Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Prison Staff on Inmate Conditions: A Multilevel Approach to Staff and Inmate Surveys

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study connects survey data of inmates and correctional staff in the Dutch prison system in order to describe and explain the impact of staff orientation and staff working conditions on perceived prison circumstances of inmates. Importation and deprivation theory are combined to test an integrated model to explain perceived prison conditions. By surveying staff (N = 1750) and inmates (N = 4673) independently within the same period of time and by afterwards pairing the results on the level of the housing unit (N = 173) using multilevel techniques, it is found that inmates´ perceptions of the prison conditions vary considerably between housing units. It is also found that staff’s perceptions of prison conditions show congruency with those of inmates. Another important finding is that in housing units where the orientation of staff towards inmates is relatively supportive, inmates perceive their circumstances as more positive. Conclusions and directions for further research are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is possible that inmate perceptions collected in a survey do not exactly reflect the actual situation in a prison facility. Results that are based on self-report data obtained from offenders can be susceptible to deception. It is argued that offenders possibly lie, fake assumptions, and cannot be trusted (Camp 1999; Mills et al. 2003; Kroner and Loza 2001). However, inmates agree on their assessment of the prison conditions since they answer in a systematic fashion (Camp 1999). Paulhus (1984) distinguishes two ‘natures’ of social desirability in answering (survey) questions, namely self-deception and impression management. As we investigate perceived conditions, we do not expect favourable representations by inmates.

  2. We used the variable cultural background since country of birth is not sensitive to second- and third-generation migrants. Cultural background: We put together missing background and other cultural background, since we assumed that respondents with other or mixed cultural backgrounds have difficulties in answering this question.

  3. The scales directive leadership and entrusting leadership are measures of the attitude of a staff member towards his or her direct supervisor.

  4. Participation in the surveys took place on the basis of voluntariness and anonymity. Questionnaires for inmates were distributed in each prison cell before locking the doors at night and collected the day after. No rewards were given for filling them out. The inmate survey was available in eight languages. Staff questionnaires were filled out and collected during team meetings, in absence of the staff’s superior. Staff who were pregnant or ill were sent a questionnaire to their homes.

  5. Units with less than five responding inmates were also excluded.

  6. Unlike prisons in some other countries, prison staff in the Netherlands is consistently placed inside housing units and does not substantially rotate. Therefore, the housing unit is an appropriate level of analysis.

  7. The coefficients are not notably substantial. Plausibly, this is partly due to the slightly different questions in the survey instruments on the topics.

  8. In the Netherlands, the average time an inmate is incarcerated is about 3.5 months.

References

  • Arnold, H., Liebling, A., & Tait, S. (2008). Prison Officers and Prison Culture. In Y. Jewkins (Ed.), Handbook on Prisons. Uffculme: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating Leadership Styles and Ethical Perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 244–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales, W. D., Bedard, L. E., Quinn, S. T., Ensley, D. T., & Holley, G. P. (2005). Recidivism of Public and Private State Prison Inmates in Florida. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(10), 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biessen, P. G. A. (1992). Oog Voor de Menselijke Factor; Achtergrond, Constructie en Validering van de Basisvragenlijst Amsterdam. [Having an eye for the Human Factor; Backgrounds, Construction and Validation of the Basic Questionnaire of Amsterdam]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biessen, P. G. A., & De Gilder, D. (1993). BASAM: Basisvragenlijst Amsterdam: Handleiding [Manual BASAM Questionnaire]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilby, C. (2008). Does it Really Matter What Offenders Think? The Importance of Uncovering offenders’ Experiences in Prison and on Probation. Prison Service Journal, 177, 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birgden, A. (2004). Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Responsivity: Finding the Will and the way in Offender Rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. E. (1999). Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in Prisons. Crime & Justice, 26, 205–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camp, S. D. (1999). Do Inmate Survey Data Reflect Prison Conditions? Using Surveys to Assess Prison Conditions of Confinement. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 250–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Klein-Saffran, J., Daggett, D. M., & Saylor, W. G. (2002). Using Inmate Survey Data in Assessing Prison Performance: A Case Study Comparing Private and Public Prisons. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 26–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Langan, N. P., & Saylor, W. G. (2003). The Influence of Prisons on Inmate Misconduct: A Multilevel Investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 501–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, L., Zhao, J., & Van Dine, S. (1997). Prison Disciplinary Tickets: A Test of the Deprivation and Importation Models. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheeseman, K. E., Mullings, J. L., & Marquart, J. W. (2001). Inmate Perceptions of Security Staff Across Various Custody Levels. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemmer, D. (1940). The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. C. (2004). Rehabilitation Versus Control: An Organizational Theory of Prison Management. The Prison Journal, 84(4), 92S–114S.

    Google Scholar 

  • DJI [Dutch Correctional Agency] (2004). Gedetineerd in Nederland 2004. [Being remanded in the Netherlands 2004]: The Hague.

  • DiIulio, J. (1987). Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, M. A. (1999). Correctional Officer Attitudes Toward Inmates and Working with Inmates in a “get Tough” era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(6), 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, D., & Sheppard, M. (2006). Assessing the Role of Neuropsychological Functioning in Inmates’ Treatment Response. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

  • Gaes, G. G., Camp, S. D., Nelson, J. B., & Saylor, W. G. (2004). Measuring Prison Performance, Government Privatization & Accountability. Walnut Creek, California: Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and Modern Society: a Study in Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting Prison Misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harer, M., & Steffensmeier, D. (1996). Race and Prison Violence. Criminology, 34, 323–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. K. (2001). Correctional Staff Attitudes Regarding the use of Force in Corrections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, G. S., & Dear, G. E. (2000). Prisoners’ Perceptions of Prison Officers as Sources of Support. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31(1/2), 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochstedler, A., & DeLisi, M. (2005). Importation, Deprivation, and Varieties of Serving Time: An Integrated-Lifestyle-Exposure Model of Prison Offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel Analysis, Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huey Dye, M. (2010). Deprivation, Importation, and Prison Suicide: Combined Effects of Institutional Conditions and Inmate Composition. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 796–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. (1962). Thieves, Convicts, and the Inmate Culture. Social Problems, 10, 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroner, D. G., & Loza, W. (2001). Evidence for the Efficacy of Self-Report in Predicting non-Violent and Violent Criminal Recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(2), 168–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebling, A. (2000). Prison Officers, Policing and the use of Discretion. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 333–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2004). Prisons and Their Moral Performance. A Study of Values, Quality, and Prison Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebling, A., Durie, L., Stiles, A., & Tait, S. (2005). Revisiting Prison Suicide: The Role of Fairness and Distress. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The Effects of Imprisonment. Uffculme: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, C. H., & Lindquist, C. A. (1997). Gender Differences in Distress: Mental Health Consequences of Environmental Stress Among Jail Inmates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15(4), 503–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle, R. C., Miethe, T. D., & Drass, K. (1995). The Roots of Prison Violence: A Test of the Deprivation, Management, and “not-so-Total” Institutional Models. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J. F., Loza, W., & Kroner, D. G. (2003). Predictive Validity Despite Social Desirability: Evidence for the Robustness of Self-Report Among Offenders. Criminal behavior and Mental Health, 13, 140–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, T. (2008). Psychometric quality of and the links between the detainee survey and the BASAM-DJI. Cahier 2008–5, Den Haag: WODC.

  • Nacci, P. L., & Kane, T. R. (1984). Sex and Sexual Aggression in Federal Prisons. Federal Probation, 48, 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership, Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterline, A. P., & Petersen, D. M. (1999). Structural and Social Psychological Determinants of Prisonization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(5), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson-Badali, M., & Koegl, C. J. (2002). Juveniles’ Experiences of Incarceration, the Role of Correctional Staff in Peer Violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisig, M. D. (2002). Administrative Control and Inmate Homicide. Homicide studies, 6(1), 84–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisig, M. D., & Lovrich, N. P. (1998). Job Attitudes Among Higher-Custody State Prison Management Personnel: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(3), 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisig, M. D., & Mesko, G. (2009). Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Prisoner Misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(1), 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, J. (1985). Consistency of Rule Application to Inmates in Long-Term Treatment Institutions. Social Science & Medicine, 20, 247–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel Analysis, An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modelling. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, A. L., & Sharp, S. F. (2008). Inmate Recidivism as a Measure of Private Prison Performance. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 482–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, B. (2009). Assessing Static and Dynamic Influences on Inmate Violence Levels. Crime & Delinquency, 55(1), 134–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Inmate Versus Environmental Effect on Prison Rule Violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohr, M. K., Lovrich, N. P., Menke, B. A., & Zupan, L. L. (1994). Staff Management in Correctional Institutions: Comparing DiIulio's “Control Model” and “Employee Investment Model” Outcomes in Five Jails. Justice Quarterly, 11(3), 471–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. M. (1958). The Society of Captives: a Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2008). Correctional Orientations of Prison Staff. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 207–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Useem, B., & Reisig, M. D. (1999). Collective Action in Prisons: Protests, Disturbances, and Riots. Criminology, 37(4), 735–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuolo, M., & Kruttschnitt, C. (2008). Prisoners’ Adjustment, Correctional Officers, and Context: The Foreground and Background of Punishment in Late Modernity. Law & Society Review, 42(2), 307–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, K. N. (1985). Developing the Prison Environment Inventory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(3), 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, K. N. (1991). A Study of Individual, Environmental, and Interactive Effects in Explaining Adjustment to Prison. Justice Quarterly, 8(2), 217–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry of Security and Justice, WODC, Terminal Noord, room 3-G03, Postbus 20301, 2500 EH, Den Haag, the Netherlands

    Toon Molleman

  2. Maastricht University, Maastricht & WODC, Den Haag, the Netherlands

    Frans L. Leeuw

Authors
  1. Toon Molleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frans L. Leeuw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toon Molleman.

Additional information

Authors’ Note

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors only and do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice. The authors appreciate the continuous support of the Dutch Prison Agency and thank the reviewers for useful comments. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to T. Molleman via e-mail: t.molleman@minjus.nl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Molleman, T., Leeuw, F.L. The Influence of Prison Staff on Inmate Conditions: A Multilevel Approach to Staff and Inmate Surveys. Eur J Crim Policy Res 18, 217–233 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9158-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9158-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation