Rapport and Relationship Building in a Therapeutic Community: Examining the Dynamic Between Correctional Officers and Incarcerated Persons

• Author: Sami Abdel-Salam,Michael E. Antonio,Michele P. Bratina,Ashley Kilmer
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211069097
• Published date: 01 February 2023
• Date: 01 February 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211069097

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2023, Vol. 34(1) 43 –64

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034211069097

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Rapport and Relationship

Building in a Therapeutic

Community: Examining

the Dynamic Between

Correctional Officers and

Incarcerated Persons

Sami Abdel-Salam1, Michael E. Antonio1,

Michele P. Bratina1, and Ashley Kilmer2

Abstract

Correctional officers (COs) are vital to prison safety. While focused on security, some

believe COs should also be trained to engage in the rehabilitation of incarcerated

persons by offering motivation and support. This study examined incarcerated

persons’ perceptions of COs working in a prison-based therapeutic community (TC).

Data were gathered through qualitative interviews with individuals detained in a state

correctional system for men. Findings revealed several themes related to incarcerated

persons’ perceptions of COs’ knowledge toward treatment, their experiences and

interactions with COs, and recommendations about how to improve the role of COs

as therapeutic agents of change. Practical opportunities for implementing correctional

research and practice using a positive criminology perspective are considered.

Keywords

therapeutic communities, treatment, prison, correctional officers, positive criminology

Introduction

The role of prison rehabilitation and its impact, if any, on criminal behavior has been

vigorously studied. Since the “what works” era (Martinson, 1974), the pendulum for

1West Chester University of Pennsylvania, USA

2Towson University, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:

Michele P. Bratina, Department of Criminal Justice, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, 700 S High

St., West Chester, PA 19383, USA.

Email: mbratina@wcupa.edu

1069097CJPXXX10.1177/08874034211069097Criminal Justice Policy ReviewAbdel-Salam et al.

research-article2022

44 Criminal Justice Policy Review 34(1)

prison programming has continually swung back and forth between rehabilitative

approaches (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Gendreau, 1996) and strict criminal control

(Carmichael & Kent, 2017). In line with a resurgence of interest on the prevalence of

mental illness and substance use among incarcerated persons—in particular, potential

treatment and diversion strategies (Forrester et al., 2018; Kubiak et al., 2020; Lurigio,

2019; Simpson & Jones, 2018)—current evidence-based practices in many correc-

tional settings embrace various forms of rehabilitative programming to treat individual

needs of correctional populations. Based on a review of the literature, it is possible to

conclude that correctional programming that incorporates a cognitive behavioral

approach (Bozick et al., 2018; Clark, 2011; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Wilson

et al., 2005), and/or the risk-needs-responsivity principal (Van Voorhis et al., 2013), is

associated with reduced recidivism rates post-release. Similar outcomes have been

found for intensive-inpatient prison environments such as therapeutic communities

(TCs) that address individual needs related to severe substance abuse and mental

health problems among incarcerated persons (Jensen & Kane, 2012; Shuker & Newton,

2008). In particular, the premise is that correctional-based programs grounded in prin-

ciples of systems integration, collaboration, and social acceptance may lead to increas-

ing perceptions of justice, fairness, and quality of life among incarcerated persons,

thereby providing resilience and a desistance from reoffending (Bennett & Shuker,

2018). Reflecting principles of procedural justice, programming in this context may be

grounded in what has been referred to as positive criminology.

Positive criminology is a concept that may help guide our understanding of TCs

and the role of correctional officers (COs) within this environment. It is worth noting

that these ideas are also congruent with social learning theory (Bandura & Walters,

1977). In this study, however, we extend the research to incorporate more about the

content of the behaviors that can be realized through the social learning process, with

an emphasis on positive social elements of the behaviors learned through the interac-

tions with prison staff. Traditionally, criminal justice researchers and practitioners

have been hesitant to embrace a paradigm shift that is based on the identification and

analysis of key motivators, such as trust, mental well-being, rehabilitative goals, and

personal fulfillment or life transformation, as a means for desistance to crime (Ronel

& Segev, 2014). However, as the discourse related to offender rehabilitation continues

to shift its focus on strengths rather than failings, research and policy may produce

more positive outcomes. This may include the shifting responsibilities of COs from

traditional custodial functions to a more positive and supportive role in the lives of

those incarcerated.

Our research focused on the relationships and attitudes of incarcerated persons

toward COs as part of the rehabilitative process. The specific location was a TC, given

the importance of supportive relationships and role modeling behaviors as a means of

influencing positive outcomes (e.g., personal growth). To understand this process, we

begin with an overview of traditional relationships (including both barriers and facili-

tators) between COs and those incarcerated followed by a description of the structure

and purpose of TCs, and how COs fit within this environment. The value of positive

criminology in supporting these relationships is also included within this discussion.