Correctional Officer Risk Perceptions and Professional Orientations: Examining Linkages Between the Two

• Author: Frank Valentino Ferdik
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854817733496
• Published date: 01 February 2018
• Date: 01 February 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817733496

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 2, February 2018, 264 –285.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854817733496

© 2017 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

264

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RISK PERCEPTIONS

AND PROFESSIONAL ORIENTATIONS

Examining Linkages Between the Two

FRANK VALENTINO FERDIK

University of West Florida

Prisons managing treatment programs for incarcerated offenders require correctional officers to share favorable dispositions

toward prisoners and rehabilitation if they are to function effectively. How officers judge prisoners, rehabilitative practices,

and the broader goals of corrections can influence treatment efficiency, as well as offender conduct. For these reasons, it

becomes paramount to investigate the professional orientations of corrections officers and the factors related to them. Using

the protection motivation theory as a guiding theoretical framework, the present study collected questionnaire data from

South Carolina maximum security correctional officers (N = 649) to determine whether their risk perceptions of workplace

harm shared statistically significant relationships with the counseling roles, concern for corruption of authority, social dis-

tance, and punitive orientations. Linear regression estimations found that heightened officer risk perceptions shared signifi-

cant relationships with each orientation. Findings may be useful for global correctional administrators in need of officers

supportive of rehabilitative practices.

Keywords: correctional officer; risk perceptions; professional orientations; rehabilitation; punitive ideology

INTRODUCTION

Despite a relative downturn in the number of rehabilitative services afforded to incarcer-

ated offenders over the preceding few decades, many prison systems still manage treat-

ment-oriented programs for prisoners1 (Phelps, 2011, 2012). Examples of these include, but

are certainly not limited to, cognitive-behavioral therapy sessions, substance-abuse treat-

ment, vocational job training, as well as psychological counseling (Jacobs & Carmichael,

2001; Raynor & Robinson, 2009). While debate persists over whether participation in these

programs actually reduces recidivism and successfully prepares offenders for eventual

community re-entry, one point that remains largely uncontested is the crucial role officers

of the correctional system play in creating a penal climate supportive of offenders, and

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback

regarding this article. Special appreciation is also given to Dr. Hayden P. Smith whose mentorship will always

be valued. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frank Valentino Ferdik, Department

of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL

32514; e-mail: fferdik@uwf.edu.

733496CJBXXX10.1177/0093854817733496Criminal Justice and BehaviorFerdik / Co Risk Perceptions and Orientations

research-article2017

Ferdik / CO RISK PERCEPTIONS AND ORIENTATIONS 265

rehabilitation programming in general (Farkas, 1999; Jackson, 1992; Moon & Maxwell,

2004). Without officer support for treatment services and the offender population more

broadly, potential benefits accrued from prisoner involvement in these programs may be

nullified (Cullen, Lutze, Link, & Wolfe, 1989).

Especially within the past few years, the role of the correctional officer has extended

beyond a mere custodial one to include a human-services-oriented approach to offender

supervision, which is crucial for the successful rehabilitation of prisoners. Human-services-

oriented approaches require officers to “assist prisoners with problems related to their

imprisonment . . . act as their counselors, create a safe environment that promotes rehabili-

tation . . . and provide treatment services to offenders” (Moon & Maxwell, 2004, p. 730).

Fulfillment of each of these responsibilities demands that officers adopt a favorable disposi-

tion toward offenders and rehabilitation programming in general because if officers assume

negative stances toward either, this could compromise offenders’ chances for successful

readjustment to society (Farkas, 1999).

As a result, and to therefore assess officer judgments of prisoners, the rehabilitative

model, and the general purpose of corrections, Klofas and Toch (1982) developed a land-

mark scale measuring the professional orientations of corrections officers. Included among

them are the counseling roles, concern for corruption of authority, social distance, and puni-

tive orientations. Although some studies have evaluated predictors of these orientations

(Bazemore, Dicker, & Al-Gadheeb, 1994; Cullen et al., 1989; Farkas, 1999; Whitehead &

Lindquist, 1989), presently none have quantitatively determined the influence of correc-

tional officer risk perceptions of harm from their work environment, including from offend-

ers themselves. Successful prisoner rehabilitation is largely contingent on officer dispositions

toward offenders and treatment-oriented programming, and thus, it is essential to examine

these judgments of officers and the factors influencing them. Questionnaire data were there-

fore collected from a statewide population of South Carolina maximum security correc-

tional officers to determine the professional orientations reported by officers, as well as

whether a measure of their risk perceptions significantly predicted each orientation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PROFESSIONAL ORIENTATIONS

Four different correctional officer orientations, or professional judgments about their job,

were discovered by Klofas and Toch in 1982, and they include the counseling roles, concern

for corruption of authority, social distance, and punitive ideologies. Counseling role mea-

sures the extent to which officers support rehabilitation and the notion that part of their job

should consist of counseling prisoners. While concern for corruption of authority signals,

according to officers, the degree to which offenders can be trusted, social distance reveals

the extent to which officers express emotional support for prisoners. Finally, the punitive

scale reflects the degree to which officers favor harsh prison conditions for prisoners (Klofas

& Toch, 1982; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). Various reasons underscored the decision to

analyze the Klofas and Toch (1982) inventory instead of others.

According to Whitehead, Lindquist, and Klofas (1987), these four orientations reflect a

more comprehensive range of the different ideologies held by officers. Whereas other mea-

sures of officer orientations, such as those produced by Wheeler (1961), only really mea-

sured whether officers favored a purely custody or rehabilitative orientation, this one