ABSTRACT

Correctional staff behavior can impact inmates’ perceptions of procedural justice and facilitate incidents of prison misconduct and violence. This analysis showed findings gathered from 136 female inmates incarcerated in a state correctional system. This exploratory analysis examined inmates’ self-reported responses about direct experiences, perceptions, and interactions with correctional officers. Findings from 19 Likert-scale items highlighted inmates’ encounters with correctional officers; however, results shown here focused on findings uncovered from a content analysis performed on inmates’ written comments to an open-ended item. The emerging themes portrayed correctional officers as disrespectful, indifferent, misusing authority, and dehumanizing. Keywords: female, inmates, officers, procedural justice

There are challenges associated with practicing procedural justice in prison. According to Blader and Tyler (2003, as cited in Barkworth, 2021, p. 65), procedural justice is the perceived fairness of the treatment received and the procedures used during decision-making. A prison environment is complex, and the responsibility for demonstrating procedural justice for all inmates is shared equally among all correctional staff.  Correctional officers, however, are placed in a challenging position as their job requires them to maintain order, instill punitive measures when necessary, and ensure the safety and security of all, while maintaining a good rapport with inmates (Abdel-Salam et al., 2023; Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). Such rapport allowed correctional officers to learn about issues and concerns related to institutional operations, thus establishing a line of communication between the inmates and prison administrators (Abdel-Salam & Sunde, 2018), and further developing procedural justice within correctional facilities.

Procedural justice has been developing within the criminal justice field and has recently gained attention in the correctional world, specifically prisons. According to Tyler (2003), four key elements pertain to the theoretical concept of procedural justice, they are voice, neutrality, treatment with respect and courtesy, and trust in authorities. These four key elements can be viewed through a correctional lens. Voice allows prisoners to state their case and participate in the processes that affect their time in custody (Tyler, 2010, as cited in Barkworth, 2021, p. 66). Regarding neutrality, correctional officers are unbiased and consistent while applying the rules and making decisions (Barkworth, 2021, p. 66). Correctional staff demonstrate respect for and courtesy to prisoners by treating them humanely, equally, and professionally (Barkworth, 2021, p. 66). The fourth and final element, trustworthiness, indicates that authority figures (i.e., correctional officers) demonstrate they are acting in the best interest of the people they supervise (Tyler, 2007, as cited in Barkworth, 2021, p. 66) by acknowledging their well-being, which elicits overall compliance (Boeckmann & Tyler, 2002, as cited in Barkworth, 2021, p. 66). Previous research has examined the complex role of correctional officers and inmates' reactions and perceptions towards them. Working and living in prison can be stressful for correctional staff (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Goulette et al., 2022) and inmates, including the threat of inmate-on-inmate violence and inmate-on-staff violence (Western, 2018). Goulette et al. (2022) showed that correctional officers believed that their work-related injuries (physical or emotional) stemmed from situations within their control (i.e., complacency, corruption) and outside of their control (i.e., nature of the job, inmate mental health and minor incidents escalating).

Constant exposure to a challenging and anti-social environment could impact how correctional officers treat inmates. Walters (2022) showed that weak administrative support had a stronger impact on correctional officers’ emotional and psychological well-being and attitudes than did inmates’ actions and misbehavior, which may suggest correctional officers actively seek procedural justice from their superiors in the same manner that inmates do from correctional staff. Implementing fairness, equity, and respect within the prison among all parties, including inmates, staff, and administrators, could bring about positive changes in the prison environment, improve morale, and reduce the number of incidents of violent behavior.    

Female Inmates

Female inmates may best benefit from an improved working relationship with correctional staff, especially correctional officers. Male and female inmates share similar experiences before entering prison (Tangney et al., 2012). Research shows, however, that female inmates more often experienced sexual and physical abuse (Ney et al., 2012; Sanders, 2021; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2020; Wolf et al., 2006) and were more involved in staff-perpetrated sexual assaults while incarcerated (Fedock et al., 2021), including being victimized by correctional officers (Horvath, 2018; Sisak & Balsamo, 2022; Thompson, 2016). For example, Marcius (2020) reported that correctional officers at four different prisons in New York sexually assaulted female inmates and later tried to cover up each other’s misconduct. Calhoun and Coleman (2008) showed that female inmates believed correctional officers’ abuse of power contributed to staff-inmate sexual contact.

Previous research also has revealed differences between the attitudes and behaviors of correctional officers and other correctional staff. For example, correctional officers showed less empathy for inmates (Larivière & Robinson, 1996; Pittaro, 2020; Shannon & Page, 2014) and less support towards prison programming than other correctional staff (Antonio & Young, 2011; Young & Antonio, 2009). This may be because correctional officers are supposed to keep a facility safe; in this sense, discipline trumps kindness, empathy, and compassion (Mastrorilli, 2014). Overall, if inmates perceived the correctional officers as uncaring, apathetic, and disrespectful, there could be negative consequences, including violent outbursts, especially among female inmates.

Many female inmates have traumatic pasts, and those who need trauma-informed care could relive previous experiences of abuse by being mistreated while in prison. If triggered, a female inmate could act out physically or verbally (Schoenly, 2011), and those with histories of abuse are also more susceptible to being involved in coercive and dangerous situations (Veysey et al., 1998). Research about the treatment needs of female inmates suggests trauma-informed care should address several critical areas, including empowerment, voice, and choice; collaboration and mutuality; physical and psychological safety; trustworthiness and transparency (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014, as cited in Park, 2022). Female inmates, who experienced negative interactions while in prison, had increased criminal behavior post-release (Johnson-Listwan et al., 2013; LaCourse et al., 2019) and an increased fear of future revictimization (O’Donnell & Edgar, 1999). It is important for female inmates that correctional officers be properly trained in practicing trauma-informed care and how to properly de-escalate a situation without using force or disrespectful tactics.

The demeanor of correctional officers may have a detrimental impact on female inmates’ therapeutic process in prison and their overall well-being. Many inmates often feel devalued and rejected because of their past experiences (Butler & Drake, 2007), so disrespectful behavior from correctional officers may contribute to personal frustration and involvement in incidents of prison violence (Butler & Maruna, 2009) and anger (Ryan & Bergin, 2022). Inmates who are exposed to prison violence may react by evoking a survival instinct, a need to protect oneself, and/or perceive prison life with a “warlike” mentality (Novisky & Peralta, 2020).

Those who act out often receive disciplinary infractions, restrictions, and/or solitary confinement (Cowan, 2019). Shapiro et al. (2018) discovered that in Illinois, a female inmate was written up and sent to solitary confinement for “reckless eyeballing” and making a face and that female inmates were getting disciplined two to three times more often than male inmates for being disrespectful, making derogatory comments, and being disruptive. Restrictive confinement was shown to contribute to and worsen female inmates’ prison behavior, including assaultive misconduct and institutional resistance, such as filing grievances (Butler, 2022). 

Adherence to issues of procedural justice may facilitate changes in how staff and inmates interact with one another. Previous research indicated that all correctional staff are responsible for “promoting a good social environment, modeling positive behavior, and correcting inappropriate behavior when it occurs in a prison.” Practicing respect, treating others fairly, and showing an understanding of the effects of past traumatic experiences, may improve the working relationship between inmates and correctional staff (Tyler, 2010) and increase inmate compliance with prison rules and regulations (Lumb & Metz, 2011; Trammell et al., 2018). Also, inmates reported having deeper respect for correctional officers who did not demonstrate a moral superiority over them (Halsey & Deegan, 2017) and for those staff who aided their recovery efforts and supported their participation in prison programming (Hulley et al., 2011).  Overall, mutual respect between inmates and staff contributes to improved attitudes and feelings about being cared for while incarcerated (Crawley, 2011; Ryan & Bergin, 2022; Scott, 2011; Tait, 2011) and will encourage correctional officers to continue developing tactics that augment this while engaging with inmates (Bender, 2023). While there are obvious benefits for treating inmates with respect and fairness, when perceptions of procedural justice are in question, problems may occur. Indeed, disrespecting inmates can create an adversarial environment and a belief that the staff does not care about or take their needs seriously (Hulley et al., 2011). Perceived disrespect, unfairness, and injustice can cause inmates to have unfavorable attitudes toward correctional staff, which can affect the overall stability of the prison. Inmates may start to question the legitimacy of the institution’s rules and not follow them, they may act out in verbal or physical ways, and incidents of prison violence may increase (Trammell et al., 2018). It is worth noting that procedural justice and inmates’ compliance can depend on each other and affect the perceptions and treatment within their working relationship (Ryan & Bergin, 2022). The present research focuses and expands on these issues by examining female inmates’ perceptions of procedural justice in a state correctional system.

Present Analysis

In 2019, an exploratory study about procedural justice issues was conducted with male and female inmates from a state correctional system. The study gathered self-reported responses from inmates about their experiences, perceptions, and interactions with prison staff (including correctional counselors, correctional officers, treatment staff, and unit managers) (Antonio & Price, 2021; Antonio & Price, 2020). A questionnaire containing closed-ended items was created but allowed inmates to provide open-ended responses about their contact with staff. The focus of the present analysis is to show how female inmates reacted to the correctional officers employed in the prisons where they were incarcerated. Findings uncovered in this study may be used to 1) improve the working relationship between correctional officers and female inmates, and 2) reduce incidents of violent behavior and misconduct occurring in the prisons throughout the state correctional system. The following research questions were addressed: 

1. How satisfied were female inmates with correctional officers based on Likert-scale items that assessed their personal experiences, perceptions, and interactions? 

2. What themes emerged from a content analysis of female inmates’ written responses about correctional officers? 

Method

Sample

Female inmates from two separate prisons were sampled from a single state correctional system during this study. The selection of the inmate sample was based on several factors. For example, inmates were considered eligible to participate in the study, if they: 1) comprised the general population of the prison, 2) were incarcerated for a minimum of six months before the study, and 3) were assessed at a 6^th-grade reading level or higher determined by a standard reading assessment used with prison inmates. These criteria were used to randomly select (simple random sampling) inmates who would receive a paper-and-pencil, self-administered questionnaire about their experiences, perceptions, and interactions with prison staff. In total, 319 female inmates from the two prisons were selected for the study. Overall, 136 inmates voluntarily completed the questionnaire. This corresponded with a 42.6 percent response rate. 

Instrument

A self-administered questionnaire was created to gather data on procedural justice issues in prison. This question was referred to as the Prison Culture Questionnaire (PCQ). It was constructed after a thorough review of published research findings about the impact that staff behavior and attitudes could have on the prison environment (Beijersbergen et al., 2015; Molleman & Van Der Broek, 2014; Skeem et al., 2007). The PCQ allowed inmates to provide their prison identification number, although they were not required. If provided, the identification number was used to access information from the state correctional system about an individual inmate's demographics, social background, and criminal history. Overall, 118 of the 136 female respondents chose to provide their inmate identification information. 

The full PCQ was comprised of five sections. Four sections inquired about inmates’ experiences, perceptions, and interactions with prison staff. The four main positions examined included: 1) correctional officers, 2) treatment staff, 3) correctional counselors, and 4) unit managers. Overall, 19 closed-ended items were addressed in each section. The response set was organized in a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree). A fifth section of the survey contained nine questions and inquired about prison safety and security issues. All five sections of the PCQ ended with an open-ended item (“Other: please explain”). Before data collection began, the PCQ items were reviewed, and the appropriate academic and state correctional review boards approved the study. 

Procedures and Analysis

A paper copy of the PCQ and an envelope were sent to each inmate randomly selected to participate in the study. The research office associated with the state correctional system, where the data was collected, identified a contact person in each of the prisons to coordinate distributing the questionnaire and collecting the sealed envelopes after each inmate completed the instrument. 

The PCQ provided background information and specific instructions for the respondent. The first page of the instrument described the study. It informed the inmate that completing the survey was voluntary, all responses would be held in confidence, and that participation would not impact their release status, standing in prison, and/or access to prison programming or other prison services. Respondents were instructed to answer each item on the PCQ honestly, then insert the completed questionnaire into the provided envelope and seal it before returning it to the same prison contact person who gave it to them. On average, respondents completed the PCQ in approximately 20-30 minutes. 

Data collection occurred over six weeks during the Spring of 2019. The prison contact person stored the completed surveys and forwarded all the sealed envelopes to the state research office. Next, the sealed envelopes were forwarded to an independent researcher to encode and analyze the responses. All responses to the 19 closed-ended, Likert-scale items were encoded into an IBM SPSS (version 24) database by undergraduate and graduate research assistants. Written responses to the open-ended items, that were present in each section of the PCQ were transcribed into SPSS exactly as they were recorded on the instrument. In the final analysis and reporting of findings, minor editorial changes were made to punctuation, capitalization, and spelling errors. Also, to protect the confidentiality of individual prison staff and inmate respondents alike, all comments that mentioned staff by name or the institution where they were incarcerated were edited, and “XXX” was inserted. 

The analysis shown here will highlight the main findings from the Likert-scale items (descriptive statistics); however, the current analysis will provide detailed findings from the written comments that inmates provided to the open-ended item (Other: Please explain) about their experiences, perceptions, and interactions with correctional officers. In this study, the classification correctional officer was defined as prison staff with one job title: Correctional Officers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or Officers in Training. 

Inmates’ written comments were analyzed using established content analysis techniques (Holsti, 1969). The first step was to review each comment thoroughly and identify the broad theme(s) described. Next, the broad comments were classified into specific themes and further defined. Reviewers re-examined each comment and coded the response into categories and subcategories using the objective criteria established.

Results

This study gathered self-reported responses from female inmates incarcerated in a state correctional system. Overall, 136 inmates completed the PCQ about procedural justice issues and correctional officers. The social background characteristics of the sample were as follows: 62.6% identified as White, 34.6% Black, and 2.8% Hispanic; 51.6% earned a GED, 44.0% a high school diploma, and 4.4% had post-secondary education; the average age was 41.9 years; and 51.4% were never diagnosed with a mental health condition or did not have an active mental health condition at the time of the study. Regarding criminal background characteristics, female inmates were incarcerated for an average of over four years (52.3 months); 16.9% were serving a life sentence; and close to three-quarters were incarcerated for a violent offense (70.1%).   

Table 2 addresses the first research question and reports findings from the 19 closed-ended, Likert-scale items about female inmates’ experiences, perceptions, and interactions with correctional officers. As shown in the table, the mode (most frequent response) was a four on only five of the 19 items, while the median ranged from three to four on these items. A value of four on the five-point scale indicated inmates “agreed” with the statement related to correctional officers, while a value of three indicated a “neutral” response. As shown in the table, most inmates from the state correctional system agreed that correctional officers treated them fairly (median = 4; mode = 4), exercised minimal levels of force (median = 4; mode = 4), communicated commands clearly (median = 3; mode = 3 & 4), treated them with respect (median = 3; mode = 4), and were concerned with their physical safety (median = 3; mode = 4).

For 10 of the 19 items, the median and modal response provided by inmates was three (“neutral”). Specifically, inmates neither showed levels of agreement nor disagreement that correctional officers were polite, showed compassion, were interested in listening to concerns, were good at reducing conflict, had a good working relationship with them, followed prison policies or protocols, were good roles models, explained reasons for writing a disciplinary infraction, earned their respect, or were helpful. For two other items, the mode was three (“neutral”), but the median was two (“disagree”). These findings showed that female inmates did not believe correctional officers understood that living in prison was stressful or that they valued inmates as human beings. 

Finally, for the remaining two items, both the mean and modal responses were two (“disagree”). Female inmates disagreed that correctional officers were consistent when enforcing rules, and they disagreed that correctional officers cared about how their behavior impacted inmates. Overall, findings uncovered for 14 of the 19 items about procedural justice in prisons suggest that female inmates had poor, unfavorable, and/or unmarkable experiences, perceptions, and interactions with correctional officers. 

Correctional Officers...

Q1: treat me fairly, Q2: exercise minimal levels of force with me, Q3: communicate commands clearly, Q4: treat me with respect, Q5: are concerned with my physical safety, Q6: are polite when talking to me, Q7: show me compassion, Q8: are interested in listening to my concerns, Q9: are good at reducing conflict, Q10: have a good working relationship with inmates, Q11: follow official prison policies/protocols, Q12: are good role models, Q13: explain their reasons for writing a disciplinary infraction, Q14: have earned my respect, Q15: are helpful to me, Q16: understand living in prison is stressful, Q17: see me as a valuable human being, Q18: are consistent when enforcing rules, Q19: care about how their behavior impacts me.

Findings from the Likert-scale items provided one means for assessing female inmates’ perceptions of correctional staff. The focus of the present analysis is not the female inmates’ responses to the closed-ended statements; however, the main purpose here is to highlight their written responses on the PCQ about correctional officers. Overall, 44.1% (60/136) of the female inmates who completed the PCQ chose to write additional comments about correctional officers.

Table 3 addresses the second research question about female inmates’ written comments and reveals four main themes uncovered from a content analysis. These themes relate to the four key elements of Tyler’s (1990, as cited in Barkworth, 2021, p. 66) procedural justice model mentioned previously.

An individual response may have been coded into multiple themes depending on what was written. As can be seen in Table 3, 41.7% of female inmates’ commented that correctional officers showed them disrespect in prison (“COs are demeaning and disrespectful…”), 28.3% described correctional officers as being indifferent (“You got good officers and not so good…”), 23.3% mentioned correctional officers misused or abused their authority (“…change the rules every shift, every officer, supervisors, do not care…”), and 20.0% reported correctional officers treated them in a manner that was dehumanizing (“…We are treated like animals…”).

Every open-ended response that a female inmate provided on the PCQ was thoroughly reviewed and coded into main themes and subthemes. The following analysis was developed from the qualitative, written responses. When compiling these comments, the most comprehensive responses were used to understand better female inmates’ experiences, perceptions, and interactions with correctional officers. 

Good Officers and Not So Good

Female inmates were candid in their responses about correctional officers. One inmate commented, “I do have daily interaction with them and because I am a quiet-respectful inmate, but I have no issues of any kind with any officers Sgt., Lt., Major, etc. [sic].” One inmate favorably reflected on her time in prison and the “tough love” approach she received from correctional officers: “I am currently incarcerated for third-degree murder. The first few years of me being here, I assumed the victim’s stance . . . At no point did the correctional officers co-sign my mess. Instead, they would encourage me to take advantage of this time to reflect and better myself.”

The reactions these inmates provided were by no means the typical response. While many inmates mentioned interacting with respectable correctional officers, they also added clear caveats that problematic officers were present in prison. One inmate wrote, “When dealing with COs, they all are different, but for the most part they are fair, but you do have some that's not, but with me, they all give me respect, and I respect them,” while another mentioned, “There are some very positive correctional officers, and there are some very racist, ignorant, and abuse their authority staff [sic].” Other female inmates added to this sentiment: “You got good officers and not so good. Some fair across the board, some bias, and some are for popularity purposes it feels like [sic]” and “Some officers are jerks, who don't belong in a women’s prison. On the whole, there are more mature and responsible officers than jerks.” 

Female inmates’ responses on the PCQ supported these comments. For example, 57.1% of female inmates agreed or strongly agreed that correctional officers treated them fairly, while 42.1% agreed or strongly agreed that the officers were polite when talking to them. Despite the finding that 40.2% of these female inmates agreed or strongly agreed officers have earned their respect, many provided written comments about mistreatment and abuse. 

Demeaning and Disrespectful 

Many female inmates wrote comments about feeling disrespected by correctional officers, for example, “[I] don't really feel like they have much, if any, respect for inmates -- don't care what we may be going through.” How inmates measured respect differed in many ways. One female inmate estimated that “80% to 90% of the correctional officers here do not respect inmates. They call females out by their names. They do not care to listen to any concerns about what is going on in our lives and just tell some people to deal with it. So how can they have compassion or care when they don't respect a person.” For many inmates, disrespectful behavior was often measured by the use of rude, dismissive, and/or abusive language (“How they talk to us inmates is very disrespectful”). One inmate commented, “I constantly hear negativity from staff. Ex: flush your head in a toilet, look in the mirror and see the pile of shit looking at you, shut up crazy, etc. Which is really alarming since this was the mental health unit.” Another inmate wrote, 

[T]he majority of COs are demeaning and disrespectful, the foul language is unprofessional and sets a bad example for how to talk to your co-workers and people under your control. COs swear all the time and at me. They call inmates names and are sarcastic. If I have to ask a CO a question, I can expect a sarcastic reply and then to be rudely dismissed. Followed by the CO bragging to his co-worker at how bad he treated me.

Other inmates associated the disrespectful and abusive language of officers as an outward sign of a lack of care. One inmate wrote, “There are a few good officers that actually care, mainly male officers, there are maybe 3 or 4 female officers that are decent, but a majority of the officers are disrespectful calling us worthless, ugly, fat, a bitch and so on,” while another observed, “I can say 30% of officers, male and female, honestly care. There's a set that constantly uses words like bitch, crack head, dope head, and whore toward inmates.” Overall, only 13.6% of female inmates either agreed or strongly agreed that correctional officers cared about how their behavior impacted them, while only 15.9% agreed or strongly agreed correctional officers were good role models.  

Another common theme that emerged from the female responses related to inconsistencies in how correctional officers performed their duties in prison (“Not all officers are consistent when running a unit”). Several inmates wrote about this: “Not all COs are consistent with rules. The men COs are more consistent than most females. As far as them all working together to become one (teamwork), that doesn't happen with them. Each one has their own rules”; “As I've explained to my friends/family on the outside -- the rules are rigid, but randomly applied. There is so much inconsistency between officers that not only are stress levels increased, but . . . safety decreases”; “Every CO is different. Just today we had a rule enforcer upstairs who cares enough to listen, though if you have a problem, and downstairs was a CO, who didn't follow any rules and yet is mean. You just never know.”  Only 23.0% of female inmates agreed or strongly agreed that correctional officers were consistent when enforcing the rules. 

New Officers are Horrible

Often female inmates observed the age of the officer played a significant factor in how rules were applied and how the staff carried him or herself. One inmate observed, “In general, I believe that the COs who have been here a long time are more consistent with enforcing procedures and policies, we, as inmates, know what to expect when they are on duty. Many inmates will try (and do) take advantage of newer officers. Then there are also officers that show favoritism, but they are far and few between the good ones [sic].”

In general, younger correctional officers were looked upon unfavorably [“The new officers they have now are horrible! The older COs who have been here for a while are great (most of them)”]. Some females believed the differences in behavior among officers were due to changes in DOC policy and training initiatives. Several inmates commented about this: “I am a long-term offender. . . I consider myself respectful to everyone. I truly believe that the COs were trained better and much more helpful in the past”; “There is a new generation of officers who are just as disrespectful as the younger inmates coming in. Part of the problem — in my view — is the training they go through by DOC to view all inmates as liars, thieves, con-artists, untrustworthy, and are told to be disrespectful towards inmates”; “The COs who have been here for over 5 yrs and more should be trained again to follow procedures too complacent, always on personal phone calls.” Only 29.2% of the female inmates agreed or strongly agreed that correctional officers followed official prison policies and protocols. 

Female inmates also observed inconsistencies in how newer versus older officers treated them. For example, one inmate wrote, “Most of the newer, trainees COs that I have encountered . . . treat other inmates disrespectfully. The older COs: Cpt, Lt, or other staff, treat inmates with respect and are almost honorable,” while another observed, “The women COs and newer COs are more disrespectful and aggressive. When it comes to our safety, its entertainment to them and they let things escalate [sic].” 

Instigate Fights

The inmate’s statement above, about letting things escalate, was also mentioned by others. Only 13.6% of female inmates agreed or strongly agreed that correctional officers were good at reducing conflict. Several respondents described officers misusing their authority and provoking inmates into acting out. One inmate wrote, 

Most of the COs don't care about us, in fact, they are very messy, talk about you to other inmates and will instigate fights, so they can see action or use their pepper spray. They look forward to it. If you get into an argument with your celly, or any other inmate, and bring it to their attention they say, “work it out your own” they won’t help you get out of the problem area, they want to see it happen.

Other female inmates commented, “Some COs are too lax, some are too strict. Either way, those are the types that actually stir up chaos. It's the COs that have found that -- professional happy medium -- that are approachable and helpful”; “A lot like to instigate fights. They pick and choose who to target and who to let get away with whatever. They seem to target people a lot.”

Not Treated as a Human Being 

Female inmates described officers as “some truly outstanding officers -- just not enough to counter the ones who act and believe we are scum”; “[They] treat us like we are cattle and talk down to us”; “very rude and talk down to me like I am trash.”  As these comments suggest, many female inmates believed correctional officers thought of them as less than human. This was one of the strongest themes that emerged from their comments about correctional officers. In only a few instances did an inmate provide a comment that countered this thinking. One inmate wrote, “I believe if you treat them with respect they will respect you, they have been very helpful over the years, and see me as a valuable human being.” In many other instances where the word “human” or phrase “human being” was used, the connotation was overly negative. 

One female inmate wrote, “Because most officers do not care about my well-being or my gender rights or treat me as a human being. Their professional demeanors are poor. I've been down for 16 years and I have seen how the officers disrespect us as women like we are nobody.” Several others commented, “I believe they see us as a number and not as human beings. Many of them refer to us as ‘convicts’"; “There are a few COs who see me as a human being and treat me respectfully, but they are the exception, not the general rule”; “Not all are willing to see us as equals, but just as an inmate, and some have even made comments about animals in cages, etc. which I don’t feel is appropriate to say to anyone this way, even if we are here serving a sentence, because we are still humans and anyone can make a mistake at any time or moment very easily.” Overall, only 15.3% of female inmates agreed or strongly agreed that correctional officers saw them as valuable human beings. 

Several inmates believed correctional officers were more motivated by money than to help a fellow human being. For example, one inmate wrote, “[They] see us as paychecks and children. COs do not see us as adult human beings. At times they may try to treat us as such, but only because it's policy,” while another observed, “Some I feel I can talk to and they will listen to me, but most really don't care and just want a paycheck. And hardly any realize that this place is stressful. They just feel like I've did a crime and should be locked up [sic].”

In summary, female inmates’ written responses reported that correctional officers showed consistent disrespect through the use of excessively abusive language and a lack of care or compassion for individuals. Many females described how staff (mostly female correctional officers compared to male officers) treated them as less than human and often sought to instigate or pick fights with the inmates. Long-term inmates observed that much of the negative and coarse behavior was displayed by younger staff members. Inmates suggested reassessing policy and training initiatives as a response to changes in staff demeanor and behavior that had noticeably declined in recent years. 

Conclusion

The duties of a correctional officer are challenging and complex, including balancing rapport building with institutional security; however, research shows that their behavior and attitudes can have a positive impact on the prison environment (Hulley et al., 2011), enhance perceptions of respect and fairness (Crawley, 2011; Halsey & Deegan, 2017; Scott, 2011; Tait, 2011; Tyler, 2010), and decrease violent outbursts and behaviors (Lumb & Metz, 2011; Trammell et al., 2018). These research findings provide evidence about the underlying principles of procedural justice theory (Barkworth, 2021). All correctional officers should know and practice such behaviors to foster and improve their relationship with inmates. 

Findings uncovered from Likert-scale items showed that overall female inmates did not have favorable experiences, perceptions, or interactions with correctional officers. Indeed, the inmates overwhelmingly “disagreed” (2) that correctional officers understood living in prison was stressful, saw them as valuable human beings, were consistent when enforcing rules, or cared about how their behavior impacted them. While these statements showed overwhelming “disagreement” among the inmates, many of the statements garnered a “neutral” (3) response when assessing the median and mode. These statements included correctional officers are polite when talking to me, show me compassion, are interested in listening to my concerns, are good at reducing conflict, have a good working relationship with inmates, follow official prison policies/protocols, are good role models, explain their reasons for writing a disciplinary infraction, have earned my respect, and are helpful to me.

Inmates’ responses to the Likert-scale items were counter to the basic principles of procedural justice. Indeed, female inmates indicated correctional officers performed poorly related to the concepts of voice, neutrality, treatment with respect and courtesy, and trust in authorities (Tyler, 2003). These findings are concerning and suggest that correctional officers, who have the most daily contact with inmates, compared to all other correctional staff, must be better monitored, and trained about issues of procedural justice and the impact that a positive prison environment can have on facilitating inmates’ treatment goals and success after release from prison. 

Female inmates overwhelmingly reported some correctional officers did not show compassion, did not listen to concerns, and did not care about the impact of their behavior. Their detailed, written responses to an open-ended item on the PCQ went beyond the Likert-scale findings. They painted a largely negative picture of their encounters with correctional officers. Themes uncovered from a content analysis of 60 female inmates’ comments portrayed correctional officers as demeaning, disrespectful, instigators, and treating inmates as less than human. Female inmates described, in vivid detail, specific situations with correctional officers that involved foul language, manipulation, intimidation, and neglect. Again, these findings contradicted the basic principles of procedural justice related to voice, bias, respect, and trust (Barkworth, 2021; Tyler, 2003).

Overall, female inmates' open and closed-ended responses suggest improvements are needed in the state correctional system. For example, prison administrators may consider further staff training initiatives about developing better coping mechanisms for family/life problems and better monitoring the use of antisocial language and behavior. Also, prison administrators may need increased oversight to identify and decrease abuse/misuse of authority. Moreover, staff should be trained about the potential life experiences and traumatic events female inmates may have experienced before their incarceration. Such events should be taken into consideration when addressing inmates’ issues, as prior life experience can impact how females react to authority figures in prison. Implementing such changes may result in strengthening relationships and measurably improving the quality of interactions between female inmates and correctional officers. 

Limitations

There were several limitations associated with this study. First, because of the restrictive nature of a prison setting and the denial of many freedoms, inmates' responses to both the open and closed-ended items may have been based, in part, on their frustration and anger, and/or were made from spite, rather than identifying true violations of procedural justice. This could account for the overt and harsh criticism observed in many inmates' written comments. Another concern was that the PCQ may not have been distributed to all the randomly selected inmates in the prison, but rather certain inmates, who were either known to or assumed to have an unfavorable attitude or experiences with correctional officers, were intentionally denied access to the questionnaire. Finally, it is possible that some inmates did not provide accurate responses out of fear of retaliation from correctional officers and/or prison administrators (e.g., reduced yard time, restrictions to prison services, extended parole dates, etc.). These concerns seem unwarranted, given the overtly negative nature of the open-ended responses. Overall, however, these limitations suggest that study findings should be interpreted cautiously.

Implications and Future Research

Findings from the Likert-scale items provided the state correctional system with much-needed information about female inmates' perceptions of procedural justice and correctional officers; however, their responses to the open-ended item provided additional and valuable insight into specific experiences and interactions that female inmates had with correctional officers. Future analyses may report themes about correctional officers generated from male inmates. These responses could be compared to those uncovered by female inmates from the same state correctional system. If different themes emerged from the analysis of the open-ended responses from male inmates, this would suggest that gender-specific training is needed to address inmates’ perceptions of correctional staff. Also, a more in-depth empirical analysis could be performed beyond the descriptive statistics. For example, a quantitative approach with a factor analysis may report findings about factor loadings and eigenvalues uncovered from the closed-ended items.

The comments shown here provided details that could not have been uncovered with the Likert-scale items alone and suggest that follow-up research endeavors on this topic may include in-depth group discussions and/or focus groups with female and male inmates. Taken collectively, the inmates' responses can be used to measure procedural justice issues inside the prison, better assess staff training needs, monitor misuse and abuse of authority, etc. Overall, addressing these issues may facilitate a reduction in incidents of prison violence and may increase compliance and pro-social behaviors among inmates themselves.

References

Abdel-Salam, S., Antonio, M. A., Bratina, M. A., & Kilmer, A. (2023). Rapport and relationship building in a therapeutic community: Examining the dynamic between correctional officers and incarcerated persons. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 34(1), 43-64.

Abdel-Salam, S., & Sunde, H. M. (2018). Enhancing the role of correctional officers in American prisons. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 31(1), 67-74.

Antonio, M. E., & Price, S. R. (2021). Experiences and interactions with treatment staff: Reactions from state prison inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 60(7), 423-443.

Antonio, M. E., & Price, S. R. (2020). Beyond correctional officers and prison guards: Understanding inmates’ perceptions, experiences, and interactions with correctional counselors. Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research, 8(1), 1-18.

Antonio, M. E., & Young, J. L. (2011). The effects of tenure on staff apathy and treatment orientation: A comparison of respondent characteristics and environmental factors. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 1-16.

Antonio, M. E., Young, J. L., & Wingeard, L. M. (2009). Reinforcing positive behavior in a prison: Whose responsibility is it? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(1), 53–66.

Armstrong, G. S., & Griffin, M. L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6), 577-592.

Barkworth, J. (2021). Procedural justice in corrections, in D. Meyerson, C. Mackenzie, & T. MacDermott (Eds.) Procedural justice and relational theory: Empirical, philosophical, and legal perspectives (pp. 63-81). Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

Beijersbergen, K., Dirkzwager, A., Molleman, T., Van Der Laan, P., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2015). Procedural justice in prison: The importance of staff characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(4), 337-358.

Bender, K. A. (2023). Incarcerated women’s perceptions of the role model prison officer as procedurally just. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 0(00), 1-18.

Bottoms, A. & Tankabe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogue approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119-170.

Butler, D. H. (2022). Understanding how in-prison experiences influence female offenders’ maladjustment to prison, Justice Quarterly, 39(1), 174-200.

Butler, M., & Drake, D. H. (2007). Reconsidering respect: Its role in Her Majesty’s Prison Service, Howard Journal, 46(2), 115-127.

Butler, M., & Maruna, S. (2009). The impact of disrespect on prisoners’ aggression: outcomes of experimentally inducing violence-supportive cognitions, Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(2-3), 235-250.

Calhoun, A. J., & Coleman, H. D. (2008). Female inmates’ perspectives on sexual abuse by correctional personnel: An exploratory study. Women & Criminal Justice, 12(2-3), 101-124.

Cowan, B. A. (2019, April). Incarcerated women: Poverty, trauma and unmet need. American Psychological Association.

Crawley, E. (2011). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. Routledge.

Fedock, G., Cummings, C., Kubiak, S., Bybee, D., Campbell, R., & Darcy, K. (2021). Incarcerated women’s experiences of staff-perpetrated rape: Racial disparities and justice gaps in institutional responses. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17-18), 8668-8692.

Goulette, N., Denney, A. S., Crow, M. S., & Ferdik, F. V. (2022). “Anything can happen at any time”: Perceived causes of correctional officer injuries. Criminal Justice Review, 47(1), 17-33.

Halsey, M., & Deegan, S. (2017). In search of generativity in prison officer work: Balancing care and control in custodial settings. The Prison Journal, 97(1), 52-78.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social structure and humanities. Addison-Wesley.

Horvath, J. (2018, Sept 20). Official blames Pa. AG for county’s $500K legal bill over prison probe. The Times-Tribune.  

Hulley, S., Liebling, L., & Crewe, B. (2011). Respect in prisons: Prisoners’ experiences of respect in public and private sector prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12(1), 3-23.

Johnson-Listwan, S. J., Sullivan, C. J., Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., & Colvin, M. (2013). The pains of imprisonment revisited: The impact of strain on inmate recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 30(1), 144-168.

LaCourse, A., Johnson-Listwan, S., Reid, S., & Hartman, J. L. (2019). Recidivism and reentry: The role of individual coping styles. Crime & Delinquency, 65(1), 46-68.

Larivière, M., & Robinson, D. (1996, February). Attitudes of federal correctional officers towards offenders (CSC Research Report No. R-44). Correctional Service of Canada.

Lumb, R., & Metz, G. (2011). Crime, incarceration, and programming: The bottom line. American Jails, 25(1), 21-29.

Marcius, C. R. (2020, Feb 16). Lawsuit: NY Cos sexually assaulted female inmates. New York Daily News.

Mastrorilli, M. E. (2014). Putting “care” into care, custody and control. Corrections Today, 76(5), 20-22.

Ney, B., Ramirez, R., & Van Dieten, M. (2012). Ten truths that matter when working with justice involved women. National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women. h

Novisky, M. A. & Peralta, R. L. (2020). Gladiator School: Returning citizens’ experiences with secondary violence exposure in prison. Victims & Offenders, 15(5), 594-618.

O’Donnell, I., & Edgar, K. (1999). Fear in prison. The Prison Journal, 79(1), 90-99.

Park, Y. (2022, May/June). Addressing trauma in women’s prisons. Corrections Today, (12-16).

Pittaro, M. (2020, March 24). Correctional officers and compassion fatigue. Psychology Today.

Ryan, C., & Bergin, M. (2022). Procedural justice and legitimacy in prisons: A review of extant empirical literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(2), 143-163.

Sanders, K. (2021, July 1). Woman abuse survivors sent to prison for self-defense. Prison Legal News.

Schoenly, L. (2011, April 19). Help control inmates through better understanding. Corrections1.

Scott, D. (2011). That’s not my name: Prisoner deference and disciplinarian prison officers. Criminal Justice Matters, 84(1), 8-9.

Shannon, S. K., & Page, J., (2014). Bureaucrats on the cell block: Prison officers’ perceptions of work environment and attitudes toward prisoners. Social Service Review, 88(4), 630-657.

Shiparo, J., Pupovac, J., & Lydersen, K. (2018, Oct 15). In prison, discipline comes down hardest on women. NPR.

Sisak, M. R., & Balsamo, M. (2022, Sept 1). Chaplain who sexually abused inmates gets 7 years in prison. Associated Press.

Skeem, J., Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397-410.  

Tait, S. (2011). A typology of prison officer approaches to care. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 440-454.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., Furukawa, E., Kopelovich, S., Meyer, P. J., & Cosby, B. (2012). Reliability, validity, and predictive utility of the 25-Item Criminogenic Cognitions Scale (CCS). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1340-1360.

Thompson, D. (2016, Aug 5). 2 Calif. Wardens retire amid allegations of prison abuse. Associated Press.

Trammell, R., Cook A. R., Deleon Marquez, M. V., Hinkle, P., Protze, L. M., & Rodriguez, N. (2018). From procedural justice to procedural injustice: Understanding prison staff and inmate conflict. The Howard Journal, 57(4), 537-555.

Tyler T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357.

Tyler, T. R. (2010). Legitimacy in corrections’ policy implications. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(1): 127-134.

Walters, G. (2022). Getting to the source: How inmates and other staff contribute to correctional officer stress. Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(1), 73-86.

Western, B. (2018). Homeward: Life in the year after prison. Russell Sage Foundation.

Wolf, N., Blitz, C. L., Shi, J., Bachman, R., & Siegel, J. A. (2006).  Sexual violence inside prisons: Rates of victimization. Journal of Urban Health, 83(5), 835-848.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (February 2020). Women in prison: Seeking justice behind bars. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2020/02-26-Women-in-Prison.pdf

Veysey, B. M., De Cou, K., & Prescott, L. (1998, May/June). Effective management of female jail detainees with histories of physical and sexual abuse. American Jails, 12(2), 50-54.

Young, J. L., Antonio, M. E., & Wingeard, L. M. (2009). How staff attitude and support for inmate treatment and rehabilitation differs by job category: An evaluation of finding from Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections’ employee training curriculum reinforcing positive behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 435-441.

Contributors

Dr. Michael E. Antonio is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He served as the Lead Research Scientist and Evaluation Manager for Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections and Pennsylvania’s Board of Probation & Parole. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology (Ursinus College) and Ph.D. in Law, Policy, and Society (Northeastern University).

Selena R. Price is currently a Lecturer of Criminal Justice at the Pennsylvania State University, DuBois campus. She has over 20 years of experience in the criminal justice field as a police officer, parole and probation agent, legal clerk, and agent specializing in fraud investigations. She earned her Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts in Administration of Justice and Criminal Justice at the Pennsylvania State University.

Dr. Cassandra L. Reyes is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. She has approximately 13 years of experience in the criminal justice field working as a probation and senior parole officer-bilingual, a correctional officer, and a police dispatcher. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Spanish and Criminology, along with her Master of Arts and Ph.D. in Criminology at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania.