Feedback Effects and the Criminal Justice Bureaucracy: Officer Attitudes and the Future of Correctional Reform

• Author: Amy E. Lerman,Jessie Harney
• DOI: 10.1177/0002716219869907
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• Date: 01 September 2019
• Subject Matter: Prescriptions: Criminal Justice

ANNALS, AAPSS, 685, September 2019 227

DOI: 10.1177/0002716219869907

Feedback

Effects and the

Criminal Justice

Bureaucracy:

Officer

Attitudes and

the Future of

Correctional

Reform

By

AMY E. LERMAN

and

JESSIE HARNEY

869907ANN THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYFEEDBACK EFFECTS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BUREAUCRACY

research-article2019

Although political scientists have documented the

effects of incarceration on those serving time in prison

and jail, there has been much less discussion about

feedback effects on the attitudes of those who work in

correctional institutions. This is a considerable over-

sight, given the enormous growth of the correctional

workforce and its importance in the implementation of

crime policy. In this article, we present original survey

data from a large sample of California correctional

officers. Our analyses suggest that characteristics of the

institutions where correctional officers work—the lev-

els of violence to which they are exposed, the propor-

tion of inmates involved in high-quality rehabilitation

programs, as well as the quality of management—help

to shape officers’ attitudes toward rehabilitation. These

dynamics have important implications for how public

policies can create political constituencies among crim-

inal justice officers. The attitudes of these officers

should therefore be a concern for scholars, advocates,

and practitioners who are interested in political strate-

gies for long-term, meaningful reform to the correc-

tional system.

Keywords: correctional officer; mass incarceration;

prison; policy feedback; criminal justice;

rehabilitation

For the first time in more than 50 years, the

United States has seen a nearly 5 percent

decline in the size of its inmate population,

with some states experiencing decreases of

between 14 and 25 percent (Sentencing Project

2017). These declines are the result of political

Amy E. Lerman is a professor of public policy and

political science at the University of California,

Berkeley, and associate dean of the Goldman School of

Public Policy. Her research is focused on issues of race,

public opinion, and political behavior, especially as they

relate to punishment and social inequality in America.

Jessie Harney is a graduate student researcher and PhD

student at the Goldman School of Public Policy. Her

research interests are in criminal justice system reform

with a specific focus on mental health.

Correspondence: alerman@berkeley.edu

228 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

reform efforts at every level of government. Many local police departments are

rethinking their approach to low-level crimes; several states have instituted policy

changes aimed at reducing criminal penalties for low-level and nonviolent

offenses; and a federal, bipartisan coalition has been working on a substantial

legislative package for sentencing reform (Scott 2014; American Bar Association

2019). These are important signs that the growth of mass incarceration might

finally be slowing, or even beginning a reversal of course.

These changes are the culmination of decades-long efforts by civil and human

rights advocates, who have shed light on the myriad harms inflicted on low-

income and minority communities by the nation’s aggressive approach to crime

control that began with Nixon’s declaration of a “War on Drugs” in 1971. These

harms have been well documented and rightfully demand our attention. In this

article, however, we argue that policy reformers today might usefully broaden

their scope to consider also the health and safety of correctional workers.

Previous studies have shown that individual demographics such as race and

partisanship predict officers’ attitudes toward criminal justice, just as they do in

the public as a whole (Unnever 2014; Lerman and Page 2012, 2015). However,

we show in this study that characteristics of the institutions where correctional

officers work—the levels of violence to which they are exposed, the proportion

of inmates involved in high-quality rehabilitation programs, as well as the quality

of training and management—also predict officers’ attitudes toward rehabilita-

tion, inmates, and the purpose of corrections. Our results are unique in that we

employ original survey data from a large sample of California correctional offic-

ers, including questions related to both workplace experiences and attitudes

toward rehabilitation. Additionally, responses were collected from officers work-

ing in thirty-three different state prisons, allowing us to measure the influence of

institutional factors on a range of attitudinal outcomes, as well as allowing us to

leverage institutional variation in the likelihood of exposure to violence.

The dynamics we uncover have important implications for our understanding

of how public policies can create political constituencies in the criminal justice

domain. Although political scientists have documented the effects of mass incar-

ceration on those who serve time in prison and jail (e.g., Manza and Uggen 2008;

Lerman and Weaver 2014), there has been much less discussion about feedback

effects on the attitudes of those who work in correctional institutions. This is a

considerable oversight, given the enormous growth of the correctional workforce.

By 2000, almost 13 percent of state and local public employment (and a larger

percentage in at least fifteen states) was in the criminal justice domain (Hughes

2006). According to the most recent available data, approximately 468,600 cor-

rectional officers and bailiffs were employed in the United States in 2016, more

than by General Motors and Ford combined (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019;

General Motors 2016; Ford Motor Company 2017).

The policy attitudes of law enforcement personnel matter to criminal justice

politics and policy reform in several distinct ways. As Michael Campbell notes in

his account of the punitive politics of Texas criminal justice, “Law enforcement

actors and the occupational organizations that represent them occupy an impor-

tant and somewhat ambiguous theoretical terrain: They are simultaneously