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

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

• Descriptive Statistics Showing Changes at 3 Months and 1 Year
• 1) Recruit profile information
• 2) Health and lifestyle
• 3) Advantages and disadvantages of correctional work
• 4) Attitudes towards correctional work
• 5) Attitudes towards inmates
• 6) Support for rehabilitation
• 7) Deterrence
• 8) Human service orientation
• 9) Social desirability
• 10) Sources of motivation for correctional work
• 11) Intrinsic job motivation
• 12) Correctional self-efficacy
• 13) Post-Correctional Officer recruit perception of training
• 14) Post-Group environment questionnaire
• 15) Post-Correctional Officer social cohesiveness
• 16) Post-Credibility
• 17) Organizational commitment
• 18) Role conflict
  • Role ambiguity
• 19) Supervisory support
• 20) Job stress
  • Stress-related feelings of anxiety
  • Stress under substantial time pressure
• 21) Job satisfaction
• 22) Interpersonal Reactivity Index - Empathy
  • Perspective taking
  • Empathic concern
  • Fantasy related to empathy
  • Personal distress related to empathy

• Correlation between scales for two measurement times: 3 months and 1 year
• Graphic representation of 25 scales and subscales at 3 months and 1 year
• Review of data
• Conclusion
• Appendix I - Highlights of Correctional Officer Recruits During the Training Period: An Examination
• Appendix II - Cronbach alpha values for the 19 scales
• Appendix III - Coding of data entry in Excel
• Appendix IV - List of key words for the 4 qualitative questions
• Appendix V - Descriptive statistics for scales for 3 periods
• Appendix VI - Descriptive statistics for the Prairies group who had not been in direct contact with the prison population for the first 2 periods
• Appendix VII - Frequencies of key words for qualitative questions at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year, followed by cross-tabulation tables for key words at 3 months, 6 months and 1-year and Pearson chi-square tests for the group of respondents at 3 months and 1 year
• References

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:

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:

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):

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):

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

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

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

3) Gender

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

4) Do have any children?

1) Yes 2) No

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

5) Region of selection

6) What language(s) do you speak?

For English, there was only one change:

For French, there were no changes:

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

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

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

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)?

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

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

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.):

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

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

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

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

* = 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:

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:

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%):

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):

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):

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

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:

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

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:

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%):

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:

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

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

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:

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

* = 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:

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):

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:

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

* = 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).

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.

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):

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:

7) Deterrence

* = 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.

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):

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

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:

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

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:

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

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

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):

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

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:

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

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

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:

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

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).

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):

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:

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

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

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:

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

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:

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

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

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:

12) Correctional self-efficacy

* = 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:

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

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

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:

13) Post-Correctional Officer recruit perception of training

* = 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:

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

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

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:

14) Post -Group environment questionnaire

* = 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:

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

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

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.

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

* = 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:

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

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

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:

16) Post-Credibility

* = 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:

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):

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

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:

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

* = 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:

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

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

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:

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

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.

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):

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

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:

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.):

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:

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

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):

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

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:

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:

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

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:

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

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):

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

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

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:

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:

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):

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

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:

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:

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

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:

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:

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

21) Job satisfaction