The Organizational Diffusion of a Correctional Reform

• Published date: 01 June 1987
• Date: 01 June 1987
• Author: Nancy C. Jurik,Russ Winn,Michael C. Musheno
• DOI: 10.1177/088740348700200205
• Subject Matter: Articles

174
CJPR, VOL. 2, NO. 2, 6/87,
The Organizational Diffusion of a Correctional Reform
Russ Winn
New Mexico State University
Michael C. Musheno
Arizona State University
Nancy C. Jurik
Arizona State University
Abstract
This paper focuses on a western state’s effort to implement a reform policy
to professionalize its correctional system. Specifically, we study the process of
implementing a new in-service training regimen designed to instill
professional ethics and practices in the correctional work force.
Conceptually, we reject the top-down perspective of the policy process, which
holds that public officials can achieve routine implementation of policies
through the use of bureaucratic controls and hierarchical authority. Using
mixed methods and triangulation of data sources, we find that differences in
organizational capacity and commitment are important determinants of why
the training regimen was implemented variably across three facilities of a
large correctional complex. We also find that highly committed participants
find productive ways to use the training regimen which are unanticipated by
those proposing the reform. Our research contributes to a growing body of
inquiry which challenges routine administration and goal fidelity as
appropriate constructs for studying social policy reforms.
Correctional policy makers and researchers have grown increasingly
skeptical about the potential of achieving meaningful reforms within
institutional settings. Specifically, they argue that external environmental
conditions (e.g. judicial intervention) and the internal dynamics of
correctional institutions (e.g., guard discretion) render institutional reform
virtually impossible (see Irwin, 1980; Fox, 1982; Jurik and Musheno, 1986).
However, it is commonly accepted that U.S. correctional policy will rely on
institutionalization for the foreseeable future. Thus, policy makers must
intensify their search for ways to improve both inmate-client services and the

---

175
work environment of correctional institutions. Researchers can contribute to
this search by refining concepts and methods for pinpointing both barriers
and pathways to institutional reforms. In this paper, we draw upon
organizational behavior and diffusion of innovations literatures (see
Palumbo, Maynard-Moody, and Wright, 1984; Rice and Rogers, 1980;
Mohr, 1982; Musheno, Palumbo and Levine, 1976) to frame our inquiry of a
western state’s attempt to professionalize its correctional system.
Specifically, we study the organizational diffusion of a new training
regimen designed to increase professional ethics and practices among line
correctional officers. As is the case in many locales, the construction of. FO
#=1, a new in-service training regimen, is a core component of the reform
effort (Weiner and Johnson, 1981; Jurik and Musheno, 1986).
An organizational innovation approach differs substantially from the &dquo;top-
down&dquo; or bureaucratic rationality model for studying the implementation of
social policy reforms. The &dquo;top-down&dquo; model presumes that routine
implementation of social policies is both possible and desirable (see Mashaw,
1983). Second, this perspective presumes that routine administration is
secured through the chain of command, rule making, and other
administrative tools of the highly rationalized bureaucracy (Wittrock and
deLeon, 1987).
In over two decades of research, social scientists have found few examples
of routine implementation of public policies; instead there is convergent
evidence that broad discretion among lower echelon employees has affected
the way policies are put into operation (Lipsky, 1980; Aaronson, Dienes and
Musheno, 1978; Davis, 1964; Lipsky, 1977; Piven, 1972; Prottas, 1979). As a
result of these findings, the organizational innovation approach has emerged
as one strategy for studying policy reforms. This approach presumes that
implementation is variable, modification of core components is likely, and
organizational traits, which are beyond bureaucratic controls, influence the
implementation process. This strategy includes the study of conditions
external to and within the implementing public service agencies (see Mohr,
1982; Musheno, 1982; Lincoln, 1985). Additionally, this strategy relies on
multiple measures of implementation success (see Palumbo, et al., 1984), and
the mix of quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry (see Jick, 1979;
Pettigrew, 1979; Cook, 1985).
To study the process of installing a new in-service training regimen, we
employ multiple measures of implementation success and rely on mixed
methods of inquiry. To explain implementation success and failure, we
concentrate on internal organizational characteristics only, holding the
external environment constant by studying diffusion of the reform in three
operational units of a single correctional complex (for further details on the
effect of the external environment see Jurik, 1985 and Jurik and Musheno,
1986). Specifically, we inquire as to whether operational units differ
organizationally with regard to ( 1 ) the incentives offered to correctional
officers and supervisors to engage in the training regimen (Balch, 1980 : 42-51 ;
Brigham and Brown, 1980; Aaronson, et al., 1978), (2) their capacity to

---

176
handle in-service training regimens (Montjoy and O’Toole, 1979), and (3) the
commitments among workers and supervisors to the training component of
the reform effort (Palumbo, et al., 1984; Pettigrew, 1979).
Research Setting and Methods
From 1981 to 1983, a research team from a western university combined
with that state’s correctional administration to develop a new in-service
training regimen for correctional officers. The development of this program
was part of a larger effort to professionalize the workplace and improve
inmate services as required under an agreement reached with the federal
courts (see Jurik & Musheno, 1986). As an innovation, the training regimen
consisted of a set of video modules focusing on inmate services (e.g., inmate
grievance procedure) and professional conduct (e.g., discretionary
judgment). The modules were geared toward group or self-administered in-
service training of line correctional officers.
To study the diffusion of the new training regimen, three modules were
introduced under controlled conditions in a medium-minimum security
institution in the western DOC. The facility was relatively new (two years old)
and represented the &dquo;showcase&dquo; institution of the reform-oriented
administration (see Jurik and Musheno, 1986, for further explanation). Each
of the three units of the facility (two medium security: Medium East and
Medium West; one minimum security: Minimum) had training coordinators
who were responsible for overseeing the administration of the training
modules. The facility also housed a correctional training unit responsible for
the initial training of new recruits (Complex Training). In short, this facility
had the greatest capacity among the state’s institutions to diffuse the new
training regimen.
The research strategy used in this analysis draws upon the literature on the
diffusion of innovations (Palumbo, et al. 1984; Rice and Rogers, 1980;
Rogers, 1978). Specifically, we focus on the diffusion or use of the training
modules in each operational unit and assume, from the outset, that
implementation may be different rather than uniform among the operational
units. In our effort to identify levels of comprehension and use of the module
materials among correctional officers, we employ methods which also allow
us to determine whether operational personnel modify use of the training
modules in ways unanticipated by those who initiated the new training
program.
Specifically, we combine, or triangulate, qualitative and quantitative
methods to analyze the diffusion of the training modules (see Jick, 1979).
Triangulation refers to the use of multiple indicators and mixed methods to
improve the overall construct validity of policy inquiry (see Jick, 1979; Cook,
1985; Denzin, 1978). Within-method triangulation is common in policy
inquiry and refers to the use of multiple indicators from the same instrument
to validate claims about activities and outcomes. Between-method
triangulation refers to various ways of combining different methods to
further improve construct validity. We employ both within-method and

---

177
between-method triangulation by using a combination of survey, formal and
informal interviews, and direct observation to study whether, and how, the
organization incorporated the policy reform.
As one measure of the degree to which the modules were implemented, we
collected quantitative data on correctional Service Officer’s (CSOs)
knowledge of policies and procedures addressed in the modules. Given the
educational nature of the reform, we regard this measure as appropriate
(Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, and Hall, 1987; Hall and Loucks, 1977).
To ascertain how the knowledge levels were affected by the viewing of tapes,
we administered a survey to 40 CSOs who saw one or more of the three
training modules...