History
The nature of the work of correction officers within the American prison system is highly misunderstood. The actual responsibilities of the different sections within the prison department overlap. There is no clear-cut rule on the nature of the work or the roles these officers play in inmates’ lives (“Evolving Duties of a Correctional Officer,” 2016). The confinement setting is typically a place of violence subjugated behind the walls of the institutions. However, there’s a stream of information that enlightens the general public about prison brutality. Historical analysis has unearthed data about the transition of the prisons and their context since the 19th century (“Corrections Officers,” 2016). The perspective on the purpose of prisons and their roles are equally shifting with increasingly complex expectations. Thus, the custodians are required to be strict and authoritative, yet at the same time, they are expected to be gentle reformers.
The job of the correction professionals involves traces of the simplistic part combined with an idealistic future. At the onset of the prisons establishment, staffing was a simple task, and few people were required for the job. The workers were mostly older at about over seventy years and had no qualifications. The guards took a casual approach to their work, and the primary tasks were to open and close cells. Typically, the population density was extremely low, and the convicts had few resources to consider escaping. However, by the end of the 19th century, the population had grown, necessitating bigger confinement areas with better security (“Corrections Officers,” 2016). The surge of prisoners also triggered a robust growth of the industries within the prisons. Therefore, the need for advancement became unavoidable, hence the present change into a complex system.
Structure
The rapid growth of the need for expertise among the custodians necessitated stricter modes of hiring and staffing. The protocols of prisons grew firmer, and recruitment requirements and qualifications also evolved. The guards were given more and more control over the inmates, and the environment became overly formalized (“Evolving Duties of a Correctional Officer,” 2016). As such, there were rules such as the banning of casual conversations between the officers and convicts. The most preferred mode of discipline was through corporal punishment. By the 1920s, criminologists had approved of the demonstration of trust elements in confinements (“Corrections Officers,” 2016). The funding was limited; thus, more inmates were promoted to supervision levels to minimize hiring more guards, although it was later discontinued.
There is no standard outline of correctional experts’ selection process; hence, a methodology is customized by different departments. The appropriate screening approach is designed to fit the local setting while mindful of state statutes and regulations. There are other cases where the jail administrators differ on the philosophical stand. For instance, whether or not an individual with a misdemeanor criminal history deserves a chance (“Corrections Officers,” 2016). Nonetheless, there are broad categories where there is a general consensus. One such area is a strong basis of personal qualities. Some of such attributes include good judgment, honesty, maturity, stability, dependability, and high ethical standards.
Across various jurisdictions, the success rates for applicants is inconsistent. There are higher success rates for jails focusing on identifying only the strongest candidates to eliminate weak applicants. Along this line, less than 2% of the initial applicants eventually get hired (Clem, Krauth, & Wenger, 2000). Some of the popular elements of screening include the consideration of minimum eligibility requirements. In assessing this, age and education form the core measures of qualification. An applicant must be at least 21 years old, hold a current driver’s license and a 2-year college degree. Additionally, there is background investigation on experience, employment recommendation, residence, and criminal record (Clem et al., 2000). Some departments consider other factors such as ability tests, including written tests or other off-the-shelf products. Moreover, there are psychological tests such as the California Psychological Inventory and polygraphs.
Inmate Treatment
The social interactions in prisons are governed by numerous rules that guide inmate behavior. The codes of conduct have continually shaped the penal system and variation of social positions in American prisons. The enforcement of the guidelines faces a severe challenge where the problem arises due to conflicting motives. The regulations prevent violent outbreaks or escape attempts while risking losing trust for and from the prisoners. The result can generate hostility from the convicts, and some end up breaking the rules intentionally. Most correction professionals do not provide a rationale for their actions, although most arbitrary regulations have backing reasons. Consequently, it arouses resentment since, in most cases, the inmates are not enlightened on the laws’ logic (“Corrections Officers,” 2016). However, there are concerns among the guards that the knowledge about particular laws’ intent might trigger resistance, especially when convicts are against it.
It is vital to note that while prisoners are under punishment, they are still American citizens with rights as everyone else. The prison system is rigid to reforms of the inmates’ treatment due to the conflict-oriented mentality. There is an existing mutual distrust between the prisoners and the correction officers. Thus, the convicts build resistance to any meaningful interactions with the prison wardens, which further undermines the felons’ counseling. Additionally, there is a general failure in most prisons in implementing high-minded principle reforms. The transition is not supported by concrete actions which undercut the jail custodians’ viability to the offenders. The absence of faith in one another continues to block the efforts to abolish injustices in the system.
Correctional Policies
Across the country, the corrections department is investing highly in recruiting new COs. For instance, in Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) estimated the amount of money spent on training a single CO, as high (“Opinion: If You Want Insurance,” 2019). Counting the number of recruits for the year multiplies the figure tenfold. The training sessions are intense and thoroughly involving because of the diverse nature of their roles after training. Hence, looking at the vast investment that the department makes, employee retainment is of primary concern. One way the department can make the employees choose to stay includes adding incentives to their salaries. However, the rising wages due to low unemployment rates force private and public sectors to scramble for workers. The pay that is offered for these experts must reflect the number of daily stresses that they experience while at work to continue operating.
Various organizations are working to integrate employee benefits to achieve the year’s goal. The objectives were derived from the motto, “Risk, Reward, Retention” (“Opinion: If You Want Insurance,” 2019). For instance, during the meeting between Michigan and the MCO, the primary emphasis was laid on improving the prison officials’ reward. Other means of workers retention was the promise of health insurance and pension at retirement. The benefits package is more influential if it includes generous fitness membership, county-sponsored child daycare projects, and vacation benefits (Clem, Krauth, & Wenger, 2000). Besides, the administrator provides a supportive work environment by letting them know that they are a part of the team. In most scenarios, when the leadership focuses on fairness, honesty, and openness, the employees’ morale increases. Apart from this, a worker agency mentoring program provides recruits with an experienced individual to support them.
Consequences of Incarceration
Correctional staff often experience extreme stress levels, burnout, and several other mental health disorders from their work environment. The job that these people do is associated with both emotional and physical harmful health outcomes. The staffing shortages cause dangerous cycles due to the empty slots created by the low employee to inmate ratio. With the period of growth in crime rates and social foment coupled with the current punitive policy, the nation has experienced rapid advancements in imprisonment rates. The sentencing has not been evaluated extensively, and adjustments were made to assess its impacts on the community. However, a historical analysis justifies the system due to the surge of crime in the late 20th century (Naik, Mall, & Palace, 2019). Regardless, the penal policy change in the past four decades has resulted in a wide range of social costs, yet there is no direct link to crime reduction.
The high incarceration rates directly impact the wardens who are overwhelmed by the surge in the prison population. Their occupational exposure to violent and unruly individuals challenges the officers both physically and mentally repeatedly. The officers with a strong internal locus of control have a relatively easier time managing stress and strain on their daily lives (Naik et al., 2019). The toxic, manipulative, and repressive environment risks people getting entrapped in the aggressive prison subculture. Some workers eventually lose interest in their jobs, personal life, and become passive. They carry out their duties and other aspects of their daily lives without any active mental involvement. A good percentage of officers develop difficulties in their relationships with others outside the facility. Some end up with broken families, divorce, and disconnectedness from society. The worst-case scenarios prompt the workers to quit or move to other professions.
Conclusion
Corrections in prisons continue to evolve, and the custodians keep adjusting their responsibilities in jails. The rehabilitative philosophy in corrective facilities continually prompts new reinforced efforts to transform inmates. The expectations are rapidly increasing, and more demands are placed on the wardens towards this course. However, the professionals themselves are at a higher risk of succumbing to the prison subculture in their efforts to correct the convicts. Another inhibiting factor is the rising rates of crimes and strict punitive laws. An aftermath is an overwhelming number of criminals being imprisoned, which further stretch the prison capacities. The insufficient staffing, low-stress management system, and poor working conditions equally contribute to the existing problems. There is, therefore, a remarkable need to continually motivate correctional staff to retain them within the confinement institutions. Furthermore, more research should be carried by psychologists and psychiatrists to determine the appropriate methodologies for stress management and the betterment of the working setting.
References
Evolving duties of a correctional officer. (2016). Web.
Clem, C., Krauth, B., & Wenger, P. (2000). Recruiting, hiring and retention: Current practices in US jails [PDF document]. Web.
Corrections officers. (2016). Web.
Opinion: If you want insurance for your recruitment efforts, don’t forget about retention. (2019). Web.
Naik, K. R., Mall, A., & Palace, B. H. A. (2019). The impact of prison conditions on staff well-being. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 6(2), 288−303.