The Prison Journal2015, Vol. 95(2) 264 –284© 2015 SAGE P.docx

The Prison Journal
2015, Vol. 95(2) 264 –284
© 2015 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032885515575323
tpj.sagepub.com
Article
Developing a Leisure
Time Management
Program to Aid
Successful Transition
to Community: A
Program Template With
Recommendations for
Practitioners
Dani McMay1 and Michael Cotronea1
Abstract
One area of focus in new federal guidelines for inmate reentry
skills
development is the ability to use leisure time for stress relief
and development
of positive relationships. A model program was developed at a
federal prison
to teach the use of leisure time activities for coping with

various stressors
during the difficult transition from incarceration to community.
Based on
initial offering course evaluation responses, the program was
revised and
offered again. Feedback from the second course offering
evaluation and
recommendations for design of leisure time programming in
other facilities
are discussed.
Keywords
inmate reentry, leisure time skills development, model program
1State University of New York at Fredonia, USA
Corresponding Author:
Dani McMay, Department of Psychology, State University of
New York at Fredonia,
Thompson Hall W341, Fredonia, NY 14063, USA.
Email: [email protected]
575323TPJXXX10.1177/0032885515575323The Prison
JournalMcMay and Cotronea
research-article2015
at Apollo Group - UOP on July 6,
2015tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
mailto:[email protected]
http://tpj.sagepub.com/
McMay and Cotronea 265
Introduction

In 2010, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) implemented
new guide-
lines for transitional and reentry facilities training for offenders
prior to
release (Breazzano, 2008, 2009; Tercilla & Breazzano, 2010).
These new
guidelines focus transitional training less on learning content
knowledge and
more on developing specific skill sets deemed important for
successful tran-
sition from prison to community (U.S. Department of Justice,
2004). One
skill not addressed in previous transitional training program
development
was the positive use of leisure time (e.g., increase in
recreational activities,
pursuit of hobbies, favorable peer affiliations). The new BOP
guidelines indi-
cate that facilities should develop programs focusing on
improving the likeli-
hood that the ex-offender will “engage in meaningful
recreational activities
and hobbies making positive and effective use of free time and
facilitating
stress management and favorable peer affiliations” (Breazzano,
2008, pre-
sentation slide).
It is typical for prisons and transitional facilities to purchase
educational
materials for much of their programming. Typically, it is quite
easy to find
and purchase ready-made course materials on increasing literacy
levels,
money management, and various job skills. However, it is less
straightfor-

ward to find course materials on effective use of leisure time,
especially ones
that are designed for the needs of this specific population.
Given the diffi-
culty of finding a complete program for purchase, but needing
to comply with
the BOP’s programming standards, facilities may need to design
such pro-
grams on their own. The purpose of this article is to provide a
template that
facilities can use to create a leisure time program, grounded in
research on
correctional program design and based on feedback from a
program devel-
oped for a medium-security federal facility.
Models of Assessment and Program Design
There are two models of program design in correctional and
transitional set-
tings that can provide facilities guidance in developing new
programs, includ-
ing the one on positive use of leisure time: the Risk-Need-
Responsivity
(RNR) model (Andrews, 2012; Andrews & Bonta, 2010;
Andrews & Dowden,
2007; Bonta & Andrews, 2007) and the Good Lives Model
(GLM; Thakker
& Ward, 2010; Ward, 2010; Ward & Brown, 2010; Ward &
Maruna, 2007).
Both of these models offer research-based suggestions for
designing effective
programming that reduces the likelihood of recidivism after
transition to
community.

The RNR model focuses heavily on correctly identifying risk
factors that
lead to recidivism and designing programs that reduce these
risks. In
266 The Prison Journal 95(2)
addition, the model identifies criminogenic needs, which are the
dynamic
risk factors that are directly linked to criminal behavior. Unlike
static risk
factors (e.g., criminal history), dynamic risk factors (e.g.,
substance abuse,
pro-criminal attitudes) change over time. Bonta and Andrews
argue that spe-
cifically targeting dynamic risk factors in programming will
lead to more
effectiveness in reducing the likelihood of recidivism (see
Bonta & Andrews,
2007, for an extensive review of the model). These researchers
identify seven
major dynamic risk/need factors as increasing the likelihood to
reoffend.
These seven major factors are an antisocial personality pattern,
pro-criminal
attitudes, the presence of social supports for crime, the lack of
positive fam-
ily/marital relationships, poor work/school performance,
substance abuse
problems, and the lack of pro-social recreational activities

(Bonta & Andrews,
2007).
One tenet of this model (responsivity) asserts that the most
effective pro-
grams are ones that are presented according to cognitive social
learning strat-
egies. These strategies follow two principles: the relationship
principle and
the structural principle. The relationship principle states that
the best learning
occurs when there is a good relationship between the instructor
and the
learner. The structural principle states that behaviors should be
directed
toward positive change by using modeling, reinforcement, and
problem-
solving activities. Taken together, the best response to (and
thus, the most
effective) correctional programming fosters a good relationship
between the
instructor and learner, and does not simply rely on lecture form
in nature. The
best programming will give the learner an active role in the
process, with
activities that engage the learner in dialogue and pro-social
interactions dur-
ing the learning process (Bonta & Andrews, 2007).
The GLM focuses on offender motivation levels and
establishing a desire
on the offender’s part to have a better overall quality of life
(see Ward, 2010,
for an extensive review of this model). The GLM relies on
aspects of self-
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), placing heavy

emphasis on the
offender helping to determine their own goals and desires for
the future
(Ward & Brown, 2010). This model portends that good
programming should
seek to have the offender work toward positive goals that will
improve over-
all well-being in constructive and pro-social ways.
Programming should
include opportunities for self-reflection and be taught using
more active and
participatory methods, depending on the abilities of the learner
(Ward &
Brown, 2010).
The models differ somewhat in their approach, with one
emphasizing
assessment of risk factors and the other being more focused on
development of
positive goals and better self-awareness. Both models do offer
useful guidance
for the development of a program that is designed to inform this
population on
constructive ways to spend leisure time in a community setting.
In fact, the
goal of both models is to reduce recidivism and increase
offender pro-social

behaviors. Keeping the various risks associated with recidivism
in the fore-
front during program development is important, as this will
ensure that the
program offers information on how to avoid these pitfalls.
Highlighting the
personal interests and goals of the offender will ensure that the
program is
relevant to each person in attendance. Both models stress the
importance of
making parts of the programming active. The sample leisure
time program
presented here aims to include the best aspects of both models:
a course on
how to spend leisure time after release that provides
information about future
risks for reoffending and also allows the offender to self-
determine the best
activities that will help them avoid these pitfalls. It is offered as
a template to
use in the development of a leisure time program by facilities
that offer train-
ing on transition and reentry prior to release.
Overall Goals for Course Development
The authors’ leisure time course was developed for an all-male,
medium-
security federal facility in western Pennsylvania. The main goal
was to
develop a program that would offer helpful information in a way
that would
be well received. This goal may seem odd to many researchers;
however,
practitioners will agree that a large part of successful
programming in prisons

and transitional facilities is the “buy in” of the people in the
program. This
aspect is in line with the recommendations of the GLM: Unless
the material
is presented in a way that is engaging to participants and
contains information
they feel is specifically useful to them, the program risks being
considered
just one more “mandated program,” and buy in may be small
(Ward & Brown,
2010).
Another goal of the program proposed here was to disseminate
informa-
tion that would be useful and relevant for offenders
transitioning back into
their community relatively soon (for an overview of
programming designed
to encourage positive use of leisure time while still inside the
prison setting,
see Frey & Delaney, 1996). For the program to be most
effective, the content
provided must still be current at the time of the offenders’
release. Although
it is true that almost anyone can benefit from this type of a
program, it was
our choice (in agreement with the correctional education
department at the
facility) to focus on the offenders being released within 6
months from the
date they took the course. By limiting participants to those
being released
within 6 months, we were more certain that most materials
presented would
still be accurate at the time of release. Thus, registration for our
course was

open to all inmates meeting the release date criterion, and
participants self-
selected based on interest in the course topic.
It was also felt that the program would be most effective if
material pre-
sented was somewhat specific to the community of release for
each partici-
pant. Therefore, prior to the class session, instructors prepared
course
materials specifically related to each registered participant’s
community of
release, as well as information common to any release city.
Gathering materi-
als for each participant prior to the course (rather than
providing this infor-
mation to the participants at some point after the course
session) was in
keeping with the relationship principle of the RNR model (i.e.,
indicating the
instructors had prepared information specific to each participant
in this class
session, laying a foundation for a good relationship), and the
aspect of the
GLM focusing on offenders helping to determine their own
goals (i.e., it is
easier to develop goals when a person knows the specific
options available to

them in their area).
A pilot course was offered, and at the end of this pilot
instructional ses-
sion, feedback was gathered from the participants. Changes
were made based
on various recommended changes, and the programming was
offered again.
The element of seeking program participant feedback is
common and
expected in college classrooms, yet was completely unexpected
by the prison
setting participants. Recent research has documented the value
of input from
the actual attendees of correctional education courses (Miller,
Tillyer, &
Miller, 2012). In agreement with these authors, we rate this
element as key to
developing a quality and well-received program. The
participants in any
instructional class know what they find useful, what is
perceived as missing,
and where information is lacking. In fact, the participant
feedback in the pilot
course resulted in course content that was changed greatly. In
addition, ask-
ing for feedback was another method for developing a sense of
participant
self-determination about their programming, in line with the
tenets of the
GLM. The instructional experiences of twice offering the course
and incorpo-
rating feedback from the participants, as well as utilizing
information from
the two models of best practices in program design, resulted in
our recom-

mendations for how a program on positive uses of leisure time
may be devel-
oped at other correctional and community-based facilities.
Considerations Important in Developing Specific Course
Content
Based on our understanding of the two course design models,
three consider-
ations were kept in the forefront of the design process of
specific course
content. First, the program should be designed to address the
particular needs/
risk factors of this population, and thus should reflect
knowledge of the par-
ticular stressors affecting this population. Second, the program
should include
a list of activities that are socially inclusive. Both of the models
of best
practices in correctional program design presented here place
substantial
emphasis on replacing pro-criminal thoughts and behaviors with
pro-social
ones (e.g., Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Ward, 2010). As mentioned
earlier,
Bonta and Andrews (2007) include the lack of “pro-social
recreational activi-

ties” as one of the seven major dynamic risk/need factors that
influence the
likelihood to reoffend. Finally, in keeping with a major
component of the
GLM, the course session should allow for self-expression and
self-
determination on the offender’s part and not be presented
entirely in lecture
format (Ward & Brown, 2010). Each element is elaborated next.
First, it is important to be keenly aware of risk factors and
stressors associ-
ated with this particular population. For example, statistics
indicate that
fewer than half of all prisoners released from correctional
institutions had a
job 1 year after release (e.g., Winterfield, Lattimore, Steffey,
Susan, &
Christine, 2006). This creates financial strain not only for the
ex-offender but
also for any family members helping with the transition
(Chakrapani, 1996;
Keefe, 1984; Liker, 1981). The fact that more than half of the
ex-offenders
experience a long period of unemployment upon release also
suggests that
this population will have much more unoccupied time than
typical commu-
nity members and hardly any disposable income to use on
leisure activities.
Thus, it is important to propose leisure activities that highlight
the great num-
ber of recreational activities for individuals as well as families
that cost little
or no money, and to avoid compiling activities that will be
financially beyond

reach.
Unfortunately, many offenders transitioning to the community
will still be
struggling with substance abuse and addiction tendencies. This
is one of the
seven major dynamic risk/need factors to reoffending identified
by Bonta and
Andrews (2007). It is important for recovery to continue after
incarceration
and that information on addiction management is included in a
leisure time
program. Much of “recovery from addiction” literature deals
with relapse
prevention and typically involves cognitive-behavioral
strategies to replace
old habits with new ones (e.g., DiClemente, Holmgren, &
Rounsaville, 2011;
DiClemente, Schlundt, & Gemmell, 2004; Kelly & White,
2011). There are
entire programs already in place both in prison and in the
community that
emphasize recovery management. Therefore, the goal for the
leisure time
program proposed here is to not duplicate those efforts; rather,
the goal is to
provide information on how to find community meeting places
so the ex-
offender can continue the recovery he or she may have begun
during his or
her incarceration. If the communities of release for the
participants in the
program are known, it is very helpful to include handouts
specifying com-
munity meeting places. Because meeting times may change from
the time of

the course to the time of release, providing websites that will
have up-to-date
information is the key.
The literature on breaking habits underscores a key component
of success-
ful behavior change—developing new behaviors to replace the
old undesir-
able behaviors (Adriaanse, Gollwitzer, De Ridder, de Wit, &
Kroese, 2011;
Scherer, 2006; Webb, Sheeran, & Luszczynska, 2009). This
aspect is critical
for ex-offenders with addiction problems (Best, Ghufran, Day,
Ray, &
Loaring, 2008). The literature cited above also notes that many
people
attempting to break a habit have difficulty self-identifying
replacement activ-
ities for previous long-term behaviors. Thus, providing the ex-
offender with
a readily available list of low-cost, positive behavioral choices
on which to
draw during this stressful transition time is essential. In
addition, it will be
most helpful if these activity choices can be provided in a form
that the
offender can take with them upon release.

As the lack of pro-social recreational activities is a major risk
factor for
reoffending, a consideration in compiling course materials is the
offender’s
fractured relationships with friends and family members.
Therefore, it may
be preferable for the offender to seek entirely new friendships
and affiliations
when choosing recreational activities. However, it is also
important to include
a discussion of activities that provide opportunities for the
offender to recon-
nect with his or her family. Both the RNR and the GLM place
emphasis on
working toward good family/marital relationships as part of
rehabilitation
(e.g., Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Ward, 2010; Ward & Brown,
2010). Open
discussion of these types of activities and encouraging their
inclusion on the
offenders’ personal list of choices for leisure activities should
be paramount.
An extension of the baseline criteria of including pro-social and
low-cost
activities is to include activities that require participants to be
physically
active, as well as activities that provide an avenue for artistic
expression or
educational advancement. Research shows that there are specific
emotional
and health benefits to using physical activity for stress relief
(e.g., Edenfield
& Blumenthal, 2011; Hug, Hansmann, Monn, Krütli, & Seeland,
2008;
Summanen, 2006). This specific population also suffers from

many health
issues due to a lack of good health care both prior and during
their incarcera-
tion (Ross, Liebling, & Tait, 2011; Stern, Greifinger, & Mellow,
2010).
Including activities that are physical in nature can provide a
low-cost way to
improve overall health as well as relieve stress.
There is research documenting that activities involving artistic
expression
or ones increasing a person’s education have positive effects on
emotional
health and well-being (e.g., Tinsley & Eldredge, 1995;
Trenberth, 2005;
Trenberth & Dewe, 2005, 2006). Many prison facilities offer
educational pro-
gramming to improve literacy and/or artistic expression
(Johnson, 2007;
Milliken, 2008; Warfield, 2010; Welch, 1990). A list of low-
cost activities
that include creative expression and educational advancement
will allow the
offender to build on any prison-based activities in which he or
she may have
engaged. A list of creative and educational activities will also
most likely

suggest activities that the ex-offender never considered before.
In this realm,
it is very helpful to give examples of endeavors that have
varying degrees of
hands-on participation. For example, an interest in artistic
painting does not
need to require an initial costly purchase of painting supplies. It
may simply
involve going to free or low-cost art exhibits in the community
to learn about
artistic techniques and styles.
Finally, the course material should allow for some participant
self-
determination. The program presented here included participant
worksheets
to complete with personal preferences for activities to pursue
upon release.
The course session allowed as well for group discussion and the
addition of
new activities that individuals might suggest during the course
session.
Programming is most effective when the offender helps
determine their own
goals and desires for the future (Ward & Brown, 2010).
In summary, it is our recommendation that leisure time
management
course content should concentrate on the risk factors for
reoffending and
should include many different types of offender-choice
activities, the major-
ity of which should be pro-social in nature (as opposed to
solitary pursuits).
Finally, the information has the greatest chance of being useful
if it is “up-to-

date,” specific to the community of release for the offender, and
in a form that
can be taken with the offender upon release.
Pilot Program
Participants. Seventeen males (Mage = 26.5 years, age range =
20-37 years)
from a medium-security federal prison facility participated in
the pilot pro-
gram, which was offered in November 2011. All men eligible
for recreational
programming with 6 months or less until community release
were allowed to
sign-up for the course. Initial sign-up was capped by the facility
at 20 partici-
pants. On the day of the program, 17 participants came to the
session and 16
participants gave consent for their responses to be used as part
of a research
project.
Procedure—Orientation to the course. The course was taught in
one 150-min
session by the researchers. The length of the session was
determined by the
regular prison schedule for evening educational coursework. At
the start of
the course, participants entered the room and were given an
overview of the
course content. Participants were told that this course would
help them man-
age their free time during transition. They were told that many
people transi-
tioning out of prison experience challenges and stress, and the
purpose of the

course would be to provide them with information on activities
available in
their community that were fairly low cost and that might help to
reintegrate
them with their community. Participants were informed that
even if they
obtained a full-time job right away, they would still have some
free time. The
course was designed to provide them with choices on how to
spend that time
in constructive ways.
Consent form. After this brief orientation, the nature of the
course as a new
one and part of a research project creating courses to ease
transition from
prison to the community was explained. Consent for using
participant end-of-
course responses on the course evaluation usage was requested.
Each partici-
pant was given a consent form to complete that contained course
instructor
backgrounds as well as a written version of the information
about the proj-
ect’s goals. Each consent form had a cover sheet, and
participants completed
the form while shielding their answers from others in the room.

Participants
were informed that the choices of consent to participate would
never be
shared with anyone at the prison facility, and the course
instructors would not
know which men agreed to participate until several days later. If
a participant
chose to fill out a course evaluation, but did not want those
responses to be
used in the research study, their feedback would be used to
improve the
course in the future; their responses would not be included in
the research
study. In addition, they were under no obligation to fill out the
course evalu-
ation, and there would be no penalty for not completing one. (In
keeping with
this promise, everyone who completed the course was given a
certificate of
completion prior to the dissemination of the course evaluation.)
Procedure—Presentation of course content. The program was
comprised of
four sections, and material was organized around a fictional bus
trip. The four
sections were represented as stops on a bus route, with each bus
stop contain-
ing activities and resources available for little or no money
typically available
in every large metropolitan area as well as many small
communities. The
program was designed in this manner to make use of a well-
known memory
strategy called the method of loci, in which items to be
remembered are orga-
nized into an imaginary trip, with each place on the trip

containing things to
be remembered (e.g., Massen, Vaterrodt-Plünnecke, Krings, &
Hilbig, 2009;
Moè & De Beni, 2005). Organizing activities around bus stops
theoretically
made the activities being proposed more memorable and thus
much more
likely to be recalled at a later time. The specific “bus stops”
included in the
pilot were the public library, addiction management, faith-based
organiza-
tions (FBOs), and activities for evenings and weekends. Clearly
other “bus
stops” of relevance to a particular facility or class member
interest can be
substituted or added to the list.
For each session, each ready-made participant packet had
instructor mate-
rials as well as worksheets specific to each session. As the
community of
release for each enrollee had been determined, available
community of
release activities were gathered and integrated into the general
course materi-
als for each individual. In this manner, an offender-specific
activities handout
packet of his or her city of release (with his or her name

imprinted) was pro-
vided, which also had general activities available in almost any
city.
The course orientation emphasized the program’s goal of
providing par-
ticipants information on activities in their community that were
fairly low
cost and aiming at reintegration. It was stressed that, even with
obtaining a
full-time job soon upon leaving prison, individuals successful at
reentry are
more likely to also have activities for spending free time in
constructive
ways.
Noting the critical element of feedback from course evaluation,
the spe-
cific questions utilized in this pilot are in Tables 2 and 3.
Drawing on facility-
specific feedback should add insight to the needs of that
particular population,
altering and customizing the course content as needed.
Importantly, this com-
ponent adds the key element of course participant self-
determination.
Specific course components. In this section, details are provided
on the specific
pilot course components, as well as comments on the rationale
for activities
for each bus stop. For a complete list of bus stop activities,
please refer to
Table 1. As many in the group were to be released into large
metropolitan
areas (e.g., Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore),

they were well
acquainted with using a bus line.
Public library. The public library was chosen as the first stop
because the
public library is a major source of low-cost services and
activities. Modern
public libraries now have expanded offerings that include
DVDs, musical
CDs, and Internet access. Libraries in major metropolitan areas
also host
lectures, concerts, theatrical plays, and other community
activities. Depend-
ing on the length of prison sentence, ex-offenders can be well
served by the
range of library services currently available in most urban
libraries. Typical
services available include assistance in computer usage and
Internet search-
ing, local bus schedules, church service times, job and
apartment searches,
and meeting times and locations for 12-step groups. All of this
information
can be found by using the public library computer. Furthermore,
most public
library computers have protective filters, making them safe
places to access
the Internet in compliance with many parole restrictions. The
majority of
public libraries in major cities provide free library cards, with
others typically
providing them at a nominal cost.

Addiction management. Addiction management was the second
stop on
the imaginary bus trip. Addiction treatment begun in prison and
contin-
ued throughout community transition reduces relapse and
recidivism much
more than if the offender only completes a prison-based
treatment program
(e.g., Hiller, Knight, & Saum, 2006; Hiller, Knight, & Simpson,
2006; Lash,
Timko, Curran, McKay, & Burden, 2011). Even for offenders
not convicted
of a drug charge, a recent list of meeting times and locations for
12-step
programs can serve as a reference in the initial weeks of
transition for those
individuals who nonetheless struggle with substance abuse. Of
note, provid-
ing participants with a list of multiple meeting places and times
is also criti-
cal, as 12-step groups frequently differ in their composition,
even within the
same city. So, an ex-offender who feels he does not comfortably
fit into one
group may well fit into another group within the same city. In
any case, the
main thing is to find a group to attend regularly, as lack of
substance abuse
management is a major risk factor for reoffending (Andrews,
2012; Bonta
& Andrews, 2007)

Table 1. Opportunities Located at Fictional Bus Stops.
Bus stop
Public
library
Addiction
management
Faith-based
organizations
(FBOs)
Evenings and
weekends Family time
Books 12-Step Bible studies City festivals Read books
Program
meetings
CDs Mentoring Worship Free concerts Watch sports
on TV
DVDs Social
gatherings
Picnics Go to gym Watch DVDs
Lectures Lectures Sports
leagues
Exhibits Go to the park

Internet Conferences* Fellowship Sports leagues School
functions*
Concerts Retreats* Bike rides* Go to the
library*
Hiking*
Bowling*
Snow shoeing*
Little leagues*
Swimming*
Snow sledding*
Build projects*
Note. Family time became a new bus stop in the revised course.
Items with asterisk were
discussed only in the revised course and were added based on
feedback from the pilot
course.
There are several aspects to include in discussions of addiction
manage-
ment. A list of meeting times and locations is helpful but is
often not suffi-
cient. People who have only begun recovery in prison may not
know how to

find transportation to meetings. Providing course participants
with a list of
bus schedules and routes and/or other means of public
transportation specific
to their community of release may thus be particularly valuable.
Getting a list
of phone numbers from people in attendance at the first meeting
will also
provide a source of emotional support for the ex-offenders
during difficult
periods.
Prison inmates who have begun a 12-step program for the first
time may
not understand the importance of finding and committing to a
specific home
group, as the home group is the one meeting the individual
makes a strong
commitment to attend. The consistency of attendance by regular
group mem-
bers adds an element of social inclusion to help overcome one
source of
social isolation as the individual transition back into the
community. Also,
this commitment to a home group will add a sense of
accountability to the
individual’s recovery. Typically, an individual’s sponsor is a
member of this
same home group, and has made a commitment to help the
individual during
his or her recovery.
Table 2. Course Evaluation Ratings by Course Session.
Question Rating

Pilot course Second course
n = 16 n = 31
How much would you say you
learned in this course?
Almost nothing — —
A little bit 2 3
Quite a Bit 8 16
A great deal 6 12
The amount of knowledge I
learned in the course was
Less than I expected — —
What I expected 8 5
More than I expected 8 26
What overall rating would
you give this course?
Very poor — —
Poor — —
Average 3 2
Good 4 12
Very good 9 17
Would you recommend this
course to a friend?
Definitely would not — —
Probably would not — 1

Probably would 4 6
Definitely would 12 24
FBOs. The imaginary bus ride’s third stop was a FBO, or faith-
based orga-
nization. U.S. FBOs receive funding for transitional
programming, and many
community services help bridge the gap resulting from
government cuts in
funding for these services. While many participants may have
no interest
in learning about religion or faith, they need to know that these
organiza-
tions provide many needed services. In the course, the focus
was on one
element of many FBOs—separate non-profit centers that reach
out to various
community members. Examples include Catholic Charities,
Lutheran Social
Services, Salvation Army, YMCA/YWCA, and Goodwill
Ministries. Many
of these organizations offer, for example, housing subsidies, a
food pantry,
homeless shelters, and low-cost clothing. FBOs can provide
moral guidance,
as well as a welcoming environment for an ex-offender
transitioning from
prison. Again, the course highlighted FBOs as excellent sources

of pro-social
recreational activities, providing as well sources of social
acceptance and
spiritual growth, regardless of denomination or religious
affiliation.
Evenings and weekends. The last stop on the imaginary bus trip
was a loca-
tion where activities are typically offered on evenings and
weekends. Conforming
Table 3. Suggestion Category by Course Session.
Question Category
Pilot
course
Second
course
n = 16 n = 31
Name one thing you learned during
the course that you think will help
you the most with reentry
Use of library 7 16
Many free activities 6 10
Faith-based
organizations
3 5
When this course is taught again,

name one thing you think we
should spend more time on, or go
into great detail about
Family time 8 6
City sports leagues 2 6
Addiction
management
2 2
Free college
speakers
— 14
Everything 4 3
When this course is taught again,
name one thing that we did not
cover that you think we should
include
Kid’s activities 7 2
Outdoor exercise 6 —
Evening time alone 3 7
College applications — 12
Don’t know — 10

to the course goal, the activities proposed here were low cost in
nature. Three
additional criteria for these activities were that they were (a)
family friendly,
(b) regularly occurring, and/or (c) seasonal—such as community
or regional
festivals. Most of the activities included in this section met at
least two of
the above criteria. For example, Buffalo, NY, offers an entire
summer free
concert series that encourages the attendance of children and
does not allow
alcohol. Many communities have festivals of this nature that
feature various
ethnic foods, music, craft displays, and dancing. Most of these
are low cost
or free to enter, making them excellent activity choices as a
reentry pastime.
Other activities proposed for this “stop” were city sports
leagues, specialty
clubs (e.g., photography club, gardening club, woodworking
club), and col-
lege and university events. As many individuals in transition
may live with
their children, or at least have visitation rights, evening and
weekend family-
friendly events were an important component of the course.
Action plan. The final worksheets in the packet were designed
for each par-
ticipant to develop a plan of action based on the material
presented in the
course. Both the RNR and the GLM, as well as research in
cognitive-

behavioral therapy, affirm that having a specific plan of action
turns vague
intentions into something more likely to be completed (e.g.,
Bonta &
Andrews, 2007; Egan, 2010; Ward, 2010). At the end of the
presentation cov-
ering all of the bus stops, participants were asked to create a
future plan of
action by selecting two activities that they would like to pursue
at each bus
stop. They were asked to indicate these choices on the action
plan worksheet,
including the likelihood (on a scale of 1-10) that they would
pursue these
activities within 6 months of release.
Results of Course Evaluations—Pilot
Results of the pilot course responses on the course evaluation
are presented
in Tables 2 and 3. In general, the class was well received, with
all respondents
indicating that they “probably would” or “definitely would”
recommend the
course to a friend. Eight of the participants in the pilot course
agreed that they
learned more than they expected from the course. Thirteen of
the participants
rated the course “good” or “very good,” and no one rated the
course “poor”
or “very poor.” In general, the course offered at least some new
information
to the majority of participants.
In addition to the course evaluation questions that were simply
ratings on

a Likert-type scale, participants were asked several open-ended
questions,
designed to inform the authors on ways the course could be
improved and
what areas might have received greater detail. The results are
listed in Table 3.
By far, the desire to learn more about family-friendly activities,
especially
activities for teenaged children, was paramount. Respondents
also expressed
surprise at how much could be done at the public library. (It is
important to
note the phrasing used in the open-ended questions was to
“name one thing,”
rather than “can you think of anything,” when eliciting course
content feed-
back. Previous researcher experience has shown that this
phrasing produces
more responses from this population.)
Modifications and Revised Course
A modified course was created, using the feedback from the
pilot course.
Offered in April 2012 at the same medium-security facility, the
revised course
had 31 male enrollees (Mage = 23.5 years, age range = 20-32

years) and fol-
lowed the same general procedure as the pilot. All who
participated con-
sented to allow their responses to be included in the study.
There were three major course revisions based on feedback from
the pilot
course. The first was the recommendation that the course be
taught over sev-
eral days instead of during one long session. Respondents
indicated they
wanted time to consider all options presented to them before
drafting an
action plan. Therefore, the revised course was offered on 3 non-
consecutive
days of the same week, that is, in three 50-min sessions on
Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday.
The second area of revision was to create a new “bus stop” that
specifi-
cally covered activities designated as Family Time (previously
these activi-
ties had been under Evenings and Weekends, or sprinkled
throughout other
bus stops). The pilot evaluation responses showed the group had
a strong
desire to reconnect with their children and were interested in
learning about
more activities related to this specific component. An example
of this modi-
fication was moving “reading books with your children” from
the Public
Library “bus stop” and placing it under the new Family Time
“bus stop.”
(These changes are indicated by asterisk in Table 1.)

The third area of revision was allocating more time to the
development of
a specific action plan. In the pilot, class members were asked to
choose activ-
ities at each bus stop that most appealed to them, and that they
intended to
initiate during their transition. The worksheet for the action
plan was com-
pletely revised to resemble a calendar week, with each day of
the week a box
divided into “Morning,” “Afternoon,” and Evening.” The
instructions were
to develop a sample week’s plan of action around a 20-hr
fictional job, com-
pleting the remaining time with activities. For each activity
entered into the
calendar, the men were asked to check off the possible benefits
from a pro-
vided list of benefits (e.g., make new friends, learn a new
skill/hobby, stay in
shape, relieve stress, or reconnect with family/children). The
result was a
plan of action that was much more concrete and was given as a
homework
assignment to be completed prior to the third course session.
Working with a

calendar layout made it much easier to see how much free time
was available
after all work and parole obligations were met. Many
participants chose to do
a few activities repeatedly across the week, while others filled
their week
without repeating any activity. The benefits and drawbacks of
each strategy
were discussed.
Results of Course Evaluation—Revised Course
Several course evaluation question results are presented in
Table 2. As before,
the class was well received, with 24 participants indicating they
“definitely
would” recommend the course to a friend. In addition, 26
reported that they
learned more than they expected, and 29 rated the course as
either “good” or
“very good.” It is interesting to note that in spite of the course
material added,
there were still requests for more information in many areas.
While there
were no recommendations for procedural changes (as there had
been after the
pilot), there were many requests for additional “bus stop”
information and a
keen interest in locating presentations and activities that
colleges in their
communities offered for low or no cost.
Implications and Limitations
The design and content of the course met the standards of the
leisure time

component of the BOP’s Reentry Skill Sets (Breazzano, 2008).
The specific
content focused on activities that were pro-social and designed
to address
many of the risk factors faced by ex-offenders during transition
from prison
to community. The program presented here includes elements of
both the
RNR model and the GLM of correctional program design.
One surprising element of the project that can be inferred,
although it was
not measured directly, was the sincere participant interest in
providing feed-
back through the use of course evaluations. We believe there are
two compo-
nents to this observation. The first is that giving course
evaluations is
incredibly rare in the prison setting. When encouraged to
provide feedback
on the course they had just completed, the men in the pilot
course offered
suggestions that, indeed, made the course quite different from
that originally
conceived by the researchers and more directly fit the expressed
needs of the
respondents. The second is that by the time feedback was
requested from the
men in the revised course, participants from the pilot course had
enquired
about the revised course. Learning that the researchers had, in
fact, made

substantial changes to the course based on their feedback, men
in the pilot
course encouraged the revised course group to also make
suggestions. This
replicated behavior found by the researchers previously in the
offering of
pilot and revised courses at the same facility (McKinney &
Cotronea, 2011).
There are several limitations of the project. The first was the
lack of dis-
cussion on how to help each offender gain insight into activities
that will
work best in his specific circumstances. The GLM (much more
than the RNR
model) places emphasis on incorporating elements of self-
reflection into any
correctional programming. The program as it was designed was
much more
in line with what is “common programming structure in prisons”
in the
United States. The inclusion of worksheets helped make the
program a bit
more interactive, but much more could be done to achieve this
goal. For
example, adding worksheet space to allow for personal
reflection about pos-
sible barriers to completing the action plan would be useful.
These responses
could then be incorporated into class discussion, or questions
might be added

to the anonymous survey/course evaluation component of the
course.
Another limitation was the lack of data indicating how aspects
of the
course were utilized after release. Did the material actually
influence deci-
sions upon release? How impactful was the program to the
participants post
release? Did the course content ease any of the stressors often
encountered
during transition? One way to address this issue and develop a
venue for data
collection would be to have the final action plan created by each
participant
placed into the paperwork that goes to probation/parole upon
release. After a
month in the community, the parole officer could ask follow-up
questions,
including which, if any, of the activities listed on their action
plan were
attempted since release and if they had any impact on reentry
transitioning.
Incorporating pro-social recreational activities into the life of
an ex-
offender has been the focus of research for many years in
Canada (e.g., Bonta
& Andrews, 2007), Australia, and New Zealand (e.g., Ward,
2010). Research
there has led to the development of two models of best practices
in develop-
ing programming to increase the likelihood of successful
transition from
prison to community. These programming development models
can be used

to develop new transitional programming on a multitude of
areas deemed
helpful to an individual’s reentry adaptations. The course
proposed here is
merely one specific use of these models.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank DonaLee Breazzanno, Cheri
Harrington, Jody Klein-
Saffran, and Gary Ransom of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for
their support through-
out the development of this research. Thanks to Barbara K.
Fowler and Andrea A.
Zevenbergen for helpful comments on drafts of this submission.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

References
Adriaanse, M. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., De Ridder, D. D., de Wit,
J. F., & Kroese, F.
M. (2011). Breaking habits with implementation intentions: A
test of under-
lying processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37,
502-513.
doi:10.1177/0146167211399102
Andrews, D. A. (2012). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR)
model of correctional
assessment and treatment. In J. A. Dvoskin, J. L. Skeem, R. W.
Novaco, & K. S.
Douglas (Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending
(pp. 127-156).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal
justice policy and prac-
tice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39-55.
doi:10.1037/a0018362
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2007). The risk–need–
responsivity model of assess-
ment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-
prevention juris-
prudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice,
49, 439-464.
Best, D. W., Ghufran, S., Day, E., Ray, R., & Loaring, J.
(2008). Breaking the habit:
A retrospective analysis of desistance factors among formerly
problematic heroin
users. Drug & Alcohol Review, 27, 619-624.
doi:10.1080/09595230802392808

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity
model for offender
assessment and rehabilitation (User Report 2007-06). Ottawa,
Ontario: Public
Safety Canada.
Breazzano, D. (2008, July). Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate
skills development.
Symposium conducted at Alternative to Incarceration,
Washington, DC.
Breazzano, D. (2009). The Federal Bureau of Prisons shifts
reentry focus to a skills-
based model. Corrections Today, 71, 50-57.
Chakrapani, C. (1996). Unemployment as a stressor: Role of
socio-psychological fac-
tors. Indian Journal of Social Work, 57, 578-590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory.
In P. M. Van Lange, A.
W. Kruglanski, & E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of
social psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 416-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
DiClemente, C., Holmgren, M., & Rounsaville, D. (2011).
Relapse preven-
tion and recycling in addiction. In B. A. Johnson (Ed.),
Addiction medi-
cine: Science and practice (pp. 765-782). New York, NY:
Springer.
doi:10.1007/978144190338938
DiClemente, C., Schlundt, D., & Gemmell, L. (2004). Readiness
and stages of change

in addiction treatment. The American Journal on Addictions, 13,
103-119.
Edenfield, T. M., & Blumenthal, J. A. (2011). Exercise and
stress reduction. In R. J.
Contrada & A. Baum (Eds.), The handbook of stress science:
Biology, psychol-
ogy, and health (pp. 301-319). New York, NY: Springer.
Egan, G. (2010). Overview of the helping model. In G. Egan
(Ed.), The skilled helper
(pp. 64-90). Florence, KY: Cengage/Brooks Cole.
Frey, J. H., & Delaney, T. T. (1996). Role of leisure
participation in prison: A report
from consumers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 23, 79-89.
Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Saum, C. A. (2006). Social
functioning, treatment drop-
out, and recidivism of probationers mandated to a modified
therapeutic commu-
nity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 738-759.
Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. (2006). Recidivism
following mandated res-
idential substance abuse treatment for felony probationers. The
Prison Journal,
86, 230-241.

Hug, S., Hansmann, R., Monn, C., Krütli, P., & Seeland, K.
(2008). Restorative
effects of physical activity in forests and indoor settings.
International Journal
of Fitness, 4, 25-37.
Johnson, L. (2007). Jail wall drawings and jail art programs:
Invaluable tools for cor-
rections. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 2,
66-84.
Keefe, T. (1984). The stresses of unemployment. Social Work,
29, 264-268.
Kelly, J. F., & White, W. L. (2011). Recovery management and
the future of addic-
tion treatment and recovery in the USA. In J. F. Kelly & W. L.
White (Eds.),
Addiction recovery management: Theory, research and practice
(pp. 303-316).
Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
Lash, S. J., Timko, C., Curran, G. M., McKay, J. R., & Burden,
J. L. (2011).
Implementation of evidence-based substance use disorder
continuing care inter-
ventions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 238-251.
doi:10.1037/a0022608
Liker, J. K. (1981). Economic pressures on the families of
released prisoners evidence
from the TARP (Transitional Aid to Released Prisoners)
experiment. Cornell
Journal of Social Relations, 16, 11-27.

Massen, C., Vaterrodt-Plünnecke, B., Krings, L., & Hilbig, B.
E. (2009). Effects of
instruction on learners’ ability to generate an effective pathway
in the method of
loci. Memory, 17, 724-731. doi:10.1080/09658210903012442
McKinney, D., & Cotronea, M. A. (2011). Using self-
determination theory in correc-
tional education program development. The Journal of
Correctional Education,
62, 175-193.
Miller, H., Tillyer, R., & Miller, J. (2012). Recognizing the
need for prisoner
input in correctional research: Observations from an in-prison
driving while
intoxicated reduction program evaluation. The Prison Journal,
92, 274-289.
doi:10.1177/0032885512439164
Milliken, R. (2008). Intervening in the cycle of addiction,
violence, and shame: A
dance/movement therapy group approach in a jail addictions
program. Journal of
Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 3, 5-22.
Moè, A., & De Beni, R. (2005). Stressing the efficacy of the
loci method: Oral presen-
tation and the subject-generation of the loci pathway with
expository passages.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 95-106.
doi:10.1002/acp.1051

Ross, M. W., Liebling, A., & Tait, S. (2011). The relationships
of prison climate
to health service in correctional environments: Inmate health
care measurement,
satisfaction and access in prisons. Howard Journal of Criminal
Justice, 50, 262-
274. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00658.x
Scherer, J. J. (2006). Break a habit. Personal Excellence, 11, 6.
Stern, M. F., Greifinger, R. B., & Mellow, J. (2010). Patient
safety: Moving the
bar in prison health care standards. American Journal of Public
Health, 100,
2103-2110.
Summanen, J. (2006). Nature refreshes the mind and increases
physical activity.
Motion-Sport in Finland, 2006, 22-23.
Tercilla, E., & Breazzano, D. (2010). Maximizing inmate
employment success in the
BOP. Corrections Today, 72, 32-35.
Thakker, J., & Ward, T. (2010). Relapse prevention: A critique
and proposed recon-
ceptualisation. Behaviour Change, 27, 154-175.
doi:10.1375/bech.27.3.154
Tinsley, H. A., & Eldredge, B. D. (1995). Psychological
benefits of leisure participa-

tion: A taxonomy of leisure activities based on their need-
gratifying properties.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 123-132.
Trenberth, L. (2005). The role, nature and purpose of leisure
and its contribution
to individual development and well-being. British Journal of
Guidance &
Counselling, 33, 1-6.
Trenberth, L., & Dewe, P. (2005). An exploration of the role of
leisure in coping with
work related stress using sequential tree analysis. British
Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 33, 101-116.
Trenberth, L., & Dewe, P. (2006). Understanding the experience
of stressors: The use
of sequential analysis for exploring the patterns between
various work stressors
and strain. Work & Stress, 20, 191-209.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). The Federal Bureau of
Prisons inmate release
preparation and transitional reentry programs (Report No. 04-
16). Retrieved
from http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/a0416/app15.htm
Ward, T. (2010). The good lives model of offender
rehabilitation: Basic assumptions,
aetiological commitments, and practice implications. In F.
McNeil, P. Raynor, &
C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in
theory, research and
practice (pp. 41-64). New York, NY: Willan.

Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2010). The good lives model. In P.
Priestley & M. Vanstone
(Eds.), Offenders or citizens? Readings in rehabilitation (pp.
263-266). Devon,
UK: Willan.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk
paradigm. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Warfield, D. (2010). Bowing in the right direction: Hiland
Mountain Correctional
Center women’s string orchestra programme. International
Journal of Community
Music, 3, 103-110.
Webb, T. L., Sheeran, P., & Luszczynska, A. (2009). Planning
to break unwanted
habits: Habit strength moderates implementation intention
effects on
behaviour change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48,
507-523.
doi:10.1348/014466608X370591
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/a0416/app15.htm
Welch, R. R. (1990). Arts in prison. Corrections Compendium,
15, 1-9.
Winterfield, L., Lattimore, P. K., Steffey, D. M., Susan, B., &

Christine, L. (2006).
The serious and violent offender reentry initiative: Measuring
the effects on ser-
vice delivery. Western Criminology Review, 7, 3-19.
Author Biographies
Dani McMay, PhD, is assistant professor of psychology, State
University of New
York at Fredonia. Her research interests include best practices
in correctional educa-
tion, specifically developing new programs to ease reentry and
transition.
Michael Cotronea, MA, received his bachelor of arts degree in
psychology at State
University of New York at Fredonia in 2009 and his master’s
degree in industrial/
organizational psychology at West Chester University in
Pennsylvania in 2011. This
work was completed during a year long independent study at
Fredonia.
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology
1 –18

© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15586414
ijo.sagepub.com
Article
The Influence of Rehabilitative
and Punishment Ideology
on Correctional Officers’
Perceptions of Informal
Bases of Power
Jill A. Gordon1 and Amy J. Stichman2
Abstract
Maintaining order is a key goal for prison managers. Much of
the research on order
maintenance focuses, however, on disruptions of order, even
when order is more
common. Examining factors related to perceptions on how
officers get inmates to
comply is, therefore, an important consideration. Using a survey
of correctional
officers from a Mid-Atlantic state, this study considers three
dimensions of French
and Raven’s theory on the bases of power. The focus is to
examine correctional
orientation and compliance regarding three dimensions of power
that rely on informal
control and relationships. The results indicate that officers’
belief in rehabilitative

ideals is consistently related to the dimensions of legitimate,
referent, and expert
control. Other individual and organizational factors are also
related to dimensions of
power. Implications for policies and for future research are
discussed.
Keywords
correctional officer, correctional ideology, bases of power
Introduction
The size of the imprisoned population in the United States is
extraordinary, consider-
ing that today there are more than 1.4 million inmates being
watched by half a million
1L. DouglasWilderSchool of Government and Public Affairs,
Richmond, VA, USA
2North DakotaStateUniversity, Fargo, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jill A. Gordon, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and
Public Affairs, 923 W. Franklin Street,
Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Email: [email protected]
586414 IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15586414International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
CriminologyGordon and Stichman
research-article2015
2015ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ijo.sagepub.com/

2 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology
employees across thousands of prisons (Maguire, 2012). The
control of the prison
environment ultimately lies in the hands of the officers,
administrators, and staff.
Maintaining order in prison is essential for the safety of all, yet
we know little about
compliance in prison. The primary focus has been on the
breakdown of order rather
than the maintenance of it, as illustrated with literature
emphasizing collective action
by prisoners (e.g., Colvin, 1992, 2007; Steiner, 2009; Useem &
Goldstone, 2002;
Useem & Kimball, 1989; Useem & Piehl, 2006; Useem &
Reisig, 1999); individuals’
violence, such as inmates’ rule breaking, disciplinary
infractions; inmate on inmate
violence (e.g., Camp, Gaes, Logan, & Saylor, 2003; S. A.
French & Gendreau, 2006;
Huebner, 2003; Steiner, 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008); or
inmate on staff vio-
lence (e.g., Huebner, 2003). Given this, a shift in focus
examining efforts related to
maintaining order is warranted and suggested by Marquart
(2008) who advises con-
centrating on “why don’t they [inmates] riot.” A facet of this
equation lies within the
understanding of the officers’ perceptions and means of gaining
control within the
prison environment.
One organizational theory used to explore how officers gain
compliance is J. R. P.

French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power (Hepburn, 1985;
Stichman & Gordon,
2014; Stojkovic, 1984, 1986). In prison, order can be achieved
through five types of
power: coercive (e.g., physical force), reward (formal and
informal benefits), expert
(skills), legitimate (respect for the officer’s position), and
referent (respect for the
officer himself or herself). Although there has been criticism on
the lack of clarity in
defining these power bases (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Rahim,
1989; Rahim &
Buntzman, 1991), this typology is the most widely used of all
the power definitions
and applied to numerous organizations and situations (e.g.,
Aquinis, Nesler, Quigley,
Lee, & Tedeschi, 1996; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990, 1994;
Raven, 1988). Among
correctional employees, research suggests that some types of
power may be more
effective than others in changing behavior and leading to
greater commitment to the
organization by employees (Rahim & Buntzman, 1991;
Stichman & Gordon, 2014;
Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2007).
Intuitively, correctional staff influence affects the day-to-day
interactions and com-
pliance among inmates; as discussed in the literature, they play
a pivotal role in the
daily environment. Therefore, considering officers’ perception
of how they view the
characteristics, functions, and impact of their job on the
environment is critical (Kifer,
Hemmens, & Stohr, 2003; Liebling, 2000; Tewksbury &
Mustaine, 2013). It is the

precise balance in the relationship between officers and inmates
that upholds harmony
through the use of legitimacy and power (Liebling, 2004;
Sparks, Bottoms, & Hay,
1996). Research indicates positive staff to prisoner relationships
and use of informal
interactions are more likely to exist when the existence of
rehabilitative ideals are
present or held by officers (Crewe, Liebling, & Hulley, 2011).
And while some infor-
mation exists, to date, examining the perceived means of
gaining compliance of
inmates among correctional staff has not considered
correctional orientation. Given
this, the present study examined officer orientation to predict
perceptions toward the
base of power that rely on building a culture of legitimacy,
informal control, respect,
and understanding rather than the use of physical or incentives
to gain compliance.
Gordon and Stichman 3
That is, the goal was to advance the literature through the
analysis of officer percep-
tions of correctional orientation and belief in the use of
referent, expert, and legitimate
bases of power to maintain order.
Power in Organizations

Historically, organizations are described as social groupings
constructed to seek par-
ticular goals and are characterized by divisions of labor and the
power to achieve
objectives (Etzioni, 1964). Compliance in an organization is
essential as its success
depends on the ability to control participants; power is a
mechanism to make people
obey (Etzioni, 1964). Participants’ compliance and
contributions to the organization
are enhanced by the various inducements they receive from the
organization (March &
Simon, 1961). Such organizational qualities are viewed as
applicable today.
In a prison, power relationships can be experienced or perceived
as accute circum-
stances, as there are more clear distinctions between rulers and
subjects (Cressey,
1965; McCleery, 1960; Stohr & Collins, 2009; Thomas &
Petersen, 1977). Correctional
officers are critical to achieving the goals of the prison
organization (Lambert, Hogan,
& Griffin, 2008). If staff believe themselves to be powerless in
their jobs, they are
likely to be ineffective in maintaining order (Stohr & Collins,
2009). Power has many
different definitions and dimensions; some view only the
coercive dimension of it (i.e.,
people have power by getting someone to do something he or
she otherwise would not
do), while others define power as the product of exchange
relationships in organiza-
tions (Stojkovic et al., 2007). It is this exchange relationship
that affects the organiza-

tional culture in prisons, allowing maintenance of order to be
achieved even in the
absence of the physical presence of correctional staff.
The present study focused on the bases of power that do not
require the presence of
an officer (Raven, 1988), expert, legitimate, and referent to
identify the extent to which
individual and organizational factors influence the use of such
compliance measures.
Legitimate power is based on a person’s perception that another
has a genuine right to
order him or her to act in a certain way (J. R. P. French &
Raven, 1959). In prison, this
power originates from the structural position of the officer and
his or her formal
authority to command (Cressey, 1965; Goffman, 1961; Hepburn,
1985). In other
words, the officer has power simply because he or she is an
officer; the obedience lies
in the person’s organizational position rather than as a result of
the person’s individual
characteristics (Weber, 1961). Many correctional officers
believe their power over
prisoners resides in the officers’ incumbency in office
(Hepburn, 1985; Lombardo,
1981). Other scholars state that legitimate power does not just
originate from the posi-
tion or the “institutionalization of authority” but in the inmates’
acceptance that the
officer has the right to occupy that position (Carson, Carson, &
Roe, 1993). In fact,
Stichman (2003) found that many inmates do accept that
officers have the right to be
obeyed.

A correctional officer has expert power if prisoners perceive
him or her as having
some special skill or knowledge (Hepburn, 1985). In custody-
oriented facilities, offi-
cers may view their ability to resolve disputes as expert power
(Hepburn, 1985).
Criminology
Inmates might be reluctant, however, to accept officers’
expertise in controlling a
prison (Stichman, 2003). Regardless, there is a belief that
conformity may be achieved
in officers’ power over inmates resulting from ones reputation
for competency in their
job and good judgment (Hepburn, 1985).
The final base of power, referent power, is where prisoners
obey an officer because
of their respect and admiration for those officers. This power
differs from legitimate
power because referent power is defined as respect for the
person, not the position.
Fair and impartial officers tend to get more respect from
inmates (Morris & Morris,
1963; Sykes, 1958). Given this, a climate of impartiality can
achieve inmate compli-
ance to a higher degree even with the absence of a physically
present officer.

Although the research investigating bases of power within the
prisons is limited
(e.g., Hepburn, 1985; Marquart, 2008, Stichman, 2003;
Stichman & Gordon, 2014),
the findings suggest support for consideration of legitimate,
expert, and referent power.
For example, Hepburn found that legitimate and expert powers
were considered the
most important reasons why inmates comply. The results imply
that officers believe
their control over prisoners is based on their job positions and
on their reputations for
competence and good judgment. In addition, Stichman (2003)
identified that many
inmates accepted both the institutionalization of authority and
the officers’ right to
occupy that office, showing support for both legitimate and
referent power.
Correctional Orientation
When considering the exchange relationship necessary to
establish respect or legiti-
macy between people, as found with expert, legitimate, and
referent power, it is essen-
tial to examine the correctional orientation of officers. This is
true as correctional
orientation has been shown to be a pivotal factor in the type and
effect of interactions
between officers and inmates on a daily basis (Farkas, 1999; M.
Gordon, 2006).
Specifically, belief in a rehabilitative philosophy is influential
in establishing positive
inmate relationships.

Broadly conceived correctional orientation examines two major
philosophies: sup-
port for rehabilitation and support for punishment (Robinson,
Porporino, & Simourd,
1993). In essence, a punitive ideology assumes inmates should
be punished for wrong-
doings (Blevins, Cullen, Frank, Sundt, & Holmes, 2006), and a
rehabilitative view
emphasizes the importance of treating specific criminogenic
factors (Griffin, 2002).
On face value, the two dimensions of correctional orientation
appear divergent; how-
ever, research has found that they are not always discordant.
That is, correctional
employees may support both philosophies to varying degrees as
is true when examin-
ing the general public (Cullen, Pealer, Fisher, Applegate, &
Santana, 2002, Pickett &
Baker, 2014; Pickett, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2014).
Prior research has considered the influence of correctional
orientation on a variety
of individual and organizational factors. Examination of
individual experience stems
from the concept of importation regarding inmate behavior
(Irwin & Cressey, 1962).
Similar to inmates, it suggests that the employee characteristics
shape their beliefs,
attitudes, and work experiences (Blevins, Cullen, & Sundt,
2007; Britton, 1997; Sundt

& Cullen, 2002; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991).
The influence of organi-
zational factors is formed after the prisonization model echoing
that prison itself
affects those who work or live within the environment
(Lombardo, 1981). Research
indicates the prisonization model, or combination of
organizational factors and job
function, influences responses, interactions, and attitudes
toward various aspects of
the daily routine (Sundt & Cullen, 2002; Van Voorhis et al.,
1991).
Correctional orientation is associated with a variety of
organizational elements that
influence the efficacy of the institutional environment. To
illustrate, the belief in reha-
bilitative ideals is linked to positive organizational citizenship,
organizational commit-
ment, interactions with inmates, and job satisfaction (Caeti,
Hemmens, Cullen, &
Burton, 2003; Farkas, 1999; Lambert, Barton-Bellessa, &
Hogan, 2013; Lambert &
Hogan, 2008; Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Elechi, 2009). In turn,
many of the factors
affect the organizational climate through relationships with
employee turnover, burn-
out, safety, fairness, and leave time (Baker, Gordon, & Taxman,
2014; Griffin, Hogan,
Lambert, Tucker, & Baker, 2010; Lambert & Paoline, 2010;
Taxman & Gordon, 2009).
Examining the influence of support for rehabilitation and

support for punishment
with identified uses of power becomes important for a variety of
reasons. First, know-
ing if and in what manner correctional orientation is linked to
factors influencing com-
pliance is central in considering respect and cooperation within
the environment.
Second, administrators view the attainment and adherence of
organization philosophy,
or lack thereof, as dependent on officers’ agreement with such
values (J. Gordon,
1999). Correctional orientation is also influential on the
interaction between officer
and inmate (Farkas, 1999; Hogan, Lambert, & Barton-Bellessa,
2012; Robinson et al.,
1993). And, finally, research suggests more positive
relationships and interactions
between officers and inmates occur when officers possess
favorable attitudes toward
rehabilitation (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, van der
Laan, & Nieuwbeerta,
2013).
Method
The goal of the present study was to build on the knowledge
regarding the role of cor-
rectional philosophy and officer compliance. It was
hypothesized that officers who
possess positive attitudes toward rehabilitative philosophy
would be more likely to
report support for each base of power. This support is due to the
importance of foster-
ing a positive inmate to staff relationship to promote and
maintain a safe environment
for both variables. To address this issue, the present study used

secondary analysis of
data from a survey of correctional officers in a Mid-Atlantic
state. In cooperation with
the state’s Department of Corrections (DOC), the surveys were
mailed to each institu-
tion and distributed to each correctional officer in the state
during spring 2006; an
accompanying letter emphasized the confidentiality of the
responses, the importance
of the officers’ completing the survey, the contact information
of the researchers, and
instructions for completing and returning the study. Survey
packets were provided to
each institution with less than a 30% response rate. The final
number of returned sur-
veys was 1,273 (N = 6,983), which is an 18.2% response rate. A
response rate of 18%
Criminology
may not be viewed as high, comparative to other research;
however, as the goal is to
examine perceptions predicting relatively exploratory measures,
an acceptable thresh-
old is viewed as above 10% as indicated by Rogelberg et al.
(2003) and Rogelberg and
Stanton (2007).
The sample was mostly non-White (51%; of those categorized

as non-White, 98.8%
identified themselves as Black/African American), male
(64.5%), had received a high
school diploma/GED as the highest degree (69.2%), and worked
in a medium-security
prison (64.7%). A majority of officers had worked for the DOC
for more than 5 years
(69.4%), with an average time of 10.2 years (SD = 7.2). The
average age was 43.44
years (SD = 9.8). Due to the response rate of 18.23%, the
sample characteristics were
compared with the population. When compared with the
correctional officer popula-
tion in the state, the sample was slightly older (population mean
= 39.4 years) and had
worked longer in the prisons (population mean = 5.14 years).
Finally, the sample also
appeared to over-represent low medium security (sample: 43%;
population: 27%) and
under-represent maximum security (sample: 17%; population
27%).
Measurement
Dependent variables. Examination of officer perceptions toward
the use of three bases
of power served as the primary dependent variable. Recall,
although there are five
bases of power espoused and measured in prior research, the
present study’s focus was
on legitimate, expert, and referent because each relies on
informal exchange relation-
ships and the absence of the physical presence of an officer.
Originally, each base of
power was measured with two to five items designed to examine
the different aspects

of each type of power, and the creation of scales was intended.
Unfortunately, due to
limited variation on some questions or negligible reliability
analysis, the items were
not combined. Given this, single-item measures were used for
all dependent variables.
The items chosen to represent each power base had the greatest
amount of variation,
the clearest fit with the definition of the power base, and
parallel phrasing among the
three items.
Legitimate power asks whether “inmates respect the position of
the correctional
officers.” Expert power states “inmates listen to me because of
my expertise.” And
referent power is measured with “inmates respect me
personally.” These items were
created for this study based on J. R. P. French and Raven’s
(1959) definitions to get at
the simple meaning of each power base. Each item contained a
4-point Likert-type
scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). Table 1
indicates that officers tend
to perceive that they use referent, expert, and legitimate power
to gain inmate compli-
ance. An ordinal logit model, specifically the proportional or
cumulative odds model,
was used for the analysis. Ordinal logit models are extensions
of logistic models,
which are used when the dependent variable is dichotomous
(O’Connell, 2006).
Independent variables. Officers’ beliefs regarding the purposes
of incarcerating inmates
could influence their views on how to get inmates to obey

(Hepburn, 1985); therefore,
their views regarding punitive philosophy or correctional
orientation were considered.
Likewise, correctional orientation has been correlated with a
number of varying work-
related factors among the institutional setting (Blevins et al.,
2006, 2007; Caeti et al.,
2003; Farkas, 1999; Lambert & Hogan, 2008; Lambert et al.,
2009, 2014). Again, the
possession of correctional philosophy is also influenced by
informal control through
the development of positive relationships (Beijersbergen et al.,
2013; Crewe et al.,
2011).
The survey included items asking “the best way to reduce crime
is . . .,” with a
corresponding Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. The rehabilitation support scale (Cronbach’s α = .833)
combines four items
dealing with getting criminals effective treatment, making sure
that treatment is
matched to their needs, and providing more treatment. The
incapacitation support
scale (Cronbach’s α = .815) combines five items on keeping
criminals (drug, violent,

and nonviolent) in prison/jail and off the streets. Higher scores
in each of these scales
or variables indicate more support for the goal. Based on the
scale means listed in
Table 2, it appears that officers are generally supportive of each
of these goals of
corrections.1
Control variables. Consideration of correctional officer
perceptions on a variety of
issues reveals the importance of considering personal and
organizational factors due to
significant findings and/or mixed findings (Farkas, 1999; M.
Gordon, 2006; J. Gor-
don, 1999; Kifer et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 2013). Given this,
the present study
Table 1. Descriptive Information for Measures.
Item/scale N Range Median M SD
Dependent variables
Legitimate power 1,206 1-5 4 2.47 0.70
Expert power 1,201 1-5 4 2.65 0.70
Referent power 1,194 1-5 4 2.86 0.63
Independent variables (scales)
Rehabilitation support 1,229 1-5 4 4.09 0.63
Incapacitation support 1,229 1-5 3.4 3.37 0.73
Control variables
Age (range = 20-74) 1,143 20-74 44 43.43 9.82
Non-White 1,124 0-1 1 0.51 0.50
Male 1,221 0-1 1 0.67 0.47
HS degree or greater 1,203 0-1 0 0.30 0.46
Length with DOC 1,243 0-35 9 10.22 7.45
Security level 1,257 1-4 2 2.38 0.973
Organizational commitment 1,228 1-5 3.44 3.37 0.78

Procedural justice 1,226 1-5 3.07 3.09 0.70
Distributive justice 1,220 1.08-5 3 3.01 0.46
Note. HS = high school; DOC = department of corrections.
Criminology
examines a number of variables to fully understand the extent of
the primary relation-
ship between correctional orientation and perceptions of
compliance.
Personal characteristics. For the personal characteristics, age
(in years), gender (1 =
male, 0 = female), race (1 = non-White, 0 = White), education
(1 = high school diploma
or greater, 0 = less than high school diploma), and length of
experience in DOC (in
years) are considered. These variables were chosen because
previous research has
demonstrated connections between them and the bases of power
(Hepburn, 1985).
Organizational characteristics. There are three organizational
characteristics entered
into the models. Each of these has been found in the
organizational research to be
influential on officers’ views of their jobs (e.g., Britton, 1997;
Lambert et al., 2008), on

job satisfaction (e.g., Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006), in the bases
of power (Hepburn,
1985), or in serving as a contextual factor to shape the climate
within the prison (Baker
et al., 2014; Beijersbergen et al., 2013). Whether officers
believe that they are proud
to be a part of their prison, are treated as valued employees, and
have the authority to
do their work could influence their interactions with inmates.
Therefore, a number of
organizational variables were included.
First, organizational commitment (Cronbach’s α = .895) is a
scale of nine items
asking officers whether what the organization stands for is
important to them, whether
Table 2. Ordinal Logit Models for Legitimate, Expert, and
Referent Power.
Variables
Legitimate Expert Referent
b (SE) OR b (SE) OR b (SE) OR
Intercept 1 0.74 (.75) −0.32 (.75) −2.62*** (.82)
Intercept 2 3.45 (.76) 2.51 (.75) −0.18** (.80)
Intercept 3 6.99 (.79) 5.41 (.76) 3.26*** (.81)
Rehabilitation support 0.40** (.10) 1.49 0.33*** (.10) 1.39
0.44*** (.11) 1.55
Incapacitation support −0.12 (.09) 0.88 0.06 (.09) 1.06 −0.19*
(.10) 0.83
Age 0.00 (.01) 1.00 0.00 (.01) 1.00 −0.00 (.01) 1.00
Non-White 0.20 (.14) 1.23 0.03 (.13) 1.03 −0.12 (.14) 0.89
Male 0.01 (.15) 1.01 0.22 (.14) 1.23 0.13 (.16) 1.14

HS degree or higher −0.05 (.14) 1.05 0.10 (.69) 1.10 −0.01 (.07)
0.99
Length at DOC 0.02 (.05) 1.02 0.04*** (.05) 1.04 0.01 (.01)
1.01
Security level −0.21*** (.06) 0.81 0.03 (.06) 1.03 −0.05 (.07)
0.95
Organizational commitment 0.40*** (.12) 1.49 0.17 (.12) 1.17
0.11 (.14) 1.12
Procedural justice 0.35** (.13) 1.42 0.28* (.13) 1.32 0.14 (.14)
1.15
Distributive justice −0.01 (.18) 1.0 −0.29 (.18) 0.75 −0.30 (.19)
1.53
Model χ2 119.48*** 51.79*** 30.34***
Nagerkelke R2 .13 .06 .04
Note. HS = high school; DOC = department of corrections.
*p≤ .05. **p≤ .01. ***p≤ .001.
they feel a strong sense of belonging, and whether the
organization recognizes employ-
ees for good performance (Taxman & Gordon, 2009). Higher
scores showed greater
commitment to the organization (Table 1). Officers’ views of
how they are treated by
the administration could in turn be reflected in how they treat
their subordinates in that
organization; therefore, these senses of justice are vital to
understanding how they get

inmates to obey.
Second, procedural justice, an additive 13-item scale
(Cronbach’s α = .855), and
distributive justice, an additive 9-item scale (Cronbach’s α =
.773), are included.
Procedural justice includes whether officers believe that the
procedures for advancing
in the organization are known and fair, and distributive justice
focuses on whether job
rewards and punishments are given fairly (Taxman & Gordon,
2009). These scales
were derived from Sweeney and McFarlin (1997; Taxman &
Gordon, 2009). Each
item making up these two scales was on a 5-point scale (0 =
never to 5 = always).
Higher scores demonstrated that officers believe that their
procedures are fair and that
any benefits or punishments are distributed fairly (Table 1).
Finally, the security level where the officers were employed
was included in the
models. Security level was measured on a 4-point scale ranging
from lowest security
(1) to highest security (4). Security levels can influence how
officers view their jobs
and the inmates.
Testing for the possibility of collinearity, correlations between
the independent and
control variables, variance inflation scores, and tolerance levels
were all examined. All
were within acceptable levels, indicating no collinearity.2
Findings

Each power base was examined through multivariate models; all
three models were
significant, demonstrating that these variables explained more
than the null model.
Overall, examination of the primary independent variables of
interest revealed belief
in rehabilitation is significantly related to each base of power
and belief in punish-
ment is insignificant across all but one model (see Table 2). The
only power base
related to punishment orientation (i.e., incapacitation) was
referent power. Officers
who believed that they had the personal respect from inmates
were less likely to sup-
port punishment.
In examining the multivariate model for legitimate power, belief
in rehabilitation
was significantly related to the use of legitimate power; those
officers who had more
of a rehabilitative orientation were more likely to say that
inmates respected the cor-
rectional officer position. In addition, three organizational
variables were significantly
related to this power base. Officers in lower security levels,
those with more organiza-
tional commitment, and those who thought that the procedures
were fair believed that
they relied more on legitimate power.
There are some similarities in the relationships between the
independent and con-
trol variables and buying into expert power and referent power.
Like with legitimate
power, support for rehabilitation was significantly related to
both power bases: Officers

who supported rehabilitation believed that inmates obeyed them
because of their
Criminology
expertise and that inmates had more respect for them
personally. Unlike legitimate
power, there was one personal characteristic that was linked to
expert power, officers
who had worked at the state’s DOC longer were more likely to
agree that inmates
obeyed them because of the officers’ expertise. Similar to
legitimate power, procedural
justice was also significantly positively linked with expert
power, indicating that offi-
cers who believed that the prison administrations’ procedures
and process regarding
promotion, job assignments, and other duties were fair believed
that they had more
expertise.
Discussion and Conclusion
The results of the study support the primary hypothesis showing
officers who possess
rehabilitative correctional philosophies felt they had more
legitimate, referent, and
expert power as a mean of gaining compliance. Officers with
these orientations believe

they deserve and get respect because of their position. That is,
rehabilitation-oriented
officers seek to help inmates more and believe that inmates
recognize this fact, thus,
creating more personal respect for the officers. Likewise,
officers who perceived a
sense of personal respect from inmates were less likely to
support punishment. The
importance of such findings is comparable with the literature
discussing ways in which
perceptions toward “helping” are influential in shaping a
positive, humane, fair, and
transcending environment (Beijersbergen et al., 2013;
Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008).
Furthermore, creating an environment that balances and
enhances the sense of legiti-
macy and safety is shaped by the perceptions and interactions
officers have with
inmates (Kifer et al., 2003; Liebling, 2000).
Similarly, the literature stresses the fundamental importance of
procedural justice
in shaping a secure environment. To illustrate, Beijersbergen et
al. (2013) espoused
that procedurally just perceptions influence the overall climate
and welfare of the
inmates and staff. The results of this study indicate officers who
perceive the organiza-
tion as procedurally just are more likely to support legitimate
and expert power, which
involves an exchange relationship between the officer and
inmate. This indicates offi-
cers who are committed to the organizational goals feel a sense
of support from admin-
istration in the event institutional conflicts arise, so they rely on
developing and

maintaining relationships with inmates rather than a need to use
threats or accommo-
date inmates to gain inmate cooperation. It is possible that
officers who feel they are
heard, supported, and respected by their organization reflect
this in how they interact
and supervise inmates on a daily basis.
In this specific instance, it appears there is balance and support
from the adminis-
trative ranks that penetrate to line staff in developing a safe
environment through orga-
nizational encouragement and backing. While the findings are
suggestive of a proper
balance, it is important to continually examine the efforts. To
illustrate, frequent moni-
toring and assessment of administrative support and
institutional rules are important
because when the rules are inconsistent and the administration
does not support the
correctional staff, such problems can undermine officers’
referent, legitimate, and
expert powers.
Among the organizational factors examined, security level was
most important for
legitimate power. This finding indicates that officers who work
in more secure environ-

ments are less likely to support the use of legitimate authority
to gain inmate compliance.
In many respects, such a finding is not surprising. The literature
discusses the importance
of a strong exchange relationship between the officer and
inmates to promote compliance
in the examined manners. Likewise, research stresses the
importance of the quantity of
time and interactions between officers and inmates as essential
to develop and strengthen
relationships that will promote reasonable, courteous, and
impartial relationships
(Beijersbergen et al., 2013; Emmers-Sommer, 2004;
Fairweather, 2000). Within the
higher level closed-security environments, the frequency and
duration of contacts may
not be significant enough to develop essential relationships for
officers to rely on order
maintenance without their physical presence, which is essential
for legitimacy to occur.
Interestingly, the present study does not find much support in
predicting power
when considering the officer’s personal characteristics. The
present study uncovered
the amount of experience did matter for expert power,
suggesting that officers who had
been around longer were more comfortable dealing with inmates
and had more trust in
their own abilities. Although this is unusual, given the past
literature examining the
bases of power (Hepburn, 1985) that indicates relationships
between individual factors
and power, it is not surprising as the present study includes a
large sample size, numer-
ous institutions, and many institutional predictors not examined

in the prior institu-
tional compliance literature. In addition, such insignificant
relationships between
varied officer characteristics and compliance are more
consistent with the larger litera-
ture on correctional personnel where limited or mixed support is
uncovered (Farkas,
1999; M. Gordon, 2006; J. Gordon, 1999; Kifer et al., 2003;
Lambert et al., 2013).
Overall, such findings have implications regarding the prison
environment. Officers
who possess support toward rehabilitation or are interested in
helping promote change
and feel there is support from administration are more likely to
use compliance mea-
sures that rely on exchange relationships. A sense of using
referent, legitimate, and
expert power requires officers to interact with inmates to a
higher degree to gain a
sense of position, knowledge, and fairness. Prior research
stresses the importance of
developing positive interactions between officer and inmates
combined with officer
behavior and characteristics to create a humane and safe prison
environment
(Beijersbergen et al., 2013; Crewe et al., 2011; Emmers-
Sommer, 2004). The combi-
nation of supportive perceptions toward rehabilitation and a
procedurally just organi-
zation on the reliance on referent, expert, and legitimate control
is influential on
shaping an environment concerned with the inmates’ welfare
and outcomes when
released (Beijersbergen et al. 2013). Perhaps within institutions
where staff hold more

punishment-oriented philosophies, the importance of dialogue,
voice, and cultural
enhancements may be encouraged to promote supportive
exchange or relationships.
Although this study helps fill the knowledge gap, there are some
limitations. First, the
responding officers were not completely representative of all
correctional officers in the
state. Second, we use single-item measures to tap each measure
of power. It is possible
that the items used are not adequately covering the full
conceptual nature of each item.
Third, while there is consideration of institutional factors, they
are limited. Inclusion of
Criminology
additional items such as the number of serious incidents, inmate
composition, and even
staff composition in terms of the percentage of minority and
female officers may shed
additional light on the factors examined. Next, one model had
modest explanatory
power, but the others were weak. Therefore, more investigation
is needed on which vari-
ables influence these perceptions more. And, finally, the
response rate questions the type
of respondents, possibly suggesting those with strong

motivation to be heard, whether
positive or negative, responded. So it is possible the sample
misses the most indifferent
officers; nevertheless, as Rogelberg and colleagues (2003)
suggested, it is more likely
that nonresponse is due to passive rather than purposeful
nonresponse.
Future research should examine the link between officers’ and
inmates’ views at
one institution to see how similar they are. Inmates could be
obeying the rules for vari-
ous reasons, which may be different from what the officers
believe. Next, officers’
perceptions of power might not be indicative of their actual
behavior. For example,
officers may see themselves as using more expert power, but in
practice, they use more
coercion. Therefore, future research can examine what officers
think they do to main-
tain order as well as their behavior in maintaining order. These
power bases could also
be linked with inmate behavior. Do prisons with officers who
use more expert, refer-
ent, and legitimate power have more or fewer disciplinary
problems than do prisons
where officers rely more on coercion and reward?
Officers’ power and authority have evolved and potentially been
diminished over
the last few decades, and they have fought to keep what power
and authority they do
have. Discovering the officers’ use of power along with which
bases of power are
more effective in getting compliance can help both officers and
inmates. Certain types

of power, such as expert and referent, have been demonstrated
in other organizations
to affect performance and compliance with managers’ wishes
(e.g., Bacharach &
Lawler, 1980; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990, 1994; Rahim, 1989;
Rahim & Buntzman,
1989) and positive attitudes toward superiors and acceptance of
the organizational
goals (Aquinis et al., 1996; Raven, 1988). Therefore, officers’
credibility with inmates
could also be enhanced when these powers are used. By
understanding the bases of
power officers’ use, management of prisons can become more
efficient.
The measurement of punitive and rehabilitative support may
also be altered to
reflect changes in the prison environment and advancements in
measurement. Although
the present study utilizes a widely used and reliable measure of
punishment philoso-
phy, the measures lack current contextually specific items, and
additional literature
suggests alternative ways of measuring. Future research should
consider the expansion
of the measures to include situational factors or scenario items
and consider enhance-
ment of questions to include varied direction. To illustrate, the
inclusion of specific
programs, rewards, or control techniques available in the
institutions will provide spe-
cific contextual understanding of the philosophical dimensions.
Likewise, the current
general crime literature suggests the importance of not only
situational attributes but
also, more recently, the consideration of direction in

measurement (see Pickett &
Baker, 2014). Inclusion of both context and varied measurement
should enhance our
knowledge in the areas of punitive ideology among correctional
staff, thus enhancing
our training and policies to create favorable institutional
climates.
13
A
p
p
e
n
d
ix
C
o
rr
el
at
io
n

M
at
ri
x
fo
r
A
ll
V
ar
ia
bl
es
.
Le
gi
ti
m
at
e
1.
0
Ex

pe
rt
.3
9*
*
1.
00
30
R
ef
er
en
t
.2
4*
*
.3
4*
*
1.
0
R

eh
ab
ili
ta
ti
o
n
.1
4*
*
.0
9*
*
.1
2*
*
1.
0
In
ca
pa
ci
ta
ti

o
n
−
.0
8*
*
.0
1
−
.0
5
−
.0
3
1.
0
A
ge
.1
0*
*
.1
1*

*
.0
4
.0
9*
*
−
.0
8*
*
1.
0
N
o
n-
W
hi
te
.0
9*
*
.0
1

−
.0
1
.1
4*
*
−
.1
7*
*
.0
2
1.
0
M
al
e
−
.0
1
.0
6*
.0

1
−
.1
2*
*
.0
9*
*
.0
2
−
.3
3*
*
1.
0
H
S
de
gr
ee
o
r

hi
gh
er
−
.0
1
.0
5
.0
5
.0
8*
−
.0
3
.0
2
−
.0
1
−
.0
7*
1.

0
Le
ng
th
a
t
D
O
C
.1
2*
*
.1
8*
*
.0
6*
.0
3
−
.1
4*
*

.4
3*
*
.0
1
.1
3*
*
−
.0
4
1.
0
Se
cu
ri
ty
le
ve
l
−
.1
2*

*
−
.0
5
−
.0
5
−
.0
9*
*
.0
8*
*
−
.1
2*
*
−
.0
2
.0
6*
−

.1
4*
*
.0
2
1.
0
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
na
l c
o
m
m
it
m
en
t
.2
5*

*
.1
4*
*
.0
6*
.1
4*
*
−
.0
6*
.1
3*
*
.1
0*
*
.0
2
−
.0
4
.0

6
−
.1
0*
*
1.
0
Pr
o
ce
du
ra
l j
us
ti
ce
.2
5*
*
.1
4*
*
.0

6*
.0
9*
*
−
.1
0*
*
.0
8*
.0
8*
*
.0
2
−
.0
2
.1
0*
*
−
.1
0*

*
.6
8*
*
1.
0
D
is
tr
ib
ut
iv
e
ju
st
ic
e
.1
7*
*
.0
4
.0
1

.0
9*
*
−
.0
7*
.0
8*
*
.1
1*
*
.0
2
−
.0
2
.0
3
−
.0
0
.5
5*

*
.5
8*
*
N
ot
e.
H
S
=
h
ig
h
sc
ho
o
l;
D
O
C
=
d
ep
ar

tm
en
t
o
f
co
rr
ec
ti
o
ns
.
*p
≤
.0
5.
*
*p
≤
.0
1.
*
**
p≤
.0

01
.
Criminology
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Dr. Faye S. Taxman at
GeorgeMasonUniversity for allowing
them to use her dataset. They also thank the anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. Each scale was standardized to a 5-point scale (scale divided
by the number of items)
because of the variant range of all scales.

The Prison Journal2015, Vol. 95(2) 264 –284© 2015 SAGE P.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Prison Journal2015, Vol. 95(2) 264 –284© 2015 SAGE P.docx

Similar to The Prison Journal2015, Vol. 95(2) 264 –284© 2015 SAGE P.docx (20)

More from ssusera34210

More from ssusera34210 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Prison Journal2015, Vol. 95(2) 264 –284© 2015 SAGE P.docx