An Exploration of Correctional Counselor Workloads in a Midwestern State
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Author | Adam K. Matz,Nathan Lowe |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885520968247 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
The Prison Journal
2020, Vol. 100(6) 769 –786
An Exploration of
© 2020 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Correctional Counselor
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520968247
DOI: 10.1177/0032885520968247
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
Workloads in a
Midwestern State
Adam K. Matz1 and Nathan Lowe2
Abstract
Time studies have been conducted across a variety of occupations. However,
no known research has examined the workload of correctional counselors.
In this study, the Iowa Department of Corrections, in partnership with
the American Probation and Parole Association, performed a workload
evaluation of over 100 correctional counselors who participated in a time
study. The most common activities concerned inmate requests, classification,
assessment, release planning, treatment group work, and administrative
tasks. Most concerning, respondents indicated anywhere from 20% to 50%
of the activities engaged in were unsatisfactorily completed.
Keywords
correctional counselors, workload, prison, adequacy of time
Introduction
The U.S. continues to be the world leader in incarceration (Coyle et al.,
2016; Walmsley, 2018). Despite a slight (1%) decline from 2016 to 2017,
there remains in excess of 1.5 million adults incarcerated in state and fed-
eral prisons (Carson, 2018). Notably, the Federal Bureau of Prisons accounts
1University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA
2American Probation & Parole Association, Lombardi, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Adam K. Matz, Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Dakota, 501 N. Columbia
Road, Stop 8050, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA.
Email: adam.matz@und.edu
770
The Prison Journal 100(6)
for 37% of this recent decline. On the other hand, several states including
Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Delaware, Colorado, and Virginia operate their
prisons well beyond capacity. Specific to this research, Iowa operates at
115% of its capacity. While Iowa’s institutions are designed to hold 7,288
prisoners, as of 2017, it housed 8,378 (Carson, 2018, p. 21). Further com-
pounding this dilemma is the state’s persistent recidivism, which has
steadily ranged from 30% to 35% over the past decade (Iowa Department
of Corrections [IDOC], 2016).
In an attempt to improve services and reduce recidivism, the IDOC sought
support, funding, and guidance through the Second Chance Act Statewide
Recidivism Reduction (SRR) program (Council of State Governments Justice
Center, 2018a). SRR is a federal initiative implemented in 2012 by the Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA). Through this initiative, BJA sought to support
states in need by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) and core
correctional practices (CCPs). While numerous states have received an award
through this program, Iowa is one of only eight states that received multiple
federal grant awards under this initiative (Council of State Governments
Justice Center, 2018b). Specifically, the Iowa SRR initiative was initiated
in 2015.
While the IDOC conducted an inventory of its programming (Council of
State Governments Justice Center, 2018c), it also sought a review of its cor-
rectional counselor staffing allocations and workloads. It was reasoned that
without adequate staffing and a comprehensive understanding of counselor
workloads, the implementation of any new strategies would be jeopardized
(e.g., see discussion of Florida’s early attempt to implement EBPs in
Greenwood, 2014). Given the lack of prior research with this population,
IDOC subcontracted the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA)
based, in part, on the organization’s prior workload research experience with
community supervision officers (Burrell, 2006; DeMichele, 2008; DeMichele
& Payne, 2007, 2012, 2018; DeMichele et al., 2011; Matz et al., 2018; Payne
& DeMichele, 2011). This study was exploratory in nature, seeking to under-
stand: (1) what were the most common tasks performed by correctional coun-
selors; (2) how much time was associated with these tasks; and (3) were there
tasks where counselors felt quality was being sacrificed for efficiency?
Literature Review
Correctional Counseling
The earliest forms of counseling in correctional institutions were provided
by ministers (e.g., Sundt et al., 2002), probation officers, and parole
Matz and Lowe
771
officers, later supplanted by psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and
social workers ( Hanser & Mire, 2011). The concept of correctional coun-
seling became common practice and reached prominence during the reha-
bilitation era of the 1960s and 1970s. Schrink (1997) defines correctional
counseling as;
. . .an intensive, purposeful, interactive process between a counselor who is
professionally prepared to deal with the special problems posed by a correctional
environment and a client who has been found guilty of committing a crime or
act of delinquency and placed in a correctional institution, facility or agency.
The goals of these encounters are to assist the client in better dealing with his
or her immediate situation and ultimately to help him or her develop the skills
and resources necessary to become a law-abiding citizen. (p. 42)
Hanser and Mire (2011) similarly describe it as the process by which
trained counselors help inmates “. . .identify and incorporate better behav-
ioral, psychological, and emotional responses to life events that serve to
improve their quality of life and reduce or eliminate their involvement in
criminal activity” (p. 4) (for more see Gill, 2003; Kelley, 2008; Kennedy,
1984; Kratcoski, 2004; Lehman et al., 2012; Schrink & Hamm, 1989; Sun,
2008; Van Voorhis & Salisbury, 2014; Van Wormer, 1999). As Schrink (1997)
explains, the only distinction from other forms of counseling is the applica-
tion to the correctional setting. Unlike counselors outside of institutions, cor-
rectional counselors must also look after the custody needs of their clients
(Carrola, DeMatthews, et al., 2016).
In terms of constituting a distinct professional occupation, the term cor-
rectional counselor lacks any standardized definition (Hanser & Mire, 2011;
Schrink, 1997). Although not recognized as an explicitly distinct occupation,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics does recognize it within the broader category
of probation officers and correctional treatment specialists. In some jurisdic-
tions, correctional counseling may still be carried out by probation and parole
officers (Van Wormer, 1999), or combined with the duties of a correctional
officer (Schrink, 1997). Further, the roles and responsibilities of correctional
counselors have generally been vague and poorly defined. Schrink (1997)
identified seven core duties: (1) maintain caseload files, (2) develop treat-
ment plans, (3) monitor inmate progress, (4) produce agency reports, (5) con-
duct individual and group counseling, (6) support inmates in correspondences
with other staff, and (7) provide treatment and security recommendations for
inmates under their purview.
The Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC), specifically, defines a cor-
rectional counselor as the following:
772
The Prison Journal 100(6)
Provides individual and group guidance and related counseling services to
institutionalized residents in a correctional facility in the areas of social,
behavioral, educational, vocational and related program planning; participates
in the development and implementation of specific plans and goals for
rehabilitation and gradual reintegration into the community; performs related
work as required.
Given correctional counselors rely greatly on group therapy, limited time
is available for one-on-one contact with inmates. As a result, developing
close working relationships with treatment staff and custody staff is consid-
ered essential (Schrink, 1997). Treatment staff bring a wealth of educational
information and insight, while the custody staff will often have greater dura-
tions of direct sight and contact with inmates, including behavioral observa-
tions of interest to the counselor. Indeed, correctional counselors in prisons
are primarily concerned with day-to-day crises, and less emphasis may be
placed on deeply-rooted behavioral problems. Institutional adjustment, for
example, can often be difficult for new inmates, requiring an extensive
amount of the counselor’s attention. Other documented issues faced by cor-
rectional counselors include prison overcrowding, poor institutional support,
disproportionate racial and ethnic representation, confidentiality concerns,
excessive caseloads, high levels of paperwork, coerced counseling (i.e.,
inmate resistance), role ambiguity, lack of real-world problem-solving
application (due to institutional setting), poor rapport-building opportunities
(a.k.a., therapeutic alliance), overemphasis on failures by administration and
the public, stress, and burnout (Carrola, Olivarez, et al., 2016; Hanser &
Mire, 2011). Yet in addition to their institutional orientation, correctional
counselors are also expected to be the primary driver of successful prisoner
release and community reentry.
Time Studies
While numerous time studies and workload evaluations have been con-
ducted for other roles in justice settings (e.g., judges, prosecutors, proba-
tion and parole officers) (e.g., American Prosecutors Research Institute &
Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2002; DeMichele et al., 2011; Kleiman et al.,
2013), this...
To continue reading
Request your trial