3mos)
Motivation for correctional Pearson correlation .396* -.125 -.093 -.148 .091 .175
work (1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .014 .455 .579 .376 .587 .293
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38
Human service orientation Pearson correlation -.066 .541** .320 -.027 .091 .053
(1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .695 .000 .050 .872 .588 .752
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38
Attitudes towards correctional Pearson correlation -.225 .117 .598** -.229 -.122 .006
work (1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .175 .484 .000 .167 .466 .971
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38
Social Desirability (1 yr) Pearson correlation -.013 .114 .039 .647** -.070 .330*
  Sig. (bilateral) .940 .496 .815 .000 .676 .043
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38
Intrinsic job motivation (1yr) Pearson correlation -.002 .086 .180 .043 .461** -.090
  Sig. (bilateral) .991 .609 .280 .796 .004 .592
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38
Correctional self-efficacy Pearson correlation .096 -.013 .108 .138 .277 .470**
(1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .565 .941 .518 .410 .092 .003
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38
* The correlation is significant to the 0.05 level (bilateral).
* The correlation is significant to the 0.01 level (bilateral).
Correlations
 
  Support for rehabilitation (3mos) Deterrence (3mos) Attitudes towards inmates (3mos) Perceptions (3mos) Group atmosphere (3mos) Social cohesiveness (3mos) Credibility (3mos)
Support for rehabilitation Pearson correlation .697** -.602** .643** .140 -.375* -.328** .165
(1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .000 .000 .000 .401 .020 .045 .322
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Deterrence (1yr) Pearson correlation -.483** .757** -.432** -.154 .317 .312 -.074
  Sig. (bilateral) .002 .000 .007 .357 .053 .056 .660
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Attitudes towards inmates Pearson correlation .627** -.485** .755** .127 -.339* -.407* .251
(1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .000 .002 .000 .448 .037 .011 .128
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Perceptions (1yr) Pearson correlation .210 -.311 .091 .606** .177 .050 .034
  Sig. (bilateral) .205 .058 .586 .000 .288 .765 .841
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Group atmosphere (1yr) Pearson correlation -.022 .094 -.332* .281 .707** .620** .024
  Sig. (bilateral) .896 .576 .042 .088 .000 .000 .888
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Social cohesiveness (1yr) Pearson correlation -.224 .321* -.538** -.016 .790** .799** -.021
  Sig. (bilateral) .176 .050 .000 .926 .000 .000 .901
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Credibility (1yr) Pearson correlation .219 -.166 .148 .428** .019 -.053 .126
  Sig. (bilateral) .187 .320 .375 .007 .909 .751 .449
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
* The correlation is significant to the 0.01 level (bilateral).
* The correlation is significant to the 0.05 level (bilateral).
Correlations
 
  Organizational commitment (3mos) Role conflict (3mos) Role ambiguity (3mos) Supervisory support (3mos) Job stress (3mos): anxiety Job stress (3mos): time pressure Job stress (3mos) Job satisfaction (3mos)
Organizational Pearson correlation .666** -.347* .249 .430** -.471** -.075 -.292 .273
commitment (1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .000 .033 .132 .007 .003 .654 .075 .107
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36
Role conflict (1yr) Pearson correlation .069 .388* .354* -.017 .173 -.221 -.044 .044
  Sig. (bilateral) .680 .016 .029 .919 .300 .183 .793 .761
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36
Role ambiguity (1yr) Pearson correlation -.158 -.048 .129 -.257 -.176 -.028 -.109 -.120
  Sig. (bilateral) .342 .776 .441 .119 .291 .869 .516 .487
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36
Supervisory support Pearson correlation -.324* -.101 -.406* -.026 .186 .197 .217 -.077
(1yr) Sig. (bilateral) .047 .547 .011 .875 .264 .237 .191 .656
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36
Job stress (1yr): anxiety Pearson correlation -.245 .197 -.182 -.084 .620** .339* .530** .151
  Sig. (bilateral) .139 .235 .273 .616 .000 .037 .001 .378
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36
Job stress (1yr): Pearson correlation -.332* .265 -.220 -.184 .431** .287 .400* -.123
time pressure Sig. (bilateral) .042 .107 .184 .376 .007 .081 .013 .473
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36
Job stress (1yr) Pearson correlation -.328* .263 -.228 -.132 .589** .352* .522** .012
  Sig. (bilateral) .045 .111 .168 .428 .000 .030 .001 .943
  N 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36
Job satisfaction (1yr) Pearson correlation .087 -.013 -.007 .045 -.078 .016 -.030 .020
  Sig. (bilateral) .609 .938 .967 .792 .647 .925 .860 .910
  N 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 35
* The correlation is significant to the 0.01 level (bilateral).
* The correlation is significant to the 0.05 level (bilateral).
Correlations
 
  Empathy (3mos):perspective taking Empathy (3mos):empathic concern Empathy (3mos):fantasy Empathy (3mos):personal distress
Empathy (1yr): perspective Pearson correlation .670** .134 .004 .194
taking Sig. (bilateral) .000 .421 .979 .244
  N 38 38 38 38
Empathy (1yr): empathic Pearson correlation .275 .592** .066 .215
concern Sig. (bilateral) .094 .000 .692 .195
  N 38 38 38 38
Empathy (1yr): fantasy Pearson correlation .164 .062 .686** .069
  Sig. (bilateral) .325 .712 .000 .683
  N 38 38 38 38
Empathy (1yr): personal Pearson correlation .159 .125 .331* .546**
distress Sig. (bilateral) .339 .456 .042 .000
  N 38 38 38 38
* The correlation is significant to the 0.01 level (bilateral).
* The correlation is significant to the 0.05 level (bilateral).

The previous table (pages 154 to 157) shows the correlation between 3 months and 1 year for each of the 19 scales and their six subscales. It will be noted that a significant correlation (p > .05) was found for 20 of the scale/subscales. This means that the value of the scale (and its subscale) can be predicted from its value at 3 months. Furthermore, since these correlations are all positive, a low (high) value on a scale (or subscale) at 3 months is associated with a low (high) value on that same scale (or subscale) at 1 year.

In summary, creating a diagonal between the two time points (3 months and 1 year) on these four tables shows that 16 of the 19 scales present a measure of predictability (scatter plots). In this case, the attitudes of the new correctional officers (after their first 3 months at an institution) can predict both positive and negative changes over time.

As we will see in the following section entitled Graphic representation of 25 scales and subscales at 3 months and 1 year, such changes for both time periods can also be presented visually.

 

Graphic representation of 25 scales and subscales at 3 months and 1 year

For the 25 scales and subscales used in this study, 4 of the 25 diagrams representing scatter plots do not indicate any relationship between the two time points at an institution (i.e., at 3 months and after a year in the field): Post-credibility, Role ambiguity, Supervisory support and Job satisfaction.

  1. Post-credibilitypertains to what the participants thought of their CTP training and instructors. This aspect was already in stagnation after the Postperiod (n = 147 subjects). As previously noted, changes in environment and autonomy are inevitably associated with the development of knowledge (maturation effect). A new equilibrium is established. The person is no longer at the college and many things have changed since the first three months at the institution. In itself, the questionnaire represents a past that is symbolically kept at a distance so that present realities can be more adequately dealt with. The role the instructors formerly played is now being taken on by the supervisors.

    Hypothesis adopted for this questionnaire: in terms of the results for the Postperiod, this questionnaire on credibilityno longer has any relevance once the correctional officer is plunged into the reality of day-to-day operations. This could explain the absence of any significance between the values at 3 months and at 1 year. The participants seemed to view these six questions pertaining to past perceptions as inappropriate. Although there is not necessarily a linear relationship between the values for post-credibility at 1 year and at 3 months, the questionnaire could very easily have been eliminated for the institutional period. However, for strictly methodological and ethical reasons, no scales or subscales were withdrawn from the study.
  2. Role ambiguity (role conflict subscale) tended to point to an inability to comment on the work descriptions imposed on the respondents once they started working, a lack of knowledge regarding specific goals and objectives, inappropriate time management, insufficient knowledge of the work to be able to perform it properly, and a deficient chain of command. Officers have many responsibilities but little authority and virtually no decision-making authority.
  3. Supervisory support.The graphic representation of this scatter plot shows the same pattern and lack of coherence as for role ambiguity. New arrivals do not feel that they are receiving guidance from their immediate supervisors when they need support.
  4. Job satisfaction, which encompassed both intrinsic aspects (lack of recognition, absence of support and autonomy, lack of variety in the work to be performed, poor supervision) and extrinsic aspects (working conditions, shift work, perception of the job).

It should be noted that no negative or inverse statistical relationship was recorded for any these 25 diagrams. For each of the 21 other scales for the first three-month period, the results indicate a high level of predictive correlation among the 38 participants for the first year at an institution.

Motivation for correctional work

Human service orientation

Attitudes towards correctional work

Social desirability

Intrinsic job motivation

Correctional self-efficacy

Support for rehabilitation

Deterrence

Attitudes towards inmates

Perceptions

Group atmosphere

Social cohesiveness

Credibility

Organizational commitment

Role conflict

Role ambiguity

Supervisory support

Job stress

Job stress: anxiety

Job stress: time pressure

Job satisfaction

Empathy: perspective taking

Empathy: empathic concern

Empathy: fantasy

Empathy: personal distress

 

Review of data

This third and final research report on correctional officers has shown that many organizational factors play a decisive role in what are referred to as efficiency criteria, especially when one stops to think that human beings spend more than a third of their lives at work.

Many things have been said about this first year of practice in the field of corrections. While there are no right or wrong answers, the findings for our core sample have raised a number of questions. In the social science realm, a statistically insignificant result, a lack of change, stagnation over time, or decreasing scores for both genders even when the mean scores are relatively high, must be taken into account when considering attitudinal changes that occurred during the 15-month follow-up of this study including one full year in an correctional institution. This represents the starting point towards the future for all those who have chosen this career. Where will each of them be 5 or 10 years from now?

One important point that cannot be overstated is that this is not a matter of people as individuals but of providing quantifiable data with a view towards improving attitudes at CSC with regard to correctional work, offender reintegration and the mission that encompasses those elements.

As part of a systemic approach that addressed the worlds of theory and practice by examining the structures of internal operations, beliefs, values and the phenomena of subculture, each theme that was explored attested to the fact that correctional officers play a crucial role as members of a multidisciplinary team. The findings for both male and female correctional officers after their first year of service at CSC in all five administrative regions were as follows:

  1. The three major skills/qualities the respondents still believed they possessed that would best assist them in their work as correctional officers were as follows:
    • Counselling;
    • Desire to learn; and
    • Empathy.

    These 3 advantages and skills/qualities remained unchanged over time for both genders.

  2. After a year of practical experience, the correctional officers' scores in the following nine fields were extremely high, despite the many difficulties they had encountered over the course of the year:
    • Attitudes towards correctional work (with the exception of how the public perceives the profession). Significant difference between the two genders (with women scoring significantly higher than men), as well as between the scores at 3 months and 1 year (with scores decreasing over time). Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .598; p= .000.
    • Support for rehabilitation.Significant difference between the two genders, as well as between the scores at 3 months and 1 year. Correlation between the two time points: = .697; p= .000. At 3 months, Support for rehabilitation is negatively correlated to deterrence at 1 year ( r = -.483; p = .002), and positively correlated to attitudes towards inmates ( r = .627; p= .000).
    • Social desirability. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two time points. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= 647; = .000.
    • Human service orientation. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two time points. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: = .541; p= .000.
    • Sources of motivation for correctional work. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two time points. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .396; p= .014.
    • Intrinsic motivation for work in general. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two time points. Significant correlation between scores 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .461; = 004.
    • Correctional self-efficacy. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two time points. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: = .470; p= .003.
    • Empathic concern.Significant difference between the two genders and between the two time points (more pronounced for the women). Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .592; p= .000.
    • Deterrence. Although the element of deterrence increased over time for both genders, the actual mean scores for the group show that this was not a dominant characteristic of the correctional officers (i.e., despite increasing over time, the scores remained relatively low). Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: = .757; p= .000). For deterrence at 3 months, with the scale of attitudes towards inmates at 1 year, the correlation is r = -.485; p= .002. Accordingly, a high value for deterrence at 3 months is predictive of a low value for attitudes towards inmates.
  3. After one year of practical experience, the correctional officers' assessments in the following four fields were more mixed (it will be recalled that these results showed a pattern over 12 months of correctional operations):
    • Organizational commitment. No significant difference between the two genders, although there was one between the two periods. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .666; p= .000.
    • Job satisfaction. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two periods. Correlation that was strongly non-significant between 3-month and 1-year time points.
    • Attitudes towards inmates. Although a significant decrease was noted for both genders and both periods, the decrease remained more pronounced for the men. Significant correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .755; p= .000. Correlative relationship with support for rehabilitation ( r = -.602; p= .000) and attitudes towards inmates ( r = -.485; p= .002).

    Although they appear to contradict the central theme of empathy, the correctional officers' scores on three of the four subscales measuring different aspects of empathy were just within average range:

    • Perspective taking. Significantly higher for the women than for the men, but no significant difference between the two time point). Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .670; p= .000.
    • Fantasy. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two periods. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .686; = .000.
    • - Personal distress. There also, no significant difference between the two genders or between the two time points. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .546; p= .000.

    The hypothesis we have adopted in this case based on the results for these four scales is: there is an absence of genuine contact with the prison population during the first year of service (no counselling/helping), whereas this is one of the most important skills that officers believe they possess. The fact that most new correctional officers are generally limited to a static role when they arrive at an institution seems to give rise to dissatisfaction. The situation is not what they had hoped for at the staff college ( Job satisfactionand Organizational commitment). Dealing with inmates through static supervision also plays an important role in the way the respective roles and duties are perceived ( Attitudes towards inmatesand the three subscales for Perspective taking, Fantasyand Personal distress related to empathy).

  4. The Pre A and Post periods entailed four questionnaires intended to assess the changes over time in relation to expectations of the CTP. For this phase of our study, the verb tenses in these four questionnaires were changed to reflect perceptions rather than expectations after the training. For these four scales, there were some reservations with respect to their actual relevance once the respondent had started working at an institution. These questionnaires related to:
    • Post-Correctional Officer recruit perceptions of training. N o significant difference between the 2 genders or between the 2 time points. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: = 606; p= .000.
    • Post-group environment questionnaire administered after participation in the CTP. No significant difference between the two genders or between the two time points. Significant correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .707; p= .000.
    • Post- Correctional Officer social cohesiveness. No significant difference between the 2 genders or between the 2 time points. Significant correlation between scores at 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .799; p= .000.
    • And finally, post-credibility related to the CTP. Here also, no significant difference between the two genders, but a difference between the two time points. Non-significant correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points.

    In short, the fact that the results for these four scales were, to say the least, harsh and highly critical towards the instructors and the training received needs to be considered from the standpoint of practical experience and time spent at an institution.

    For the 95 modules related to officer training, what do the questions associated with the CTP period at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year represent when the subject is no longer at the staff college?

    There is indeed a huge gap between the expectations that arose during the theoretical training and the officers' perceptions of their experiences in the field, but this is not a reflection on the quality of the training or the instructors. It will be recalled that the training is consistent throughout the country and that no special differences were noted for any particular region as compared to another, whereas the responses came from six groups of people at three different times and for both genders (despite the correlations between the 3-month and 6-month time points for the Post-perceptions, Post-group environmentand Post-social cohesivenessscales).

    It must be recalled that a correlation between two sets of results does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship. As we have seen with respect to Credibility, there was a great deal of inconsistency in the results (Cronbach alpha values, stagnant scatter plots, tests of between- and within-subjects effects with profile diagrams showing no significant difference between the two genders).

    This concludes our discussion of the hypothesis we have adopted to explain the results for these four scales related to the vocational training period.

  5. The three major disadvantagesthe officers still believed they had to contend with after one year were as follows:
    • Shift work.The irregularity of shift work can lead to higher accident rates, affect absenteeism and create stress arising from the anticipation of some kind of incident as well as from the amount of work to be done. At the same time, overtime does not lead to an increase in performance but in fact to a loss in efficiency in an environment that requires that people remain alert.
    • Stress related to anticipation of violence. Given the way in which it is structured, the prison world inevitably gives rise to and maintains a potential for violence (not supported by actual facts) since the entire population is there against its will. New officers do not have the self-assurance of their colleagues with 20 years of experience. Everything is new and not everything can be learned in a single day.
    • Environment and negative atmosphere. Key words that encompass the following three points:
      1. Job insecurity (term position). The insecurity arising from the disparity between the current and expected status creates anxiety;
      2. Anxiety caused and maintained by a lack of recognition for the correctional officer's responsibilities and role. Like any other staff member, correctional officers need a professional identity and social legitimacy. Too often they feel like they have been relegated to a secondary rank; and
      3. This feeling of lack of recognition is all the more pronounced given that there is no reciprocity in relations among co-workers (notably criminologists and psychologists). Nonetheless, this is a very important facet within any organization and it underlies a sense of belonging (Monroe and Jittaun Deloach, 2004).

Among these 19 scales, four themes (and two subscales) showed a continual decrease in positive attitudes from the end of the first 3 months until the end of the first year of service. A number of factors have been identified here:

  • Role conflict. No significant difference between the two genders. Significant increase in scores over time. Significant correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .388; p= .016.

    Hypothesis adopted: Newly promoted officers are left to their own devices and have no opportunity to develop and effectively display their abilities, and are therefore in an ongoing state of confrontation with their work environment. This point was raised in 1992 by researchers Robinson and Porporino (ibid.), who wrote that correctional officers showed the lowest level of commitment of all occupational categories working in corrections. One of the keys that was identified was having correctional officers become involved in the case management process immediately. This level of participation can only be beneficial for both the individual and the organization as a whole (Karasek and Theorell, 1990).

Not only does allowing correctional officers to fully assume their roles as part of a team give them access to more information about CSC, but it also ensures greater control in their own work as well as in their immediate environment. Interaction among correctional officers and the team as a whole can only improve communication and foster unity among correctional staff in carrying out the mission conferred on them by the legislation.

  • Role ambiguity. No significant difference between the two genders or over time but consistently high scores for both genders and over time. Non-significant correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points.

Hypotheses adopted:

  1. Not being sufficiently challenged, primarily as a result of the monotonous, routine and repetitive nature of the work, with no genuine involvement in counselling since they have been confined to a static role, can only lead to decreased job satisfaction and motivation among correctional officers;
  2. Autonomy in decision-making. Underutilization of skills (not to be confused with the first item) and a lack of empowerment for correctional officers. The flexibility that correctional officers want influences the level of satisfaction and ultimately, if there is no improvement, the motivation of correctional officers who have recently been promoted simply want to practise counselling and helping. Pay and benefits will never be sufficient to maintain, fully satisfy and at the same time regenerate the quality of correctional operations (Shirom, Westman and Melamed, 1999).

    Probable outcome after two or three years of service: a disengagement from the position and the role, increased absenteeism and a withdrawal into purely static supervision.

  • Supervisory support. No significant difference between the two genders or significant correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points but scores did decrease over time. For correctional officers who are just starting out, there is an inconsistency between the requirements of this brand-new environment and their skills and abilities and the resources they possess for meeting these demands. For interpersonal relations as well, the different types of tensions and internal conflicts that arise depend on the quality of the employee's relationship with his or her supervisor. A lack of recognition, an overly directive manner, and the formation of cliques can only serve to increase the tension between officers and institutional management. This in turn has an inevitable effect on offender reintegration (April, ibid.; Kleiner and Bouillon, 1991; Koys and Decotis, 1991; Plecas and Maxim, ibid.; Fain, 1987; Lindquist and Whitehead, ibid.; Cheek and Miller, ibid.; Willet, 1983; Hepburn and Albonetti, ibid.).
  • Job stress. For this scale, we find significant differences for time but no significant difference between the two genders. Significant correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points: r = .522; p = .001.
  • Stress-related feelings of anxiety.Significant difference between the two time points and a trend for the effect of gender for this subscale. Significant c orrelation between 3-month and 1-year time points: r= .620; = .000. Officers must deal with the needs of clients who do not want to be there, sometimes in crisis situations, and are regularly confronted with stressful situations. Confidence and a sense of being supported by those in authority are the main contributors to the quality of interpersonal relations (Schweiger and Denisi, 1991).
  • Stress under substantial time pressure.No significant difference between the two time points or for gender for this second subscale. No correlation between 3-month and 1-year time points: r = .287; p = 0.81

 

Conclusion

These three years of research appear to indicate that, in the prison setting, learning and behaviour reinforcement depend a great deal on attitudes and beliefs, which will change over time regardless of occupation. Objectively speaking, however, in the highly artificial world "inside" prisons where Correctional Officers live and work every day, despite consistent occupational training in all regions of Canada it will not always be easy for them to maintain behaviour patterns that do not clash with the reality they live every day.

This finding is particularly apparent given that the word "incarceration" has long carried with it a great many associated concepts: protection, deterrence, control, surveillance, identification numbers, constraints, standards, rules, prohibitions and, as a result, sanctions. Since these sanctions have the clearly defined objective of ensuring learning, it is inevitable that numerous contradictions in defining roles will arise. These contradictions are all the more striking given that the Correctional Service of Canada no longer operates on a model of punishment but rather on a model of rehabilitation. Like their co-workers, Correctional Officers must accept possible success, failure, frustration, hope and the satisfaction of a job well done, the only constant feature of their work being the human condition at its most wretched and raw. Thus it is normal for Correctional Officers' attitudes to change over time, sometimes quite quickly.

It is most important, then, for Correctional Officers to feel supported, guided and fairly recognized at their full worth. The extrinsic rewards of this occupation can never be enough to keep them at the Correctional Service of Canada. Applying rules and enforcing legislation is one thing; believing in the work is another. In such a complex field as ours, belief is foundational to the work; without belief, our work becomes a mundane routine. This observation was the common link for innovator Ms. Claude Tellier, who pioneered 19 measurement scales and for whom Correctional Officers' occupation deserved more than a just a few surveys.

Further research will take up the torch and extend our present limited perceptions of human behaviour. Although we spend a great deal of time studying and understanding offenders in order to enhance public protection by gradually reintegrating inmates into society, we have yet to understand the interactions between inmates and staff members. Understanding these interactions will help us improve the social relationships between a constrained population and all the women and men whose duty it is to control, to supervise, and to help them as humanely as possible with respect for the rule of law.

 

Appendix I

Highlights of Correctional Officer Recruits During the Learning Period: An Examination

The second report entitled Correctional Officer Recruits During the Training Period: An Examination, covered the first three months of training of new recruits. Attitudes and behaviours were examined using 13 measurement scales:

  • Attitudes towards correctional work
  • Attitudes towards inmates
  • Support for rehabilitation
  • Deterrence
  • Human service orientation
  • Correctional self-efficacy
  • Sources of motivation for correctional work
  • Intrinsic job motivation
  • Social desirability
  • CTP expectations and Perceptions
  • Pre-Post Group environment
  • Pre-Post correctional officer social cohesiveness
  • Pre-Post credibility.

Thirteen measurement scales were administered to 233 correctional officer recruits (123 men and 110 women) across five regions during a three-month Correctional training program (CTP). The average age for the sample was 32 years old (33 for men and 30 for women). Among the recruits were Aboriginals (n=35) and visible minorities (n=35); 174 of the recruits (75%) had a college or university degree.

Highlights:

  • Methodology: structured questionnaires were systematically administered to study participants at three different time intervals (first day, second week and third month during CTP).
  • After 3 months, 147 recruits (77 men and 70 women) recruits had successfully completed the CTP and were available to participate in the research study.
  • No significant differences in gender, age, education or dependents were found between recruits who completed CTP and participated in the research.
  • Overall, 86 participants (37%) (46 men and 40 women) did not complete CTP and the research.
  • A substantially higher percentage of recruits did not complete CTP in the Atlantic (75%) and Prairies (69%) regions in comparison to Quebec (30%), Ontario (29%) and Pacific (26%) regions.
  • Also it was found 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.
  • Statistical 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.
  • Several measures indicated that there were no significant differences between men and women recruits : Attitudes towards inmates; Deterrence; Human service orientation; Social desirability; Intrinsic motivation; Self-efficacy; Expectations/Perceptions of training; Pre-Post Correctional officer social cohesiveness; Pre-Post Credibility.
  • The recruits expressed higher levels of general motivation after three months on CTP.

 

Appendix II

Cronbach alpha values for each scale for the three time points:

 
Scales α at 3 months α at 6 months α at 1 year
(n = 70) (n = 51) (n = 47)
Sources of motivation for correctional work .904 .722 .807
Human service orientation .366 .437 .470
Attitudes towards correctional work .636 .750 .810
Social desirability .115 -.027 -.096
Intrinsic job motivation .653 .783 .737
Correctional self-efficacy .850 .878 .842
Support for rehabilitation .803 .882 .845
Deterrence .646 .641 .811
Attitudes towards inmates .882 .916 .931
Post-perceptions of training .840 .812 .830
Post-group environment .808 .710 .703
Post-social cohesiveness of officers .724 .606 .652
Post-credibility .900 .929 .913
Organizational commitment .839 .874 .884
*Role conflict .450 .534 .165
*Role ambiguity .425 .592 .471
Supervisory support .887 .828 .838
Job stress .869 .853 .856
*Stress - Anxiety .680 .828 .790
*Stress - Time pressure .846 .716 .757
Job satisfaction .898 .900 .758
*Empathy - Perspective taking .669 .726 .796
*Empathy - Empathic concern .720 .729 .453
*Empathy - Fantasy .773 .621 .642
*Empathy - Personal distress .735 .738 .760

* Subscales

Cronbach alpha value is low for the following scales:

  • Human service orientation
  • Social desirability
  • Role conflict
  • Role ambiguity

 

Appendix III

Coding of data entry in Excel. To avoid any confusion, since there is only one databank for the Excel software, the following abbreviations appear in English in the order in which they were entered, with a French translation in italics.

Section 1

ID = Identification Number / Code d'identification

MARITAL = Marital Status / État civil

CHILDREN = Children / Avec ou sans enfant

REGION = Region / Région administrative

TOBACCO = Tobacco / Consommation de tabac

CIG = Cigarettes / Nombre de cigarettes

ALCOHOL = Alcohol / Consommation d'alcool

ALC = Alcohol Frequency / Fréquence de consommation

PAINKILL = Painkillers / Médicaments anti-douleur

ANTACIDS = Antacids / Médicaments anti-acide

ANTIHIS = Antihistamines / Antihistaminiques

Section 2

MOTV = Sources of Motivation for Correctional Work 1-6 / Sources de motivation pour le travail correctionnel

HSO = Human Service Orientation 1-8 / Orientation pour le travail social

ACW = Attitudes Towards Correctional Work 9-20 / Attitudes à l'égard du travail correctionnel

SD = Social Desirability 21-30 / Aptitudes sociales

IJM = Intrinsic Job Motivation 1-6 / Motivation intrinsèque à l'égard du travail

CSE = Correctional Self-Efficacy 1-5 / Efficacité dans le secteur correctionnel

Section 3

SR = Support for Rehabilitation 1-9 / Soutien à la réinsertion sociale

Det = Deterrence 1-5 / La dissuasion

ATI = Attitudes Towards Inmates 6-39 / Attitudes à l'égard des détenus

Section 4

CTP = Correctional Training Program 1-12 / Perceptions postérieures à l'égard de la formation des nouveaux agents de correction

Section 5

GEQ = Group Environment Questionnaire 1-7 / Questionnaire sur le climat dans le groupe après la participation au PFC

SC = Social Cohesiveness 8-14 / Cohésion sociale postérieure des agents de correction

Cred = Credibility 15-20 / Crédibilité postérieure

Section 6

OC = Organizational Commitment 1-15 / Engagement envers l'organisation

RC = Role Conflict 16-45 / Conflit dans le rôle

SS = Supervisory Support 46-51 / Soutien des supérieurs immédiats

Jobstress = Job Stress 52-63 / Stress au travail

Jobsatisfaction = Job Satisfaction 64-79 / Satisfaction au travail

IRI Interpersonal Reactivity Index 1-28 / Empathie

Coding in Excel

3 months, 6 months, 1 year

ID Marital Children Region  
   
lang_eng Lang_fr Lang_ot  
   
Tobacco Cig  
   
Alcohol alc3mon Alc1wk  
   
Painkill Antacids Antihis  
   
motv1 motv2 motv3 motv4 motv5 motv6  
 
HS01 HS02 HS03 HS04 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08
   
ACW9 ACW10 ACW11 ACW12 ACW13 ACW14 ACW15  
ACW16 ACW17 ACW18 ACW19 ACW20  
   
SD21 SD22 SD23 SD24 SD25 SD26 SD27  
SD28 SD29 SD30  
   
IJM1 IJM2 IJM3 IJM4 IJM5 IJM6  
   
CSE1 CSE2 CSE3 CSE4 CSE5 CSE6 CSE7  
CSE8 CSE9 CSE10 CSE11 CSE12 CSE13 CSE14 CSE15
   
SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 SR5 SR6 SR7  
SR8 SR9  
   
Det1 Det2 Det3 Det4 Det5  
   
ATI6 ATI7 ATI8 ATI9 ATI10 ATI11 ATI12  
ATI13 ATI14 ATI15 ATI16 ATI17 ATI18 ATI19  
ATI20 ATI21 ATI22 ATI23 ATI24 ATI25 ATI26  
ATI27 ATI28 ATI29 ATI30 ATI31 ATI32 ATI33  
ATI34 ATI35 ATI36 ATI37 ATI38 ATI39  
   
CTP1 CTP2 CTP3 CTP4 CTP5 CTP6 CTP7  
CTP8 CTP9 CTP10 CTP11 CTP12  
   
GEQ1 GEQ2 GEQ3 GEQ4 GEQ5 GEQ6 GEQ7  
   
SC8 SC9 SC10 SC11 SC12 SC13 SC14  
   
cred15 cred16 cred17 cred18 cred19 cred20  
 
oc1 oc2 oc3 oc4 oc5 oc6 oc7 oc8
oc9 oc10 oc11 oc12 oc13 oc14 oc15  
 
rc16 rc17 rc18 rc19 rc20 rc21 rc22 rc23
rc24 rc25 rc26 rc27 rc28 rc29 rc30 rc31
rc32 rc33 rc34 rc35 rc36 rc37 rc38 rc39
rc40 rc41 rc42 rc43 rc44 rc45  
   
ss46 ss47 ss48 ss49 ss50 ss51  
 
js52 js53 js54 js55 js56 js57 js58 js59
js60 js61 js62 js63  
 
Jsatis64 Jsatis65 Jsatis66 Jsatis67 Jsatis68 Jsatis69 Jsatis70 Jsatis71
Jsatis72 Jsatis73 Jsatis74 Jsatis75 Jsatis76 Jsatis77 Jsatis78 Jsatis79
 
irie1 irie2 irie3 irie4 irie5 irie6 irie7 irie8
irie9 irie10 irie11 irie12 irie13 irie14 irie15 irie16
irie17 irie18 irie19 irie20 irie21 irie22 irie23 irie24
irie25 irie26 irie27 irie28  

Appendix IV

List of key words for the four qualitative questions (identical questions in the five questionnaires: Pre A, Post, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year).

Question 5: What skill(s) do you feel you possess that will best assist you as a Correctional Officer? Please list a maximum of three.48

48 Respondents may have selected only one or two choices or may have skipped the question entirely. If the person responded to three_1a = 10, this means that a sense of responsibility is one of the skills or qualities the person believed he or she possessed. The responses do not appear in any particular order.

For 3 months
three_1a three_1b three_1c  
 
For 6 months
six_1a six_1b six_1c  
 
For 1 year
one_1a one_1b one_1c  

Key words for question 5 in both languages

1) = Counselling / Relation d'aide (entraide)

2) = Human experience / Expérience humaine

3) = Desire to learn / Désir d'apprendre

4) = Empathy / Empathie

5) = Integrity on the job / Intégrité dans le travail

6) = Teamwork / Travail d'équipe

7) = Affinity for discipline / Goût de la discipline

8) = Sociability / Sociabilité

9) = Affinity for security work / Goût pour le travail lié à la sécurité

10) = Sense of responsibility / Sens des responsabilités

11) = Good physical condition / Bonne condition physique

12) = Adaptability / Bonne capacité d'adaptation

13) = University degree / Scolarité universitaire

14) = Sense of observation / Sens de l'observation

15) = Self-efficacy / Être autonome

16) = Self-esteem / Estime de soi

17) = To be a member of a visible minority group / Être membre d'une minorité visible

Question 6: There are advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (downsides) to any job. Please list what you consider are the advantages of the position of a Correctional Officer

For 3 months
three_2a three_2b three_2c three_2d three_2e
 
For 6 months  
six_2a six_2b six_2c six_2d  
 
For 1 year  
one_2a one_2b one_2c one_2d  

Key words for question 6 in both languages

1) = Job stability / Stabilité d'emploi

2) = Fringe benefits / Avantages sociaux

3) = Pay / Salaire

4) = Teamwork / Travail d'équipe

5) = Promotion / Promotion

6) = Counselling / Relation d'aide

7) = Challenge / Défi

8) = Integrity on the job / Integrité dans le travail

9) = Good working conditions / Bonnes conditions de travail

10) = Variety on the job / Diversité de la fonction (polyvalence)

11) = Affinity for security work / Goût pour le travail lié à la sécurité

12) = Human experience / Expérience humaine

13) = Shift work / Horaires

14) = Setting an example / Devenir un exemple

15) = Continuous learning / Apprentissage continu

16) = Prestige / Prestige

17) = Sense of responsibility / Sens des responsabilités

18) = To be useful / Être utile

19) = Case management / Gestion des cas

20) = Patience / Patience

21) = To be useful to one's community / Être utile à sa communauté d'appartenance

22) = Uniform provided / Uniforme fourni

23) = Working in a unique environment / Travailler en un milieu unique

Question 7: Please list what you consider are the disadvantages of the position of a Correctional Officer

For 3 months  
three_3a three_3b three_3c three_3d  
 
For 6 months
six_3a six_3b six_3c six_3d six_3e
 
For 1 year  
one_3a one_3b one_3c one_3d  

Key words for question 7 in both languages

1) = Stress / Stress

2) = Routine / Routine

3) = Difficulties of shift work / Difficultés liées aux quarts de travail

4) = Lack of reality-based training / Manque de formation face à la réalité

5) = Differences of opinion at work / Divergences d'opinion dans le travail

6) = Requirement to be authoritarian / Obligation à être autoritaire

7) = Too many rules and regulations / Trop de normes et de règlements

8) = Lack of authority / Manque d'autorité

9) = Poor work recognition / Non reconnaissance du travail

10) = Environment and negative atmosphere / Milieu et ambiance négative

11) = Limited social life / Vie sociale restreinte

12) = Occupational accidents (risk of violence, hostage-taking, suicide) / Accidents de travail (risques de violence, prise d'otage, suicide)

13) = Pay / Salaire

14) = Difficult clients / Clientèle difficile

15) = Unstable work environment / Environnement instable

16) = Lack of job security (among term employees) / Sécurité d'emploi (contractuel)

17) = Negative public image / Opinion du public défavorable

18) = Turnover / Changement de poste (roulement)

19) = Solitude / Solitude

20) = Negative perception of offenders (on the part of officers) / Perception négative des agents à l'encontre des détenus

21) = Lack of challenges / Manque de défi

22) = Too many family ties / Trop de liens de parenté entre agents de correction

23) = Collective agreement expired / Co nvention collective échue

24) = Distance to work / Distance avec le lieu de travail

25) = Lack of communication / Absence de communication

26) = Too many supervisors / Trop de supérieurs hiérarchiques

27) = Lack of security in certain areas / Absence de sécurité à certains endroits

28) = Unclean premises and air / Malpropreté des lieux / air vicié

29) = Underutilization of skills / Mauvaise utilisation des compétences

30) = Negative perceptions of correctional officers (on the part of staff) / Perception négative du personnel à l'encontre des agents

31) = Too much work / Trop de travail

32) = Required to pay for meals / Avoir à payer ses repas

Question 8: 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 Officers. Please list them.

For 3 months
three_4a three_4b three_4c three_4d
 
For 6 months
six_4a six_4b six_4c six_4d
 
For 1 year
one_4a one_4b one_4c one_4d

Key words for question 8 in both languages

1) = Affinity for security work / Goût pour le travail lié à la sécurité

2) = Challenge / Défi

3) = Desire to learn / Apprentissage

4) = External influence / Influence extérieure

5) = Job stability / Stabilité d'emploi

6) = Study in a parallel area / Études en un domaine parallèle

7) = Counselling / Relation d'aide

8) = Pay / Salaire

9) = Fringe benefits / Avantages sociaux

10) = Promotion / Promotion

11) = Shift work / Horaire

12) = Teamwork / Travail d'équipe

13) = Proximity to work / Proximité d'habitation / lieux de travail

14) = Uniform provided / Uniforme fourni

15) = First job opportunity / Première offre d'emploi

16) = Opportunity for ethnic minority / Opportunité pour minorité ethnique

17) = State approved work / Service d'utilité public

Appendix V

Descriptive statistics for scales for 3-month period:

Descriptive statistics
  N Minimum Maximum Average Mean
Motivation for correctional 70 6.00 30.00 24.9571 4.15091
work (3mos)
Human service orientation 70 1.00 8.00 6.3014 1.28114
(3mos)
Attitudes towards correctional 70 4.80 12.00 10.1353 1.84874
work (3mos)
Social desirability (3mos) 69 1.00 9.00 5.5233 1.44872
Intrinsic job motivation 70 27.00 42.00 34.7286 3.65117
(3mos)
Correctional self-efficacy 70 68.00 105.00 89.2408 8.78342
(3mos)
Support for rehabilitation 70 21.00 43.00 35.2929 4.70930
(3mos)
Deterrence (3mos) 70 6.00 21.00 13.5143 3.10589
Attitudes towards inmates 70 85.00 154.00 116.0188 13.17920
(3mos)
Perceptions (3mos) 70 20.00 40.00 31.0143 3.89906
Work environment (3mos) 70 15.00 35.00 24.6655 4.22797
Social cohesiveness (3mos) 70 9.00 30.00 23.5000 3.99184
Credibility (3mos) 70 10.00 30.00 22.6714 4.12037
Organizational commitment 70 54.00 102.00 77.2714 10.35027
(3mos)
Role conflict (3mos) 70 45.00 85.00 59.1536 6.53936
Role ambiguity (3mos) 70 49.00 87.00 62.5857 6.04211
Supervisory support 69 6.00 41.00 24.7507 5.87481
(3mos)
Job stress (3mos): anxiety 69 5.00 28.00 15.2609 4.39803
Job stress (3mos): 70 7.00 42.00 19.8786 5.97849
time pressure
Job satisfaction (3mos) 66 34.00 106.00 69.8535 13.05269
Empathy (3mos): 70 18.67 35.00 27.5095 3.00548
perspective taking
Empathy (3mos): 70 16.00 35.00 25.1286 3.88203
empathic concern
Empathy (3mos): fantasy 70 8.00 29.00 20.0000 5.01592
Empathy (3mos): personal 70 7.00 24.00 14.6571 3.50522
distress
N valid (listwise) 65  

Descriptive statistics for scales for 6-month period:

Descriptive statistics
  N Minimum Maximum Average Mean
Motivation for correctional work (6mos) 51 17.00 30.00 25.4902 2.90085
Human service orientation (6mos) 51 3.00 8.00 6.2745 1.43395
Attitudes towards correctional work (3mos) 51 2.00 12.00 9.8443 2.15630
Social desirability (6mos) 51 3.00 8.00 5.5757 1.36195
Intrinsic job motivation (6mos) 51 27.00 42.00 35.6275 4.07902
Correctional self-efficacy (6mos) 51 61.00 105.00 88.2941 10.92391
Support for rehabilitation (6mos) 51 12.00 44.00 33.9608 6.06287
Deterrence (6mos) 51 9.00 22.00 14.0000 3.31662
Attitudes towards inmates (6mos) 51 71.00 144.00 114.4271 15.28501
Perceptions (6mos) 51 20.00 40.00 30.8431 4.69200
Work environment (6mos) 51 12.00 33.00 23.4118 4.19608
Social cohesiveness (6mos) 51 13.00 30.00 23.3333 4.01331
Credibility (6mos) 51 13.00 30.00 22.1176 4.22207
Organizational commitment (6mos) 51 52.00 98.00 74.2353 12.11212
Role conflict (6mos) 51 45.00 98.00 60.2549 7.77906
Role ambiguity (6mos) 51 25.00 80.00 62.1359 7.42225
Supervisory support (6mos) 51 10.00 38.00 23.5294 5.65810
Job stress (6mos): anxiety 51 5.00 31.00 15.8922 5.48572
Job stress (6mos): time pressure 51 7.00 40.00 20.1797 7.01149
Job satisfaction (6mos) 48 39.00 104.00 70.6278 13.56938
Empathy (6mos): perspective taking 51 21.00 35.00 27.8627 2.92588
Empathy (6mos): empathic concern 51 16.00 35.00 25.3137 3.76027
Empathy (6mos): fantasy 51 12.00 31.00 21.0784 4.22300
Empathy (6mos): personal distress 51 7.00 22.00 14.6471 3.57113
N valid (listwise) 48  

Descriptive statistics for scales for 1-year period:

Descriptive statistics
  N Minimum Maximum Average Mean
Motivation for correctional work (1yr) 47 13.00 30.00 24.5745 3.75178
Human service orientation (1yr) 47 1.14 8.00 5.9733 1.78714
Attitudes towards correctional work (1yr) 47 4.00 12.00 9.3625 2.51343
Social desirability (1yr) 47 3.00 8.00 5.7518 1.36107
Intrinsic job motivation (1yr) 47 24.00 42.00 34.3404 3.73163
Correctional self-efficacy (1yr) 47 60.00 105.00 87.2249 9.43096
Support for rehabilitation (1yr) 47 12.00 42.00 32.6223 5.48655
Deterrence (1yr) 47 8.00 24.00 14.1064 3.64891
Attitudes towards inmates (1yr) 47 64.00 144.00 111.3879 16.50298
Perceptions (1yr) 47 22.00 40.00 30.4043 4.22034
Work environment (1yr) 47 15.00 30.00 22.8511 3.64739
Social cohesiveness (1yr) 51 12.00 28.00 22.0638 4.15150
Credibility (1yr) 47 10.00 30.00 20.3617 4.44496
Organizational commitment (1yr) 47 50.00 91.00 71.5106 11.39770
Role conflict (1yr) 47 45.00 74.00 62.1033 5.67539
Role ambiguity (1yr) 47 50.00 86.00 62.8784 5.88435
Supervisory support (1yr) 47 7.00 36.00 22.7021 5.29115
Job stress (1yr): anxiety 47 5.00 30.00 16.8723 5.36339
Job stress (1yr): time pressure 47 10.00 35.00 23.0000 5.84956
Job satisfaction (1yr) 46 46.00 84.00 70.0505 9.01009
Empathy (1yr): perspective taking 47 20.00 35.00 27.1489 3.17585
Empathy (1yr): empathic concern 47 17.00 28.00 24.2128 2.73413
Empathy (1yr): fantasy 47 13.00 32.00 21.5106 4.04256
Empathy (1yr): personal distress 47 7.00 21.00 14.9149 3.15422
N valid (listwise) 46  

Appendix VI

Descriptive statistics for the six (out of 12) participants recorded for the Prairies Region who had not been in direct contact with the prison population for the first two periods:

3-month period

Descriptive statistics
  N Minimum Maximum Average Mean
Motivation for correctional work (3mos) 6 19.00 29.00 25.1667 3.60093
Human service orientation (3mos) 6 6.00 8.00 7.1667 .75277
Attitudes towards correctional work (3mos) 6 7.00 12.00 9.4545 1.66341
Social desirability (3mos) 6 3.00 8.00 5.1667 1.72240
Intrinsic job motivation (3mos) 6 27.00 37.00 32.1667 3.60093
Correctional self-efficacy (3mos) 6 77.00 98.00 87.8333 7.93515
Support for rehabilitation (3mos) 6 30.00 40.00 35.1667 3.71035
Deterrence (3mos) 6 10.00 19.00 14.3333 2.87518
Attitudes towards inmates (3mos) 6 109.00 145.00 120.3333 13.48579
Perceptions (3mos) 6 27.00 40.00 33.8333 4.99667
Work environment (3mos) 6 21.00 32.00 26.3333 4.36654
Social cohesiveness (3mos) 6 21.00 33.00 25.8333 4.07022
Credibility (3mos) 6 13.00 30.00 24.1667 7.05455
Organizational commitment (3mos) 6 57.00 94.00 72.3333 12.92543
Role conflict (3mos) 6 51.00 72.00 59.1667 7.62671
Role ambiguity (3mos) 6 57.00 75.00 67.3333 6.83130
Supervisory support (3mos) 6 24.00 38.00 29.0000 5.58570
Job stress (3mos): anxiety 6 5.00 20.00 12.8333 5.23132
Job stress (3mos): time pressure 6 9.00 28.00 18.8333 7.08284
Job stress (3mos) 6 14.00 48.00 31.6667 12.27464
Job satisfaction (3mos) 6 51.00 90.00 71.8444 14.58716
Empathy (3mos): perspective taking 6 20.00 29.00 25.6667 3.26599
Empathy (3mos): empathic concern 6 18.00 27.00 23.0000 2.89828
Empathy (3mos): fantasy 6 16.00 23.00 19.5000 42.88097
Empathy (3mos): personal distress 6 11.00 23.00 16.5000 4.08656
N valid (listwise) 6  

This table relates to the six people who responded to the questionnaire corresponding with the first year at an institution and who were in direct contact with the prison population:

1-year period

Descriptive statistics
  N Minimum Maximum Average Mean
Motivation for correctional work (1yr) 6 23.00 30.00 27.0000 3.09839
Human service orientation (1yr) 6 5.00 8.00 7.5000 1.22474
Attitudes towards correctional work (1yr) 6 10.00 12.00 11.1515 .75770
Social desirability (1yr) 6 4.00 8.00 5.8333 1.47196
Intrinsic job motivation (1yr) 6 6.00 39.00 30.6667 12.58041
Correctional self-efficacy (1yr) 6 67.00 103.00 87.5000 11.82793
Support for rehabilitation (1yr) 6 34.00 43.00 38.5000 3.01662
Deterrence (1yr) 6 10.00 14.00 12.4583 1.46984
Attitudes towards inmates (1yr) 6 124.00 147.00 134.0202 8.80303
Perceptions (1yr) 6 32.00 40.00 36.5000 3.98748
Work environment (1yr) 6 16.00 31.00 24.6667 6.12100
Social cohesiveness (1yr) 6 19.00 30.00 25.6667 4.67618
Credibility (1yr) 6 22.00 30.00 25.1667 3.81663
Organizational commitment (1yr) 6 73.00 99.00 83.0000 9.73653
Role conflict (1yr) 6 53.00 58.00 55.0000 2.09762
Role ambiguity (1yr) 6 60.00 83.00 67.1667 8.32867
Supervisory support (1yr) 6 24.00 36.00 32.0000 4.85798
Job stress (1yr): anxiety 6 5.00 19.00 12.0000 5.32917
Job stress (1yr): lack of time 6 8.00 27.00 19.5000 6.97854
Job stress (1yr) 6 13.00 46.00 31.5000 11.16692
Job satisfaction (1yr) 6 42.00 99.00 68.7000 20.97379
Empathy (1yr): perspective taking 6 24.00 32.00 27.0000 2.96648
Empathy (1yr): empathic concern 6 18.00 30.00 24.1667 4.11906
Empathy (1yr): fantasy 6 11.00 23.00 17.8333 4.79236
Empathy (1yr): personal distress 6 7.00 18.00 13.6667 4.03320
N valid (listwise) 6  

 

Appendix VII

Frequencies of key words for qualitative questions at three months, six months and one year, followed by cross-tabulation tables for key words at three months, six months and one-year and Pearson chi-square tests (Agresti, 2002) for the group of respondents at three months and one year.

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

 
Key words 3 months 6 months 1 year
(n = 70) (n = 51) (n = 47)
Counselling 26 23 19
Human experience 13 9 13
Desire to learn 17 9 13
Empathy 32 22 20
Adaptability 11 12 10
Sense of observation 12 8 10
Only those categories with a frequency of 10 or more after one year were selected here.
Cross-tabulation Q5 - 3mos: Counselling (or helping
relationship) * Q5 - 1yr. Counselling (or helping relationship)
Group size
    Q5 - 1yr. Counselling  
    (or helping relationship)  
    No Yes Total
Q5 - 3mos: Counselling no 16 6 22
(or helping relationship) yes 6 10 16
Total   22 16 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 4.716b 1 .030  
Correction for continuitya 3.381 1 .066  
Likelihood ratio 4.776 1 .029  
Fisher exact test   .047 .033
Linear-by-linear association 4.592 1 .032  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 6.74.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q5 - 3mos: Human experience * Q5 -
1yr. Human experience
Group size
    Q5 - 1yr.  
    Human experience  
    No Yes Total
Q5 - 3mos: no 22 8 30
Human experience yes 5 3 8
Total   27 11 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square .360b 1 .548  
Correction for continuitya .026 1 .872  
Likelihood ratio .348 1 .555  
Fisher exact test   .667 .422
Linear-by-linear association .351 1 .554  
McNemar test   .581c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cells (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 2.32.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 3.779b 1 .052  
Correction for continuitya 2.431 1 .119  
Likelihood ratio 3.635 1 .057  
Fisher exact test   .068 .061
Linear-by-linear association 3.680 1 .055  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cells (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 3.47.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q5 - 3mos: Empathy * Q5 - 1yr.
Empathy
Group size
    Q5 - 1yr:  
    Empathy  
    No Yes Total
Q5 - 3mos: no 11 9 20
Empathy yes 10 8 18
Total   21 17 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square .001b 1 .973  
Correction for continuitya .000 1 1.000  
Likelihood ratio .001 1 .973  
Fisher exact test   1.000 .615
Linear-by-linear association .001 1 .973  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 8.05.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q5 - 3mos: Adaptability *
Q5 - 1yr: Adaptability
Group size
    Q5 - 1yr:  
    Adaptability  
    No Yes Total
Q5 - 3mos: no 29 3 32
Adaptability yes 3 3 6
Total   32 6 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 6.271b 1 .012  
Correction for continuitya 3.588 1 .058  
Likelihood ratio 4.918 1 .027  
Fisher exact test   .039 .039
Linear-by-linear association 6.106 1 .013  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cells (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is .95.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q5 - 3mos: Sense of observation *
Q5 - 1yr: Sense of observation
Group size
    Q5 - 1yr: Sense  
    of observation  
    No Yes Total
Q5 - 3mos: Sense no 27 4 31
of observation yes 3 4 7
Total   30 8 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 6.724b 1 .010  
Correction for continuitya 4.326 1 .038  
Likelihood ratio 5.711 1 .017  
Fisher exact test   .025 .025
Linear-by-linear association 6.547 1 .011  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cells (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 1.47.
c. Binomial distribution used.

 

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 .

 
Key words 3 months 6 months 1 year
(n = 70) (n = 51) (n = 47)
Job stability 31 23 24
Fringe benefits 29 17 22
Pay 30 21 20
Promotion 21 18 10
Counselling 20 9 10
Schedules 14 9 11
Only those categories with a frequency of 10 or more after one year were selected here.
Cross-tabulation Q6 - 3mos: Job stability * Q6 -
1yr: Job stability
Group size
    Q6 - 1yr:  
    Job stability  
    No Yes Total
Q6 - 3mos: Job no 15 6 21
stability yes 5 12 17
Total   20 18 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 6.653b 1 .010  
Correction for continuitya 5.074 1 .024  
Likelihood ratio 6.849 1 .009  
Fisher exact test   .021 .012
Linear-by-linear association 6.478 1 .011  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 8.05.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q6 - 3mos: Fringe benefits * Q6 -
1yr: Fringe benefits
Group size
    Q6 - 1yr:  
    Fringe benefits  
    No Yes Total
Q6 - 3mos: Fringe no 15 8 23
benefits yes 4 11 15
Total   19 19 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 5.397b 1 .020  
Correction for continuitya 3.965 1 .046  
Likelihood ratio 5.562 1 .018  
Fisher exact test   .045 .022
Linear-by-linear association 5.255 1 .022  
McNemar test   .388c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 7.50.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q6 - 3mos: Pay * Q6 - 1yr: Pay
Group size
    Q6 - 1yr: Pay  
    No Yes Total
Q6 - 3mos: no 14 9 23
Pay yes 7 8 15
Total   21 17 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square .741b 1 .389  
Correction for continuitya .278 1 .598  
Likelihood ratio .741 1 .389  
Fisher exact test   .509 .299
Linear-by-linear association .721 1 .396  
McNemar test   .804c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 6.71.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q6 - 3mos: Promotion *
Q6 - 1yr: Promotion
Group size
    Q6 - 1yr: Promotion  
    No Yes Total
Q6 - 3mos: no 20 6 26
Promotion yes 10 2 12
Total   30 8 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square .203b 1 .652  
Correction for continuitya 001 1 .982  
Likelihood ratio .210 1 .647  
Fisher exact test   1.000 .504
Linear-by-linear association .198 1 .657  
McNemar test   .454c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cell (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 2.53.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q6 - 3mos: Counselling *
Q6 - 1yr: Counselling
Group size
    Q6 - 1yr: Counselling  
    No Yes Total
Q6 - 3mos: no 25 2 27
Counselling yes 6 5 11
Total   31 7 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 7.529b 1 .006  
Correction for continuitya 5.210 1 .022  
Likelihood ratio 6.890 1 .009  
Fisher exact test   .014 .014
Linear-by-linear association 7.331 1 .007  
McNemar test   .289c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 2 cells (50.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 2.03.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q6 - 3mos: Schedules *
Q6 - 1yr: Schedules
Group size
    Q6 - 1yr: Schedules  
    No Yes Total
Q6 - 3mos: no 22 6 28
Schedules yes 5 5 10
Total   27 11 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 2.924b 1 .087  
Correction for continuitya 1.700 1 .192  
Likelihood ratio 2.768 1 .096  
Fisher exact test   .116 .098
Linear-by-linear association 2.848 1 .092  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cell (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 2.89.
c. Binomial distribution used.

 

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

 
Key words 3 months 6 months 1 year
(n = 70) (n = 51) (n = 47)
Stress 24 11 14
Difficulties of shift work 32 23 28
Environment and negative atmosphere 18 17 15
Only those categories with a frequency of 10 or more after one year were selected here.
Cross-tabulation Q7 - 3mos: Stress *
Q7 - 1yr: Stress
Group size
    Q7 - 1yr: Stress  
    No Yes Total
Q7 - 3mos: no 18 7 25
Stress yes 8 5 13
Total   26 12 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square .433b 1 .510  
Correction for continuitya .084 1 .772  
Likelihood ratio .427 1 .514  
Fisher exact test   .714 .381
Linear-by-linear association .422 1 .516  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cell (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 4.11.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q7 - 3mos: Difficulties of shift work *
Q7 - 1yr: Difficulties of shift work
Group size
    Q7 - 1yr: Difficulties  
    of shift work  
    No Yes Total
Q7 - 3mos: Difficulties of no 12 9 21
shift work yes 3 14 17
Total   15 23 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 6.134b 1 .013  
Correction for continuitya 4.592 1 .032  
Likelihood ratio 6.456 1 .011  
Fisher exact test   .020 .015
Linear-by-linear association 5.972 1 .015  
McNemar test   .146c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 0 cells (.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 6.71.
c. Binomial distribution used.
Cross-tabulation Q7 - 3mos: Environment and negative atmosphere *
Q7 - 1yr: Environment and negative atmosphere
Group size
    Q7 - 1yr: Environment and  
    negative atmosphere  
    No Yes Total
Q7 - 3mos: Environment and no 19 8 27
negative atmosphere yes 8 3 11
Total   27 11 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square .021b 1 .884  
Correction for continuitya .000 1 1.000  
Likelihood ratio .021 1 .884  
Fisher exact test   1.000 .607
Linear-by-linear association .021 1 .886  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cell (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 3.18.
c. Binomial distribution used.

 

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 Officers. Please list them.

 
Key words 3 months 6 months 1 year
(n = 70) (n = 51) (n = 47)
External influences 18 12 12
Cross-tabulation Q8 - 3mos: Outside influences *
Q8 - 1yr: Outside influences
Group size
    Q8 - 1yr: Outside  
    influences  
    No Yes Total
Q8 - 3mos: Outside no 25 3 28
influences yes 3 7 10
Total   28 10 38
Chi-square tests
  Asymptiotic Exact Exact
  significance significance significance
  Value dof bilateral bilateral unilateral
Pearson chi-square 13.356b 1 .000  
Correction for continuitya 10.474 1 .001  
Likelihood ratio 12.516 1 .000  
Fisher exact test   .001 .001
Linear-by-linear association 13.055 1 .000  
McNemar test   1.000c  
Number of valid observations 38  
a. Calculated solely for a 2x2 table
b. 1 cell (25.0%) have a theoretical size less than five. The minimum theoretical size is 2.63.
c. Binomial distribution used.

 

References

Acker, G.M. (1999). The Impact of Clients' Mental Illness on Social Workers' Job Satisfaction and Burnout. Health and Social Work, vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 112-119.

Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis (2 nd ed). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Alain, M. (1993). "Les théories sur les motivations sociales" in Introduction à la psychologie de la motivation. Laval, Québec: Éditions Études Vivantes, pp. 465-507.

Allen, H.E. and C.E. Simonson. (1992). Corrections in America: An Introduction. New York: Macmillan Publications (6 th ed.).

American Correctional Association. (2004). A 21 st Century Workforce for America's Correctional Profession. Indianapolis, Indiana: Workforce Associates.

American Public Health Association. (2003). Standards for Health Services in Correctional Institutions. Washington: Alpha Task Force on Correctional Health Care Standards.

Appelbaum, K. L., J.M. Hickey and I. Packer. (2001). The Role of Correctional Officers in Multidisciplinary Mental Health Care in Prisons. Psychiatric Services, vol. 52, No 2, pp. 1343-1347.

Arnold, H. (2005). "The effects of prison work" in The Effects of Imprisonment, Devon, England: William Publishing, pp. 391-420.

Arthur, J.A. (1994). Correctional Ideology of Black Correctional Officers in Georgia. Federal Probation, vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 57-66.

Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs, No. 70, pp. 4-16.

Beale, D., T. Cox and P. Leather. (1996). Work-Related Violence – Is National Reporting Good Enough? Work and Stress, vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 99-103.

Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance.New York: The Free Press.

Becker, T.E. and M.C. Kernan. (2003). Matching Commitment to Supervisors and Organizations to In-Role and Extra-Role Performance. Human Performance, vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 327-348.

Belknap, J. (1991). Women in Conflict: An Analysis of Women Correctional Officers. Women & Criminal Justice, vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 89-115.

Bell, P.A., T. Greene, J. Fisher and A. Baum. (2001). Environmental Psychology. (5 th  ed.). Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace Publishers.

Bensimon, P. (2005). Correctional Officer Recruits During the College Training Period: An Examination. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. Research Report R-165.

Bensimon, P. (2004). Correctional Officer Recruits and the Prison Environment: A Research Framework. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. Research Report R-146.

Boe, R., M. Nafekh., B. Vuong., R. Sinclair and C. Cousineau. (2003). The Changing Profile of the Federal Inmate Population: 1997 and 2002. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. Research Report No. R-132.

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bonta, J. and P. Gendreau. (1995). "Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life" in Long-term imprisonment: policy, science, and correctional practice, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishers, pp. 75-94.

Boothby, J.L. and C.B. Clements. (2002). Job Satisfaction of Correctional Psychologists: Implications for Recruitment and Retention. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 310-315.

Boudon, R. (1977). Effets pervers et ordre social. Paris : Éditions Presses Universitaires de France.

Boyd, N. and A. Malm. (2002). The Work of Correctional Officers in British Columbia, 2002: Problems and Prospects. Simon Fraser University.

Braggins, J. and J. Talbot. (2005). Wings of Learning: the role of the prison officer in supporting prisoner education.London (England): The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS). Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.

Brockner, J., T.R. Tyler and R. Cooper-Schneider. (1992). The Influence of Prior Commitment on Reactions to Perceived Unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 241-261.

Brown, G. (2004). Integrating Correctional Officers as Members of an Interdisciplinary Treatment Team in a Secure Forensic Psychiatric Setting. Victoria, British Columbia: Royal Roads University, masters thesis.

Brown, R.M. (1999). Professional Development in the Future Tense. Corrections Today, vol. 61, No. 7, pp. 8-10.

Byrd, T.G., J.K. Cochran, I.J. Silverman and W.R. Blount. (2000). Behind Bars: An Assessment of the Effects of Job Satisfaction, Job-Related Stress, and Anxiety on Jail Employees' Inclinations to Quit. Journal of Crime and Justice, vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 69-89.

Callahan, L. (2004). Correctional Officer Attitudes Toward Inmates with Mental Disorders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, vol. 3, No 1, p. 37-54.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. (2004). HIV/AIDS in Prisons. Montreal. 13 factsheets.

Canadian Journal of Public Health. (2004). "Suicide Rates" in A Health Care Needs Assessment of Federal Inmates in Canada, vol. 95, No. 1, pp. S46-S48.

Carriere, K.D. (1989). Protective custody in Canada: a review of research and policy responses. Canadian Criminology Forum, vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 17-25.

Cheatwood, A.D. (1974). The staff in correctional settings: An Empirical Investigation of Frying Pans and Fires. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 173-179.

Cheeseman, K.A., J.L. Mullings and J.W. Marquart. (2001). Inmate Perceptions of Security Staff Across Various Custody Levels. Corrections Management Quarterly, vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 41-48.

Chiffre, J.D. and J. Teboul. (1988). La motivation et ses nouveaux outils: des clés pour dynamiser une équipe.Paris, ESF.

Childress, R., V. Talucci and J. Wood. (1999). Fighting the Enemy Within: Helping Officers Deal With Stress. Corrections Today, vol. 61, No. 7, pp. 70-78.

Clemmer, D. (1940). The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Publication.

Cooke, D.J. (1991). Violence in Prisons: The Influence of Regime Factors. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 30, No 2, pp. 95-109.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2005). Focus on Infectious Diseases. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Correctional Service of Canada. (2003). Mission of the Correctional Service of Canada. Commissioner's Directive No. 1.

Corrections Compendium. (2004). Correctional Officers. American Correctional Association, vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 10-25.

Croft, J. (2003). Toward the Development of a More Positive Work Environment for Correctional Officers. Victoria, British Columbia: Royal Roads University, masters thesis.

Crouch, B. (2003). "Generational Implications of Cross-cultural Communication" in The Full Spectrum: Essays on Staff Diversity in Corrections. Lanham, Maryland: American Correctional Association.

Cullen, F.T., E.J. Latessa, V.S. Burton and L.X. Lombardo. (1993). The Correctional Orientation of Prison Wardens: Is the Rehabilitation Ideal Supported? Criminology, vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 69-92.

Cullen, F. T., B.G. Link., J.B. Cullen and N.T. Wolfe. (1989). How Satisfying Is Prison Work? A Comparative Occupational Approach. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation, vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 89-108.

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Madison, Wisconsin: Brown & Benchmark.

Demers, C. (1985). Les gardiens de prison : problèmes et représentations d'un métier. Montreal. Université de Montréal, masters thesis.

Dillon, B. and S. Allwright. (2005). Prison Officers' Concerns About Blood Viral Infections. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 29-40.

Dolan, K., S. Rutter and A.D. Wodak. (2003). Prison-based Syringe Exchange Programmes: A Review of International Research and Development. Addiction, vol. 98, No. 2, pp. 153-158.

Drory, A. (1993). Perceived Political Climate and Job Attitudes. Organization Studies, vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 59-71.

Duxbury, J. and R. Whittington. (2005). Causes and management of patient aggression and violence: Staff and patient perspectives. Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 469-478.

Dvoskin, J.A. and E. Spiers. (2004). On the Role of Correctional Officers in Prison Mental Health. Psychiatric Quarterly, vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 41-59.

Edmunds, S.B. (1997). "The Personal Impact of Working With Sex Offenders" in  Impact: Working With Sexual Abusers, Brandon, Vermont: Safer Society Press, pp.   11-29.

Edwards, K.A. (2000). Stigmatizing the Stigmatized: A Note on the Mentally Ill Prison Inmate. International Journal of Offender Therapy and comparative Criminology, vol. 44, No 4, p. 480-489.

Einhorn, A.H. (1980). When Treatment Becomes Coercion: A Legal Perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 347, No. 1, pp. 199-208.

Ellison, K.W. (2004). Stress and the Police Officer. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations.New York: Free Press.

Fabre, G. (1999). Criminal Prosperity. Drug Trafficking, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes after the Cold War. London: RoutledgeCurzon (English translation 2003).

Fain, D.E. (1987). Managerial role perceptions of state chief executive officers. Community College Review, vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 5-12.

Farkas, M.A. (1999 b ). Inmate Supervisory Style. Women & Criminal Justice, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 25-45.

Farrenkopf, T. (1992). "What happens to therapists who work with sex offenders?" in Sex Offender Treatment: Psychological and Medical Approaches, New York. Haworth Press, pp. 217-223.

Fazel, S. and J. Danesh. (2002). Serious Mental Disorder in 23,000 Prisoners: A Systematic Review of 62 Surveys. The lancet, vol. 359, No 9306, p. 545-550.

Figley, C.R. (2002). Compassion Fatigue: Psychotherapists' Chronic Lack of Self Care. Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 58, No. 11, pp. 1433-1441.

Finn, P. and S. Kuck. (2003). Addressing Probation and Parole Officer Stress. Washington, D.C.: Justice Systems Research Division Office of Research and Evaluation. National Institute of Justice.

Fisher, C.D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 185-202.

Fisher-Giorlando, M. and S. Jiang. (2000). Race and Disciplinary Reports: An Empirical Study of Correctional Officers. Sociological Spectrum, vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 169-194.

Fiske, S.T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 30, pp. 299-322.

Fleisher, M.S. and S.H. Decker. (2001). An Overview of the Challenge of Prison Gangs. Corrections Management Quarterly, vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Fleisher, M.S. and R.H. Rison. (1999). "Gang Management in Corrections" in Prisons: Today and Tomorrow. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, pp. 232-238.

Fox, S., P.E. Spector and D. Miles. (2001). Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB) in Response to Job Stressors and Organizational Justice: Some Mediator and Moderator Tests for Autonomy and Emotions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 291-309.

Frone, M.R. (2003). "Work-Family Balance" in Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp. 143-162.

Gal, M. (2003). An Investigation of the Impact of Chronic Work Stress and Critical Incidents on Correctional Staff and the Factors that Moderate it. Ottawa. Carleton University, doctoral dissertation.

Gallagher, D.G. (2005). "Part-Time and Contingent Employment" in Handbook of Work Stress, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications, pp. 517-541.

Gannon, M. (2004). General Social Survey on Victimization, Cycle 18: An Overview of Findings. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, no. 85-565-XIE.

Gendreau, P. and D. Keyes. (2001). Making prisons safer and more humane environments. Canadian Journal of Criminology, vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 123-130.

Gilbert, M. J. (1997). The Illusion of Structure: A Critique of the Classical Model of Organization and Discretionary Power of Correctional Officers. Criminal Justice Review, vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 49-64.

Godin, G., H. Gagnon, M. Alary and M. Morissette. (2001). Correctional Officers' Intention of Accepting or Refusing HIV Preventive Tools Accessible to Inmates. AIDS Education and Prevention, vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 462-473.

Gonzalez-Roma, V. and S. Lloret. (1998). Construct Validity of Rizzo et al.'s (1970) Role Conflict and Ambiguity Scale: A Multisample Study. Applied Psychology, vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 535-545.

Gordon, D.R. (1994). The Return of the Dangerous Classes: Drug Prohibition and Policies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Grayson, J. P. (1994). Perceptions of Workplace Hazards, Perspectives on Labour and Income. Statistics Canada. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Great Britain National Audit Office. (2004). The Management of Sickness Absence in the Prison Service. Victoria, England: Comptroller and Auditor General. The Stationery Office, No. HC 533.

Greene, J.A. (1999). Zero Tolerance: A Case Study of Police Policies and Practices in New York City. Crime and Delinquency, vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 171-187.

Griffin, M.L. (2006). Gender and Stress. A comparative Assessment of Sources of Stress Among Correctional Officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 22, No 1, p. 4-25.

Grossi, E.L., T.J. Keil and G.F.Vito. (1996). Surviving "the Joint": Mitigating Factors of Correctional Officer Stress. Journal of Crime and Justice, vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 103-120.

Haass, K.C. and G.P. Alpert. (1995). The Dilemmas of Corrections: Contemporary Reading. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press (3 rd edition).

Health Canada. (2004). The Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS). Ottawa.

Health Canada. (1999). Women and Tobacco. Ottawa.

Hemmens, C. and M.K. Stohr. (2000). The Two Faces of the Correctional Role: An Exploration of the Value of the Correctional Role Instrument. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 326-349.

Hensley, C. and R. Tewksbury. (2005). Wardens' Perceptions of Inmate Fear of Sexual Assault: A Research Note. The Prison Journal, vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 198-203.

Hepburn, J.R. (1987). The Prison Control Structure and its Effects on Work Attitudes: the Perceptions and Attitudes of Prison Guards. Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 49-64.

Herzog-Evans, M. (1998). La gestion du comportement du détenu. Essai de droit pénitentiaire. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Hickey, N. (2005). Actual risk prediction for future violence amongst mentally disordered offenders. Issues in Forensic Psychology, vol. 5, pp. 50-61.

Hogan, N.L., E.G. Lambert, M. Jenkins and S. Wambold. (2006). The Impact of Occupational Stressors on Correctional Staff Organizational Commitment. A Preliminary Study. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 22, No 1, p. 44-62.

Hogan, N.L., E.G. Lambert, J.R. Hepburn, V.S. Burton and F.T. Cullen. (2004). Is There a Difference? Exploring Male and Female Correctional Officers' Definition of and Response to Conflict Situations. Women & Criminal Justice, vol. 15, No. 3/4, p. 143-165.

Hopkins, A. (1983). Work and Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld Publications.

Huesmann, L.R. and C.L. Podolski. (2003). "Punishment: A Psychological Perspective" in The Use of Punishment, Cullompton, England: William Publishing, p. 55-88.

Hughes, G.V. (1990). Personal Disposition, Coping, and Adaptation in Correctional Workers. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University, doctoral dissertation.

Ignatieff, M. (1978). A Just Measure of Pain. The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850.New York: Pantheon Books.

Ivanoff, A., B. Blythe and T. Tripodi. (1994). Involuntary Clients in Social Work Practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Iverson, R.D., M. Olekalns and P.J. Erwin. (1998). Affectivity, organizational stressors, and absenteeism: A causal model of burnout and its consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Jansen, G.J., T.W.N. Dassen and G. Groot Jebbink. (2005). Staff attitudes towards aggression in health care: a review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 3-13.

Jayewardene, C.H.S. and P. Doherty. (1985). Individual Violence in Canadian Penitentiaries. Canadian Journal of Criminology, vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 429-439.

Johnson, M.E. (2004). Violence on Impatient Psychiatric Units: State of the Science. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 113-121.

Jones, J.A. and A. Alcabes. (1993). Client Socialization: The Achilles' Heel of the Helping Professions. Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House Publications.

Kacmar, K.M., D.P. Bozeman, D.S. Carlson and W.P. Anthony. (1999). An Examination of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Model: Replication and Extension. Human Relations, vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 383-416.

Kadambi, M.A. and D. Truscott. (2003). Vicarious Traumatization and Burnout Among Therapists with Sex Offenders. Traumatology, vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 216-230.

Kamerman, J. (1991). Corrections Officers and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: Balancing Professional Distance and Personal Involvement. Death Studies, vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 375-384.

Karasek, R. and T. Theorell. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: Basic Books.

Kelloway, E.K. and J. Barling. (1990). Item Content versus Item Wording: Disentangling, role conflict and role ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 738-742.

Kiely, J. and H. Pankhurst. (1998). Violence Faced by Staff in a Learning Disability Service. Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 81-89.

Kinnon, D. and L. Hanvey. (1995). Delivering gender-sensitive tobacco reduction programs: issues and approaches. Health Canada.

Kleiner, M.M. and M.L. Bouillon. (1991). Information Sharing of Sensitive Business Data with Employees. Industrial Relations, vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 480-491.

Knox, G.W. (2004). The Problem of Gangs and Security Threat Groups (STG's) in American Prisons Today: A Special NGCRC Report. Journal of Gang Research, vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-76.

Koys, D.J. and T.A. DeCotis. (1991). Inductive Measures of Psychological Climate. Human Relations, vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 265-285.

Krebs, Ch. P. (2002). High-Risk HIV Transmission Behavior in Prison and the Prison Subculture. The Prison Journal, vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 19-49.

Kuck, S. (2003). Addressing Probation and Parole Officer Stress. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Lab, S. P. (2004). Crime Prevention. Approaches, Practices and Evaluations (5 nd  ed). Cincinnati (Ohio): Anderson Publishing

Lalemand, K. (1999). Does a Culture Shift Create a More Dangerous Workplace? Corrections Forum, vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 17-19.

Lambert, E.G. (2004). The Impact of Job Characteristics on Correctional Staff Members. The Prison Journal, vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 208-227.

Layton MacKenzie, D. (2004). "Age and Adjustment to Prison: Interactions with Attitudes and Anxiety" in The Inmate Prison Experience, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 104-117.

Layton MacKenzie, D. and D. U. Craig. (1994). Drugs and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Leavitt, J.M. (2004). Evaluating Scientific Research: Separating Fact from Fiction. Long Graves, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

LeBlanc, M.M. and E.K. Kelloway. (2002). Predictors and Outcomes of Workplace Violence and Aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 444-453.

Lhuilier, D. (2001). Souffrance, demandes et usages des soins dans l'institution carcérale. Bulletin de psychologie, vol. 54, No 2, pp. 159-168.

Light, S.C. (1991). Assaults on Prison Officers: Interactional Themes. Justice Quarterly, vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 243-261.

Lindquist, C. A. and J. T. Whitehead. (1986). Burnout, Job Stress and Job Satisfaction Among Southern Correctional Officers: Perceptions and Causal Factors. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 5-26.

Lohr, J.M., L. Stevens and S.O. Lilienfeld. (2003). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Lommel, J. (2004). Turning Around Turnover. Corrections Today, vol. 66, No. 5, pp. 54-57.

Lourel, M. (2001). Épuisement professionnel : concept et critique du processus de burnout, intérêt d'une recherche exploratoire en milieu carcéral. L'Encéphale, vol. 27, pp. 223-227.

Lusignan, R. (1999). La victimisation des intervenants en criminologie : ses formes, son ampleur et ses conséquences sur la pratique clinique. Montréal. Université de Montréal, doctoral dissertation.

MacCoun, R.J. and P. Reuter. (2001). Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times & Places. Cambridge, England. Cambridge University Press.

Mathieu, J. E. and D.M. Zajac. (1990). A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 108, No. 2, pp. 171-194.

Matteson, M.T. and J.M. Ivancevich. (1987). Controlling Work Stress: Effective Resource and Management Strategies. San Francisco, California. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis and F.D. Schoorman. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 709-734.

McCann, I.L. and L. Pearlman. (1990). Vicarious Traumatization: A Framework for Understanding the Psychological Effects of Working with Victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, vol. 3, No 1, p. 31-149

McCorkle, R.C., T.D. Miethe and K.A. Drass. (1995). The Roots of Prison Violence: A Test of the Deprivation, Management, and "Not-So-Total" Institution Models. Crime & Delinquency, vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 317-331.

McCoy, J.M. and G.W. Evans (2005). "Physical Work Environment" in Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp. 219-245.

McCraty, R., M. Atkinson, L. Lipsenthal and L. Arguelles. (2003). Impact of the Power to Change Performance Program on Stress and Health Risks in Correctional Officers. Boulder Creek, California: Institute of HeartMath. No. R- 03-014.

McCullough, J.M. (2006). Managing Correctional Crises.Sudbury (Massachusetts): Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Medlicott, D. (1999). Surviving in the Time Machine: Suicidal Prisoners and the Pains of Prison Time. Time & Society, vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 211-230.

Meyer, J.P. and N.J. Allen. (1991). A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Human Resource Management Review, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 61-89.

Milgram, S. (1964). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York. Harper & Row Publishers.

Milly, B. (2001). Soigner en prison. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Monroe, J. and R. Jittaun Deloach. (2004). Job Satisfaction: How do Social Workers Fare with Other Interdisciplinary Team in Hospice Settings? The Journal of Death and Dying, vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 327-346.

Moreland, R.L. (1987). The Formation of Small Groups. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 8, pp. 80-110.

Motiuk, L.L. (1991). Antecedents and Consequences of Prison Adjustment: A Systematic Assessment and Reassessment Approach. Ottawa: Carleton University, doctoral dissertation.

Mowday, R.T., L.W. Porter and R.M. Steers. (1982). "Nature of Organizational Commitment" in Employee–Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, absenteeism, and Turnover. New York, Academic Press, pp. 19-43.

Muir, W. (1977). Street Corner Politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nafekh, M. and Y. Stys. (2004). A Profile and Examination of Gang Affiliation within the Federally Sentenced Offender Population. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. Research Report No. R-154.

Neter, J., W. Wasserman and M.H Kutner. (1990). Applied Linear Statistical Models(3rd ed), Boston (Massachusetts): Richard D. Irwin.

Norland, S., R.E. Sowell and A. DiChiara. (2003). Assumptions of Coercive Treatment: A Critical Review. Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 505-521.

Oberlé, D. and P. Gosling. (2004). "Intention, responsabilité, sanction : l'intention est-elle un préalable ou une justification de la sanction?" in Perspectives Cognitives et Conduites Sociales (IX). Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 271-291.

O'Donnell, I and K. Edgar. (1996). Victimisation in Prisons. Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, No. 37, pp. 1-4.

O'Reilly, C. and J. Chatman. (1986). Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 492-499.

O'Sullivan, S. (2001). Representations of Prison in Nineties Hollywood Cinema: From Con Air to The Shawshank Redemption. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 317-334.

Pallone, N.J. and J.J. Hennessy. (2003). "To Punish or to Treat: Substance Abuse Within the Context of Oscillating Attitudes Toward Correctional Rehabilitation" in Treating Substance Abusers in Correctional Contexts: New Understanding, New Modalities. Binghamton, New York: The Haworth Press.

Paoline, E.A. and W. Terrill. (2004). Women Police Officers and the Use of Coercion. Women & Criminal Justice, vol. 15, No. 3/ 4, pp. 97-119.

Paton, D. (2005). "Critical Incidents and Police Officer Stress" in Policing and Stress, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 25-40.

Pinatel, J. (1971). La société criminogène. Paris: Calmann-Levy.

Plecas, D. and P. Maxim. (1991). Correctional Officer Career Development Study: A Six-Year Longitudinal Study of 527 Correctional Officer Recruits Hired by the Correctional Service of Canada in 1984 and 1985. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Poitras, J. and A. Ladouceur. (2004). Système de gestion de conflits. Cowansville, Quebec: Éditions Yvon Blais

Pollock, J. M. (1982). Correctional Officers' Perceptions of Male and Female Inmates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Doctoral dissertation.

Pollock, J.M. (2003). "Doing Time Eight to Five" in Prisons and Prisons Life. Cost and Consequences. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury Publishing Company, pp. 215-252.

Porporino, F. (1986). Managing Violent Individuals in Correctional Settings. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Research Report No. 1986-2.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. (2005). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview. Ottawa.

Rick, J., R.B. Briner, K. Daniels, S. Perryman and A. Guppy. (2001). A critical review of psychosocial hazard measures. Brighton, England: The Institute for Employment Studies, Mantell Building, University of Sussex.

Rizzo, J.R., R.J. House and S.I. Lirtzman. (1970). Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 150-163.

Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 574-599.

Rogers, R. (1991). The Effects of Educational Level on Correctional Officer Job Satisfaction. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 123-137.

Ruddell, R. (2004). America Behind Bars: Trends in Imprisonment, 1950-2000. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC.

Sakowski, M. H. (1990). Who Controls the Controllers: A Study of Women Guards Working in Canadian Prisons for Men. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University, masters thesis.

Salter, C. A. (1988). "Appendix J – Interpersonal Reactivity Index" in Treating Child Sex Offenders and Victims: A Practical Guide. Newbury Park, California : Sage Publications, pp. 291-293.

Sater, M. (2003). Règlement informel et discipline des détenus en milieu carcéral fédéral.Ottawa, Ottawa University, masters thesis.

Savicki, V., E. Cooley and J. Gjesvold. (2003). Harassment as a Predictor of Job Burnout in Correctional Officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 602-619.

Saylor, W. G. and K.N. Wright. (1992). The Impact of Tenure and Status on Staff Perceptions of the Work Environment in U.S. Federal Prisons. Forum on Corrections Research, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 37-40.

Schat, A.C.H. and E.K. Kelloway. (2005). "Workplace Aggression" in Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp. 189-218.

Schweiger, D.M. and A.S. Denisi. (1991). Communication With Employees Following a Merger: A Longitudinal Field Experiment. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 110-135.

Seitz, W. (1989). "Relations Between General Attitudes and Personality Traits of Prison Officers and Some Specific Attitudes Towards Prisoners" in Criminal Behavior and the Justice System: Psychological Perspectives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 399-418.

Sellin, Th. (1938). Culture Conflict and Crime. New York: Social Science Research Council.

Serniclaes, O. (2003). Intervenants psychosociaux face aux victimes. Processus psychodynamique de la traumatisation indirecte. Le Journal International de Victimologie, Year 1, No. 2, pp. 1-12.

Sherif, M. (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms.New York: Harper Publications.

Shirom, A., M. Westman and S. Melamed. (1999). The Effects of Pay Systems on Blue-Collar Employees' Emotional Distress: The Mediating Effects of Objective and Subjective Work Monotony. Human Relations, vol. 52, No. 8, pp. 1077-1095.

Skolnick, J.H. (2005). "Corruption and the Blue Code of Silence" in Policing Corruption. International Perspectives. Lanham (Maryland): Lexington Books, p. 301-316.

Smith, C.S., J. Tisak and R.A. Shmieder. (1993). The Measurement Properties of the Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Scales: A Review and Extension of the Empirical Research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 37-48.

Spreitzer, G.M. and A.K. Mishra. (2002). To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior,vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 707-729.

Stack, S.J. and O. Tsoudis. (1997). Suicide risk among correctional officers: A logistic regression analysis. Archives of Suicide Research, vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 183-186.

Stamm, B.H. (1999). Secondary Traumatic Stress: Self-Care Issues for Clinicians, Researchers and Educators. Lutherville, Maryland: Sidran Institute and Press.

Stevens, J.D. (1995). The impact of time served and custody level on offender attitudes. Forum, vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 12-14.

Stohr, M.K., N.P. Lovrich and G.L. Wilson. (1994). Staff Stress in Contemporary Jails: Assessing Problem Severity and the Payoff of Progressive Personnel Practices. Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 313-327.

Sverke, M. and J. Hellgren. (2002). The Nature of Job Insecurity: Understanding Employment Uncertainty on the Brink of a New Millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 23-42.

Sverke, M., J. Hellgren and K. Näswall. (2002). No Security: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Job Insecurity and its Consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 242-264.

Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Tartaglini, A.J. and D.A. Safran. (1997). A Topography of Psychiatric Disorders Among Correction Officers. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 569-573.

Tellier, M.C., J.S. Wormith and P. Gendreau. (1984). Protective custody: the emerging crisis within the prison system. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Research Report No. 1984-86.

Toch, H. (2004). "Is a Correctional Officer by any other Name a Screw?" in The Administration and Management of Criminal Justice Organizations. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, pp. 237-255.

Toch, H. (2002). Stress in Policing. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Toch, H. and K. Adams. (2002). "Aggregate Patterns" in Acting Out: Maladaptive Behavior in Confinement. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 31-120.

Totterdell, P. (2005). "Work Schedules" in Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp. 35-62.

Tracy, J.S. (2004). The Construction of Correctional Officers: Layers of Emotionality Behind Bars. Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 509-533.

Tracy, L. and T.W. Johnson. (1981). What do the Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Scales Measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 464-469.

Trotter, C. (1999). Working with Involuntary Clients: A Guide to Practice. London, England: Sage Publications.

Tschan, F., N.K. Semmer and L. Inversin. (2004). Work related and "private" social interactions at work. Social Indicators Research, vol. 67, No. 1-2, pp. 145-182.

Turcotte, M. and G. Schellenberg. (2005). Job strain and retirement. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, No. 75-001-XPE.

Turner, C.A. (1998). Organizational Culture and Cost-Containment in Corrections: The Leadership Dimension. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 1-9.

Uchida, C.D. and D.L. MacKenzie. (1994). Drugs and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Ugboro, I.O. (2003). Influence of Managerial Trust on Survivors' Perceptions of Job Insecurity and Organizational Commitment in a Post Restructuring and Downsizing Environment. The Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 230-253

U.S. Postal Service Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace. (2000). Report of the United States Postal Service Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace. New York, Columbia University: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.

Valent, P. (2002). "Diagnosis and Treatment of Helper Stresses, Traumas, and Illnesses" in Treating Compassion Fatigue. New York: Brunner-Routledge, pp. 17-37.

Walters, S. (1996). The Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among Canadian and American Correctional Officers. Journal of Crime and Justice, vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 145-158.

Wampold, B.E. (2001). The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods, and Findings. Mahwah, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Way, I., K.M. VanDeusen, G. Martin, B. Applegate and D. Jandle. (2004). Vicarious Trauma: A Comparison of Clinicians Who Treat Survivors of Sexual Abuse and Sexual Offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 49-71.

Wayne, G. (2003). Prisonization: Individual and Institutional Factors Affecting Inmate Conduct. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub.

Whittington, R., S. Shuttleworth and L. Hill. (1996). Violence to Staff in a General Hospital Setting. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 326-333.

Wichmann, C. and M. Nafekh. (2001). Moderating segregation as a means to reintegration. Forum, vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 35-41.

Willet, T.C. (1983). Prison Guards in Private. Canadian Journal of Criminology, vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Wilson, D. and S. O'Sullivan. (2004). Representations of Prison in Film and Television Drama . Winchester, England: Waterside Press.

Winstok, Z. and G. Enosh. (2004). Towards Re-Conceptualization of Global-Self-Image: Preliminary Findings of the Validity and Reliability of a Structured Scale. Individual Differences Research, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 63-80.

Zamble, E. and F.J. Porporino. (1988). Coping, behavior, and adaptation in prison inmates. New York: Springer-Verlag.