ICHIGAN TA’TE UNIVER TY BRARIES C llllllll (gill llll’llll'lllllllllI Hill 3 1 93 01410 2549 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled CORRECTIML OFFICER TYPES: DIENSIGCS, RELATIGISHIPS, NI) SGRCES presented by WMFARKAS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for mm 0F PHILOSG’HY degree in SSC INTERDISCIPLIMRY MCTORAL PROGMII IITH A WHO! IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE NI) CRIHIMLOGY Pi; Imam 57am] professor DateSEP'IBBER 28, 1995 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE ll RETURN BOXto monthl- chockout ttom your ncord. To AVOID FINES Mum on or baton dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE l__l-L_l 7—- L- WWI—Tm MSU Is An Namath. Adlai/EM Opportunity lmtltwon CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TYPES: DIMENSIONS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND SOURCES BY Mary Ann Farkas A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science/Interdisciplinary 1995 ABSTRACT CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TYPES: DIMENSIONS, RELATIONSHIPS, AND SOURCES BY MARY ANN FARKAS The main purpose of this research was to identify and describe social types among correctional officers and their underlying dimensions. Variability in prison context and its association with officer types was explored by studying two state prisons. The relationship between individual and work variables was also examined and their influence on types. A typology was constructed by the researcher based on four salient themes: orientation to rule enforcement, orientation to exchange or negotiation, extent of norms of mutual obligations, and interest/preference for expansion of their role to include human service delivery. The types were located within the theoretical framework of an organization by Allaire and Firsirotu (1992), in which an organization is viewed as having three interrelated components: the individual actors, a sociostructural system, and a cultural system. The research method was qualitative which involved an analysis of documents, records, policies, procedures, training manuals, and other relevant material. Interviews were also conducted with correctional officers. In total, eighty-six interviews were completed; seven of these were follow ups to explore an issue in more depth or clarify a finding. Mary Ann Farkas The data indicated that there were distinct and varied types among officers in the occupational culture of correctional work. These types were essentially modes of accommodation. There were officer types, "enforcers," "hard asses", and "social isolates" which reproduced the official goals, values, and modes of conduct. Other types, "people workers" and the "consolidated" types modified the formal definitions and imperatives. Still other types were identified by respondents as rejecting or ignoring the formal goals. The distribution of types and characteristics of types varied by prison revealing the importance of prison context. Individual and work variables further distinguished types. The implications in terms of policy and research are examined. Copyright by MARY ANN FARKAS 1995 To my beloved husband Jeff, for believing in me and sharing in my dreams. To my dear children and parents, for their boundless love and support. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For this dissertation, I owe a debt of gratitude to many individuals. First and foremost, I wish to thank my dissertation committee - Doctors Peter K. Manning, Timothy Bynum, Dan Kruger, and Harry Perlstadt for their remarkable insight and wise direction. It was through their multiperspectival contribution that new ideas and creativity were generated. I would like to express my deep gratitude to my brilliant chairman and mentor, Dr. Peter K. Manning, for his experienced eye, analytical mind, and his continuous support. Many times as my steps faltered; it was his encouraging words and wisdom which bolstered my spirit and gave me direction. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Dr. Harry Perlstadt for his insight, patience, and dilligence in overseeing the construction and organization of my tables. He was also instrumental in helping me with the overall organization of my dissertation. It is largely through his efforts and encouragement that this dissertation became more organized and focused. The MIDWEST Department of Corrections, and its Research Review Board are also to be thanked for their approval of the research. In addition, the wardens at both prison sites, are also acknowledged for their interest in my research and their cooperation. ii And I would finally like to thank the many correctional officers from both research sites who unselfishly gave of heir "off duty" time to interview with me. Their contribution was their candor and interest in talking about their work. Finally, I would like to thank my children, Erika for her typing skills and Tom for his help creating and editing the tables. iii. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I.INTRODUCTION............ ................................. 1 Purpose of the Study............... ..... . ....... . ..... .1 Need and Significance of the Study.... ................ .3 II.REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................ ......5 Social Types ........................................... 5 Summary of Research on Types .......................... 20 III. THE PRISON ORGANIZATION ............................... 23 Types of Prisons ...................................... 27 IV.INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SOCIAL TYPES.. ........ ..........31 Individual Actors..... ............................. ..32 Sociostructural System....... ............ ... ....... ...34 Occupational Culture.................. ..... ..........37 Themes in the Occupational Culture....................43 Orientation toward Rule Enforcement.................43 Orientation toward Exchange or Negotaiation ....... ...44 Extent of Norms of Mutual Obligation ................. 46 Orientation toward Human Service Delivery ........... .48 Hypothetical Model of Officer Types and Cultural Themes.... ............................ ..49 Summary of Theoretical Approach. ................... ...56 V. METHOD AND PROCEDURES ............................. .. ..57 Access for Research...................................57 Research Sites................... ............... .....58 PrisonA000000000000000000 ...... 00000 ....... 000000000060 Description of Facility............. ............ ......61 Programs and Staffing ................................. 62 Leadership... ...... ...... .......................... ...63 Prison B..... .................................... .....64 Description of Facility... ......... ..... ...... ........65 Programs and Staffing.. ...................... .........65 Leadership............. ....................... ........66 Training.............. ................ . ....... ........68 Inmate Management....... ..... . .............. ..........68 Research Site Profiles.................. ....... .......71 Sample.................. .......... ... ...... ..........74 iv. Prison A sample........ ....... . .................... ..74 Prison B sample.......... ......... ....................78 Data Collection Procedures ............................ 82 Archival Information ................................. 82 Interview........ ................................... .83 Interview Instrument .................................. 88 Measures to Safeguard Research Integrity ........... ...89 Data Analysis Procedures................. ...... .......89 Classification of Officers ........................... 91 Summary of Analysis..... ........................... ...94 VI. RESULTS.. ............................................. 95 "Enforcers" ........................................... 101 "Hard Asses".... .................................... 110 "People Workers" ..................................... 116 "Consolidated"..... ................................. .124 "Social Isolates...... ........ . ............ .... ..... ..130 "Lax Officers"..... ................................ ..136 "Officer Friendly" ................................... 138 "Wishy-Washy" ........................................ 139 Summary of Results ................................... 141 VII. DISCUSSION.... ...................................... 147 Limitations of the Study ............................. 157 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 159 Policy Recommendations.. ........................... ..159 Research Recommendations ........................... ..161 REFERENCE ................................................. 163 APPENDICES Appendix A ................................................. 164 Appendix B Description of Work assignments..........................184 Appendix C Recruitment Notice.... .................................. ..187 Consent Form. ........................................... 188 Interview Instrument ..................................... 189 II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXII. LIST OF TABLES "Prison A" Sample -Demographics.... ................. 75 "Prison A" Sample -Work Characteristics ............. 77 "Prison 8" Sample -Demographics ..................... 79 "Prison B" Sample -Work Characteristics ............. 80 Distribution of Officers by Types .................. 99 "Enforcer" Type -Demographics ...................... 101 "Enforcer" Type -Work Characteristics ............ ..104 "Hard Ass" -Demographics ............................ 111 "Hard Ass" -Work Characteristics ................... 113 "People Worker" -Demographics ..................... 117 "People Worker" -Work Characteristics ............. 119 "Consolidated" -Demographics ...................... 125 "Consolidated" —Work Characteristics .............. 127 "Social Isolates -Demographics .................... 131 "Social Isolates - Work Characteristics ........... 133 Demographics -Correctional Officer Samples ........ 174 Work Characteristics - Correctional Officer Samples ...................... 175 Distribution of Officer Types by Gender ........... 176 Distribution of Officer Types by Race ............. 177 Distribution of Officers in Types by Age ......... .178 Distribution of Officer Types by Education ........ 179 Distribution of Officer by Seniority .............. 180 vi. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. Distribution Distribution Distribution for Becoming of Officer Types by Shift ........... 181 of Officers Types by Post.. ......... 182 of Officers Types by Reasons aCO0000000000 0000000000000000000000 183 vii. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure UMP LIST OF FIGURES -Klofas & Toch's Typology ........................ 7 -Kauffman's Typology ......... .... ................ 9 -Hypothetica1 Model of Officer Types and Cultural Themes ........................... 50 -Comparison of Prison Sites ..................... 59 -Model of Officer Types and Cultural Themes .............................. 96 viii. Chapter I INTRODUCTION Although there is some research identifying and describing "social types" among correctional officers (see Klofas & Toch, 1982); there has been few scholarly attempts to systematically examine the various dimensions of the roles and their relationship to the formal and informal organization. A social type may be defined as "an idealized concept of how people are expected to act or be. The type may describe the way people should be, should not be, or simply are predicted to be" (Klapp,1971:11). It is differentiated from a stereotype because it is a more accurate conceptualization with a base in reality. Social types contribute a variety of personal and group functions: role definition for the individual officer, the development and affirmation of collective norms and values, and clarification of action. A social type is cognitively valuable because it provides a way of orienting oneself to the norms and values of the official structure and the informal culture of an organization. This dissertation will develop a classification of correctional officers into social types and explore the underlying dimensions of those roles. It will locate the types within the theoretical framework of an organization by Allaire 1 2 and Firsirotu (1992) which allows an exploration of the interrelationship between the individual actors, the sociostructural system, and the cultural system. This study will use a comparative analysis of officer types in two state prisons in order to highlight the distinctions in organizational context and their association with types. This will involve an examination of the particular characteristics of each prison and their influence on officer types. Moreover, personal variables, age, race, gender, and education, and work variables, seniority, shift, ‘work. assignment (post), and reason for becoming an officer will be specified in order to examine their influence and to further distinguish between types. This dissertation has 3 basic propositions: (1). There are distinct types of correctional officers which are shaped by the interplay between the sociostructural system, the cultural system, and the individual actors themselves. (2). The types are also influenced by the organizational context of the particular prison. Since each prison has distinctive characteristics; the distribution of types will vary accordingly. (3). Officer types may be further differentiated by certain individual and work variables. This allows a comparison of differences in types by these characteristics. 3 Need and Significance of the Study This typology of correctional officers is important for the following reasons. First "classification is the premier descriptive tool. A good classification allows the researcher to provide an exhaustive and perhaps even definitive array of types or taxa," (Bailey, 1994: 12). Classification allows the researcher to describe the sample according to a number of salient underlying dimensions and provides the researcher with a basis of comparison of the similarities and differences across types (Bailey, 1994). In terms of this dissertation, a theory of officer types will provide a broader knowledge of the array and variability of roles among correctional officers (COs). A typology allows a finer analysis and discrimination of the informal roles. of an officer, since any formal structure can only label and recognize a limited number of roles (Klapp, 1972). Second, this typology will furnish an awareness of how the context of the prison affects the development of officer types. A variety of organizational characteristics may influence types, such as style of leadership, age of facility, and types of inmates. Finally, knowledge of the association between individual and work variables and types of officers may have important policy implications. The identification of predominant social types among officers may reflect a variety of factors, such as the emphasis of a particular goal, leadership style, inmate management philosophy, etc. Depending upon the prevalent type, officials may need to evaluate their objectives in training and policies to determine whether this approach to the job coincides with their goals and values. Membership in the various types may reveal the influence of certain demographic or work variables. This may have recruitment and training implications. Chapter II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Social Types A variety of social types are represented in the literature on corrections officers reflecting the historical and philosophical evolution in corrections. Prior to 1956, the role of guard was clearly defined; maintaining security and internal order (Carroll, 1974). Indeed, the term "guard" suggests a custodial identity and function. The change of the title to "correctional officer" reflects the introduction of the rehabilitative philosophy to the field of corrections. For officers, the renewed emphasis on rehabilitation has led to difficulties and confusion in interaction with treatment personnel and in incorporating treatment into their daily activities (Crouch, 1986). Guards essentially perceived counseling as a job for social service personnel and their job to be unrelated to the rehabilitative process (Webb & Morris, 1978). Irwin (1980) describes how officers resented the deflation of their values of strict rules backed by punitive sanctions in handling inmates and distance in relations with inmates. The treatment staff wanted individualized, discretionary decision making tailored to the individual inmate and close interaction with inmates. 6 Today the official title of the custodial staff is "correctional officers," a title that both incorporates and symbolizes the conflicting and ambiguous definitions of their current role. As the term "officer" connotes, the custodians remain organized in a military hierarchy, the function of which is to ensure security and order. But the adjective "correctional" connotes an additional expectation of equal priority. In some way the officers are expected to be agents in a rehabilitative process in addition to maintaining security and order (Bowker, 1974: 52). Much of the research on corrections officers focuses on this polarity between a custodial identity and function and a rehabilitative or human service identity and function. Types are generally described in terms of these polar opposites. The primary dimensions examined are attitudes toward inmates, colleagues, and career stage of the officer. In order to classify officers, some researchers have developed tables of correctional types based on attitudes toward inmates and/coworkers. Klofas and Toch (1982) surveyed officers in four maximum security prisons regarding their attitudes toward inmates. Twenty—five survey items were designed to measure an officer's "professional orientation" defined as "interest in work beyond pure custody and preference for moderate social distance from inmates" (Klofas & Toch, 1982: 240). The authors developed a typology (2x2 table) based on the combinations of the officers' responses and their estimates of coworkers' responses on seven items}. 1The following are the seven items used in Klofas and Toch's survey: (1) the CO's only concern is with prison security; (2) rehabilitation programs should be left to mental health professionals; (3) it's important for a CO to have compassion; (4)the way to get respect from an inmates is to 7 "A respondent acquires membership in a type by producing the same combination of responses and estimates on 4 or more of the 7 items" (Klofas & Toch, 1982: 246). The authors identified the following types of officers: "subcultural custodians," "lonely braves," the "supported majority," and "discouraged subculturalists". % of Respondents who see other as- % of Respondents Professional Not Professional who see self as: Not Professional Discouraged Subcultural Subculturalists Custodians 0% 21.8% Professional Supported Majority Lonely Braves 44.5% 33.6% Figure 1 - KLOFAS & TOCH'S TYPOLOGY "Subcultural custodians" were in the minority of officers, but believed that they were in the majority. They assumed their "anti-inmate perspective" was consensually shared. "Lonely braves" scored "highly professional", however they felt surrounded by hostile conservatives. The "supported majority" were "professional" officers perceiving a high level of professionalism among fellow officers. They believed that a custodial oriented subculture did not exist among correctional take an interest in them; (5) counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers; (6) any infraction of the rules should result in disciplinary action; and (7) if a CO wants to do counseling he should change jobs. 8 officers. The distribution of types varied by seniority and shift. "Subcultural custodians" were clustered in the lowest seniority category and on the night shift. Newer officers were frequently assigned to the night shift. Officers with more seniority worked the day shift which presumably involved more direct inmate contact. They’ appeared. more interested in expanding their roles to include human service delivery. Klofas (1984) re-examined the notion of a custodial subculture among correctional officers consisting of officers with a shared anti-inmate, procustodial orientation. He argues against such a subculture because: (1) this concept of subculture neglects or "masks" the variability between officers and other groups in the prison organization, (2) where common beliefs are identified they are often opposite those predicted in the subculture model, (3) officers are neither homogeneous nor different enough from other workers to be viewed as a subculture, and (4) applying the concept of a subculture offers only an uncomplimentary stereotype for analyzing personnel issues. I "The manager who views officers as an undifferentiated mass whose contribution is limited to security is unlikely to tap an officer's interest in human service roles. Potential contributions in counselling, education, vocational training, and athletics - as well as many other areas - will remain either unsolicited or unrewarded and progressive officers may grow discontented in their limited roles" (Klofas, 1984:172). Klofas believes that applying the concept of an anti- inmate, procustodial subculture does not recognize the diversity among officers and their potential contributions to 9 correctional work other than primarily custodial tasks. Kauffman (1988) also used attitudes toward inmates in her classification; however, she included orientation toward fellow officers and its relationship to social types. Officers were typed according to positive, ambivalent, or negative responses to questions regarding inmates and fellow officersz. She constructed a 3 x 3 table of types with attitude toward inmates on the vertical axis and attitude toward officers on the horizontal axis. Five types were identified: "pollyannas", "white hats", "burnouts", "hard asses", and "functionaries." Attitude toward Coworkers POSITIVE AMEIVALENT NEGATIVE Attitude POSITIVE POLLYANNAS WHITE HATS toward AMBIVALENT FUNCTIONARIES Inmates NEGATIVE HARD ASSES BURNOUTS Figure 2- KAUFM'S TYPOLOGY "Pollyannas" were defined as officers who generally had positive attitudes toward officers and inmates. They liked the officers they work with, although they did not always agree 2 "Pollyannas", "White Hats", and "Hard Asses" were considered the "primary types" since most officers began their careers as these types. "Burnouts" and "Functionaries" were considered "secondary types", since they emerged as "consequences" of prison work. 10 with their behavior' toward inmates. "Pollyannas" derived enormous satisfaction in their work through intrinsic factors, helping inmates with institutional adjustment and providing services. "White hats" or "goody two shoes" were the opposite extreme from "hard asses". They were officers who held positive attitudes toward inmates and derived great satisfaction from helping inmates, however they had negative feelings toward other officers. This negative attitude toward fellow officers appeared to stem from a belief that most officers were dispassionate and indifferent toward inmates. "White hats" held the hope of changing the prison from within through their attitudes and behaviors toward inmates. "Burnouts" are yet another type identified by Kauffman. These officers held a negative orientation to both inmates and officers. Paranoia characterized relations with inmates, while relations with fellow officers were strained. They were unable to cope with the realities of working in prison. The experience of being a correctional officer dominated their behavior; they tended to behave and experience the same feelings outside the prison. Burnouts essentially remained in the job for its extrinsic rewards. Finally, "functionaries" were officers ambivalent, at worst indifferent, to inmates and officers. They had no desire to help inmates or serve a useful role in society. They worked as an officer simply because they needed a job. They insulated themselves from the social realty of prison by ll simply going through the motions or "functions" of the job and not getting involved. This functionary type has also been referred to as a "ritualist" by Crouch and Marquart (1980). Research has also examined the career stage of correctional officers and its association with types. Webb & Morris (1978) discuss how new guards held positive attitudes and were initially sympathetic toward inmates. They then became "con-wise" through an initiation of "getting burned" or "being conned" by inmates. Kauffman (1988) indicates that officers transition from one type to another as a reflection of a socialization process and moral transformations of officers. Those with positive attitudes toward inmates tended to be "rookies", this attitude underwent a transformation with time and exposure to inmates. Most rookies were initially sympathetic to inmates and opposed their victimization and conditions of confinement. As officers became socialized into the prison environment, they searched for justifications for their emerging hostility and negativism toward inmates. Some officers, the "functionaries", anesthetized themselves from feeling sympathy or kindness toward inmates. "Hard asses" justified their negative attitudes through depersonalizing inmates as a group which was owed no moral obligation. In contrast, Klofas and Toch (1982) found that newer COs held a more negative orientation toward inmates, but "mellowed" and developed a human service orientation toward inmates as they became accustomed to working with inmates. Owen (1988) 12 also looked at types as a process or stage which officers undergo. She differs from previous researchers because she sees variability among types at different career stages. Owen also expands her examination of the officer role to include the dimensions of power relations, approaches to rules, and overall adjustment to the authority inherent in the job. "Each type and strategy of the correctional officer is directly related to the individual's alignment to the power structure and material interests, and abilities to get through the day," (Owen, 1988:97). The career stages of correctional officers are discussed, as well as the influence of these dimensions on the formation and perpetuation of types. Newer officers emphasized rule enforcement, "going by the book". However as the officer solidified his relationships with the prison order, he developed a workable way of solving problems. In many cases, this attempt involved becoming "badge heavy" or overly concerned with one's authority. Owen characterizes this type as a "John Wayne-Clint Eastwood type". This type is out to gain as much power and status within the power hierarchy as possible......They are seen as both humorous and dangerous by others with the 'common sense' of the seasoned worker" (Owen, 1988: 94). Their rule enforcement strategy is marked by arbitrariness and inconsistency. This type held true for male and female officers. Another ‘type identified among newer officers are the "wishy-washy" officers. These are correctional 13 officers who fear inmates and haven't developed or devised appropriate strategies for working with them. Their approach to rule enforcement is unpredictable, discretionary, and inconsistent (Owen, 1988). The label of "weak" is affixed until the officer shows some evidence of being able to handle himself within prison walls. Those who do not, are not likely to last very long in positions with prolonged direct inmate contact. They may initiate a transfer or be transferred to another post, since they are a problem for supervisory staff. They cannot maintain order in their unit. The third career stage or "oldtimer phase" for correctional officers spanned a continuum from "good officer" to "weak officer" to "just doing their eight hours." "This approach is characterized by the ability to balance and reconcile the conflicts of the institution and the daily routine. These types of workers have developed the common sense to do the job but also recognize the limits of their authority over the prisoners and other workers" (Owen, 1988:95). The "good officer" is generally represented by older officers, however there may be a few newer officers in this classification. Older officers are viewed as having settled into a niche of "just doing the job", while newer officer may have developed the common sense or a work strategy in a short time. The "professional correctional officer" has more education than his colleagues and is interested in a career with the Department of Corrections. This type is characterized by consistency and lack of favoritism in rule enforcement. Younger officers generally fit in this category. 14 The "lazy/laid-back officer" is another type classified by Owen. This type does not pull his/her full weight on the job. They are lax with security procedures and easily manipulated by inmates and hence are a danger to security within the prison. The "dirty cop" is still another classification of correctional officer. This CO is distrusted and avoided by coworkers. "Being dirty takes several forms, the most common are doing illegal 'favors' for prisoners, carrying contraband (packing), and having intimate relationships with inmates" (Owen, 1988:96). This officer is also perceived as a danger or threat to institutional security and order. One study by Zimmer (1986) focused on gender as a key variable influencing the emergence of roles among correctional officers. With the increasing numbers of women entering correctional work, the author claims that distinct roles have emerged among female prison guards in response to problems basic to the job and to women in a nontraditional, predominantly male job. She interviewed 70 female guards in minimum, medium, and maximum security prisons for men. She describes 3 patterns of adaptation or roles identified by women working in men's prisons: the "institutional", "modified", and "inventive" roles. The "institutional role" is a type which adheres closely to the formal rules established by the administration and stressed during academy training. The women gain and maintain inmate compliance by following the established system of rewards and punishments. They strive to 15 perform their job on an equal basis with male officers, and hence minimize their female status in interactions with inmates, coworkers, and supervisors. The "institutional type" does not have negative attitudes toward inmates, however they do maintain social distance. Interactions with male officers are also formal and impersonal. The women are essentially loners, and have little contact with other male or female officers. Female officers in the second type, the "modified role," differ from the former type in their belief that women are incapable of performing the job on an equal basis with men. They feel hostility toward female guards who demand equal treatment. The women prefer to work on posts involving less direct contact with inmates because of a belief in their physical limitations and the impropriety of having female guards see nude male inmates. They rely on the assistance and protection of male officers in performing their duties and in preferred assignments to less threatening posts by supervisors. Since the women are dependant on the support and assistance of male officers, they tolerate gender-related remarks or jokes in their presence. The "inventive role" is the third type of correctional officer identified by Zimmer. These women prefer less social distance from inmates, and seek opportunities for increased interaction. They have integrated counseling into their job; for some, in order to better perform their control functions, 16 and for others, to help inmates. The women acknowledge their physical limitations in controlling inmates, however they perceive that interpersonal skills, common sense, and even manipulation are effective in gaining compliance. They rely on male inmates for protection from other inmates, since they do not feel male guards will come to their assistance. Because of their good relationships with inmates and more lenient rule enforcement, women in the inventive role have antagonistic relationships with male coworkers.3 After reviewing the types presented in the literature, there are certain prevailing social types which have either been mentioned frequently or described in great detail. One such type is the "custodian/subcultural custodian," (Klofas, 1982), "hard. ass" (Kauffman, 1988), or "John ‘Wayne-Clint Eastwood type" (Owen, 1988). This officer type constitutes one polar opposite if one envisions a continuum of officers with a "custodial officer" at one end and a "human service" officer at the other end. The "custodian" perceives the work as primarily custodial and emphasizes the themes of coercive authority, toughness, and social distance. Irwin (1980) asserts that a custodial orientation rests upon 3 premises: (1) the primary purposes of prisons are to punish inmates and protect society; (2) prisoners cannot be trusted; and (3) in order to maintain control over prisoners, strict discipline must be maintained. 3 Black and Hispanic women were the exception; they often developed friendly relations with minority male officers based on their mutual antagonism toward White male officers. 17 "The 'tenets of subcultural wisdom' include the View that security and control are paramount, that high levels of social distance from inmates must be maintained and that the guard must be 'tough, knowledgeable, and able to handle inmates" (Klofas, 1984 :170). Attitudes toward inmates are essentially negative. Proving their authority is paramount (Owen, 1988). These officers feel the need to project "personal, physical dominance" in order to maintain respect and authority (Crouch, 1980). They are "badge heavy," out to gain as much power and status within the prison power hierarchy as possible (Owen, 1988). Cold indifference in their interactions with inmates is necessary in order to protect their physical safety and cope with the situational exigencies in prison (Kauffman, 1988). This custodial role is influenced by a mistrust and fear of inmates, and frustration from repeated hassles with inmates (Webb & Morris, 1978). This "tough facade" is also present in their relations with fellow officers. Fear of rejection and a desire to be "one of the boys" promotes the adoption of a custodial role. It is claimed that these officers try to conform in word and deed to what they perceive as the attitudes and beliefs of fellow officers. "Pluralistic ignorance" refers to the systematic misperception concerning the orientation of coworkers.‘I This term as applied to prison guards, is the misperception among officers who are 4 "Pluralistic ignorance" was a term used to describe the misperceptions of inmates concerning the beliefs of other inmates. (see Stanton Wheeler, 1958; 1961). Kauffman (1978, 1981) applied the term to correctional officers. 18 sympathetic toward inmates that they are in the minority; whereas officers who hold negative views toward inmates believe they are in the mainstream of opinion (Kauffman, 1981). Hence dominant norms of behavior represent a particular social reality and conceal other Views. Some researchers suggest this custodial type is typically a minority among prison guards (Johnson, 1984; Klofas & Toch (1982). Another major type is the "functionary" (Kauffman) or "ritualist" (Crouch & Marquart) or "just doing the job" type (Owen). This type has been described already, so a brief sketch is only needed. "Functionaries" have no illusions that they are serving a productive, useful role in society. They have no inclination to strictly enforce rules or to incorporate more human service activities. They have found a niche and are simply going through the motions of the job. The "burnout" (Kauffman) or "discouraged subculturalist" (Klofas & Toch) is another prevailing type in the literature. This type has also been discussed, so a brief characterization will be provided. The "burnout" has a negative orientation toward both inmates, officers, and the administration. They have a basic mistrust and hostility toward both groups. They are unable to cope with the realities of prison and remain in the job for the extrinsic rewards of compensation and benefits. The "human service officer or "people worker" (Johnson (1984), "supported majority" (Toch & Klofas, 1982), "white hat" (Kauffman, 1988), and the "professional correctional Officer" 19 (Owen, 1988) is another predominant social type. Johnson (1984) discusses the custodian type as the prison officer's public agenda or primary identity. He suggests that officers have a private agenda or latent identity in which they seek to enrich their job through decreased social distance from inmates and personalized relationsf’ Officers desire to provide human services and refer inmates to appropriate services and programs; however they perceive other officers as custodial which inhibits their feelings of human service (Lombardo, 1985). "Many of these officers get lonely as closet social workers and assume a custodial pose to secure companionship and support" (Johnson & Price, 1981). These officers rely on interpersonal skills rather than coercion in their interactions with inmates. They seek to advise, support, console, refer, and generally try to assist inmates with institutional and personal problems (Johnson & Price, 1981). Johnson (1979) found in his interviews with correctional officers that some officers took great pride in their ability to play helping roles and were proud that treatment staff routinely turned to them for assistance in managing inmates. Johnson & Price (1981) argue that these types of officers may also stimulate colleagues and inmates to respond to the needs of their fellow human beings. 5 Many correctional officers who stressed human service in their work felt they were violating an unofficial code that calls for a tough custodial pose. 20 Summary of Research on Correctional Officer Types Previous research has focused on attitude-based definitions of types. Types of officers have been examined along a continuum from the custodial officer to the human service officer. Attitudes toward inmates and coworkers were used as the sole basis for classification of officers. Their orientation toward rule enforcement, exchange or negotiation, extent of mutual obligations among officers, and their orientation toward human service delivery were left unexplored. Prior studies have examined certain work variables in relation to officer roles. The association between shift and officer type was investigated. The finding was that custodial officers were clustered on the night shift which involved the least contact with inmates. Research has also emphasized career stage in relation to officer types. Findings are contradictory in this area. Kauffman (1988) and Webb and Morris (1978) found newer officers to hold a more favorable, sympathetic attitude toward inmates. Older officers become hardened or "con-wise" through time and exposure to inmates. Conversely, Klofas and Toch (1982) found newer officers to hold negative attitudes toward inmates and to have a more punitive outlook. More experienced officers "mellowed" and developed a more positive attitude toward working with inmates. Owen (1988) found variability in the career stages of officers depending on the individual officer and their adjustment to the authority inherent in the job. She found newer officers to emphasize rule 21 enforcement and going by the book. As the officer adjusted to the job, he developed his own workable way of solving problems. Previous research also examined the individual variable, gender, and roles among correctional officers. Rule enforcement strategy, attitudes toward inmates and coworkers, and orientation. toward. human service. delivery’ were among’ the dimensions analyzed. Findings suggested that patterns of adaptation developed in response to problems endemic to the job and to women working in a nontraditional, predominantly male job. As mentioned earlier, a number of interactional themes between inmates and officers, including orientation toward rule enforcement and exchange or negotiation with inmates,extent of norms of mutual obligation, and interest in expansion of the role to include human service, and their relationship to officer types were not fully explored in prior work. These major themes are present in the occupational culture of correctional work and need to be examined in relation to the official system. My choice of these dimensions will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section. Previous research on correctional officer types also does not locate their findings in any theoretic framework. In addition, the impact of the prison organization on the formation and perpetuation of types needs to be discussed. The variation. in. the organization, such. as leadership style, differences in classification, inmate management strategy, age, 22 and size, affects opportunities for interaction and the character of interactions with inmates. For instance, Kauffman utilizes a diversity of prison settings, maximum and medium prisons, a reformatory, and even a state hospital. She does not consider how the structural and organizational differences in each setting might affect interactions between inmates and officers and influence the formation of types. This research will develop a typology of officers based on a number of salient dimensions, such as approach to rule enforcement, which have not been fully examined within the organizational context of the prison. Findings will be interpreted within this context and the theoretical framework of Allaire and Firsirotu (1992) which is elaborated in a subsequent chapter. Chapter III THE PRISON ORGANIZATION It is important to consider the prison, how it varies organizationally and structurally; and its impact on social types among correctional officers in order to analyze the formation and perpetuation of types. It is also important in understanding patterns of interactions between officers and inmates. The prison is a relatively isolated social system with a structure composed of a superordinate group and a subordinate group. "The mandate given to the prison by society is to isolate those of its members who have been defined as refractory and threatening to the social order" (Grosser, 1968: 9). The ruling group has almost total authority which is not based on any contractual relationship with the ruled; the primary emphasis is on control and domination of the subordinate group (Grosser, 1968). "The struggle for institutional power shapes formal and informal relationships" (Owen, 1988:16). The institution is charged with conflicting functions and directives, rehabilitation vs. control which results in a conflict between the demands of custody and the demands of treatment (Cressey, 1959). No matter what the stated goals or mission of the correctional system or administrator; custody and security are usually the dominant concerns. The prison is also unique because of its severely overcrowded conditions and the effect of these conditions on 23 organizational members.6 Many inmates are double-celled in cells designed for one inmate. Recreation areas, classrooms, and gymnasiums have been converted to dormitories to accommodate the swelling prison population. Overcrowding strains prison resources and staff. Officers must tighten their daily schedule to ensure that large numbers of inmates receive services and. programs. Scheduling' and supervisory' demands strain prison staff. Inmates become angry and irritable waiting for prolonged periods for meals, activities, and programs. Officers must worry about a subsequent violent outburst or a grievance filed. The potential for Violence is another distinctive aspect of the prison environment. Toch (1985) argues that certain contextual features of prison promulgate violence among inmates: payoffs for violent behavior, immunity or protection for aggressors, opportunities for Violence, temptations, challenges, and provocations, and justifications for violence. An inmate receives a payoff for violent behavior in the form of accrued status among other inmates. The aggressor secures peer admiration for the Violent act as well as for enduring the subsequent punishment in segregation. Immunity or protection is also provided for violent inmates. Strong norms of silence are enforced by inmates. There is an explicit taboo against 6 Federal court orders have been issued against 41 states for overcrowding (Stojkovic & Lovell, 1990). One out of every 7 correctional facilities was under court order or consent decree for conditions related to overcrowding (Fox & Stinchcomb, 1994). 24 25 "ratting" to "the man". This results in inmate reluctance to report a violent incident for fear of retaliation. Toch (1985) also points to the emphasis on routine and predictability in prison in order to maintain order and control. Paradoxically, it is precisely these routines which give rise to opportunities for victimization. Inmate aggressors "map out" the institution for supervision patterns and monitored areas. The author contends that the inmate aggressor is much like the residential burglar who knows home-owner vacation patterns & can plan time and locus of the Victimization. The existence of temptations, challenges, and provocations is another feature of the correctional environment (Toch, 1985). Prison consists of "strong" & "weak" groups of inmates; inmates who are pitted against one another. There are creditors and debtors, exploiters and marks, and rival gangs. The inmate population has become more fragmented and violent with the increasing number of more serious, non-white, younger, often gang-affiliated inmates (Carroll, 1988). Gangs threaten institutional order and security (Hunt, Riegal, Morales, & Waldorf, 1993). Organized along racial, ethnic, and geographic lines, gangs are responsible for much of the violence and illegal activity in many prisons (Hunt, et al.,1993). Rival gang membership may be a primary justification for violent behavior in prison. Other justifications may include the status of the inmate as "tough". Other inmates may feel the 26 need to challenge that "toughness" to increase their status. Conversely, the status of an inmate as "weak" may provoke further Victimization. There is also the jpotential for 'violent interaction between officers and inmates. Correctional officers may resort to the use of force when other attempts at gaining inmate compliance have failed. Marquart (1986) found prison guards relied on physical coercion as a functional response to a situation. A "willingness to fight" inmates was a way to gain acceptance among colleagues. However, there are certainly norms among officers concerning when to use force with inmates. The use of coercion by officers is also limited by the following factors. Officers cannot rely on force since they are vastly outnumbered and unarmed in prison. A forceful overture might provoke an answering response from inmate(s). The use of force is limited legally. The courts have generally ruled that the use of force against prisoners may be justified under the following conditions: self-defense, defense of a fellow officer, visitor, or inmate, to maintain order and enforce institutional rules, to prevent crime, and to prevent escapes7 (Stojkovic & Lovell, 1990). Institutional reforms also constrain the use of force against inmates, such as ombudsman and inmate grievance committees. These reforms are now part of policy and procedure 7 The necessity of the use of force at the time of the incident and the reasonableness of the degree of force are the deciding factors in legal cases. 27 in most institutions. In addition, norms of secrecy among inmates, as well as officers, promulgates violence and a segmentation between the two groups. The strong inmate code of silence, "never rat on another inmate" and "don't cooperate with prison officials" has been discussed in prison literature (eg. Carroll, 1974; Irwin, 1980; Messinger & Sykes, 1960). In- group loyalty and solidarity are major features of the inmate social system with harsh, often violent retaliation for violation of the norms. Norms of secrecy and mutual obligations are also evident among prison guards. A tacit understanding of certain norms of behavior safeguards the secrecy and justifiability of their actions (see Kauffman, 1988). Types of Prisons The physical aspects of the prison also affects the development and affirmation of types among officers. It influences opportunities for interaction and shapes the character of the interaction between correctional officers and inmates. The physical aspects, function, and inmate composition of a prison denote classification as minimum, medium, or maximum security. M' . S 'l E . A minimum security prison appears much different than institutions with higher security classifications. Externally there are no massive stone walls, gun towers, or outside patrol; the perimeter is usually surrounded by a fence. Inside there are no cells with bars and no obvious security devices 28 (Fox & Stinchcomb, 1994). The prison generally consists of dormitories or individual housing units situated around an open area, where an officer is permanently stationed. The inmate management style is usually direct supervision of inmates. No barrier separates inmates from officers in order to decrease social distance, encourage interaction, and develop personalized relations between inmates and correctional officers. Inmates may watch TV, play cards, or engage in other recreational activities in the day room. The inmate population Ihl