Critiquing the Typology Study of Correctional Officer Deviance by Jeffrey Ian Ross

Abstract

Examining empirical evidence of correctional officer deviancy was one of the main themes in Ross’s (2013) publication.  Additionally, he uses past academic research as a guideline to outline typologies of correctional officer deviancy, as well as method to call for other social science research in this particular concentration.  By reviewing prior research efforts, Ross (2013) was able to administer various typologies of deviancy in respect to corrections officers and their work environment and, in turn, bring the needed attention for other scholarly efforts to focus on this field of study.  This article briefly explains the content and structure for the study and then takes the approach of critiquing the elements and forecasts that were construed by Ross (2013).  Finally, by doing such a critique the merit of the publication will be inferred, as well as suggest the other possible discourses that could be undergone in order to make a similar study more solidified.  

Introduction

            

          Correctional officer deviancy is certainly occurring within the walls of both jails and prisons, and at times can carry over into the other facets of society that are not closely affiliated with the penal institutions.  Moreover, because of the abundance of illegal or unethical behavior there have been numerous studies that are based on this particular concentration (Ross, 2013; Souryal, 2009).  Yet the majority of research is tuned toward specific acts of corrections officers' deviancy, other law enforcement corruption, or fails to broadcast the full extent or types of deviance that are being undergone (Ross, 2013, pp. 110-111).  Again, many instances of these unlawful and immoral behaviors can be verified, and some of the disparaging actions can even be cross-applied into the other typologies that have been promulgated by Ross (2013) and other researchers.  Therefore, the proper critiquing of such research applications is necessary for when the community, scholars, and legal professionals are attempting to better comprehend such a matter.  By doing such, not only will more comprehensiveness be permeated within the aforementioned parties, but also will call for more studies and critiques, and thus develop a permanent trend in the study of corrections officer occupations, especially in the field of corrections officer deviance.

            Additionally, the term “numerous” should not be taken out of context, as there are publications about correctional officer deviancy, yet the studies on such a topic is lacking.  Ross (2013) explain this and, in turn, fostered his understanding of the problem (pp. 110-112).  The main applications of his research are tuned toward describing the various types of correctional officer deviancy, as well as offering solutions to the abrasive behavior (pp. 113-122).  Nonetheless, his study is not a methodology of quantitative research, he simply attempts to use his classifications and solutions as a springboard for others to start the needed research in this area.  By noticing the lack of research on this concentration, his work also consists of enhancing administrative and public policies (p. 123).  Ross (2013) offers an intelligence into the unseen world of corrections.  More specifically, his work can be considered to be a fundamental effort to address the amount of deficiency in regards to integrity and criminality that takes place in positions of law enforcement, particularly in the field of corrections. 

Ross (2013) does implement a better description of the acts of deviancy by correctional officers when compared to prior research.  This is not to say that the other studies failed to do so entirely, but the specific actions are explained by Ross (2013) in such a manner so that further researchers know exactly what to address when partaking in this form of social science.  Ross (2013) identifies fifteen typologies, as well as sixteen solutions that are grouped into three categories (p. 117).  Specifically, these solutions range from better leadership to simple administrative shifts, but the fallacy of significance arrives because of the inefficient monetary allocation that most correctional departments are enduring.  Regardless of the excuse of having insufficient funds, Ross (2013) suggests that correctional departments should make decisions that could better their professionalism; looking into budget cuts so that this professionalism can occur in other words (p. 123).  This approach is plausible and does infer that another area of research that could be done (a study that could help correctional departments acquire more funds for combating corruption). 

In sum, Ross (2013) explains the issue of lagging research in the area of correctional deviance and then embarks on correcting this lack of performance by social scientists (pp. 110-113).  Once again, he does this by creating typologies for correctional officer deviancy and offering solutions in order for further research to ensue (pp. 110-122).  However, because Ross (2013) is one of the first researchers to take on such a role in this effort there are some dilemmas and inconsistencies that arise in his work.  Respectively, this article will critique his articulations and offer support and dismissals for his typologies, as well as address the complications of his explications and determinations.  

Research Design

As aforementioned, Ross (2013) does not use a quantitative methodology.  Rather than utilizing this common application in social science research, he examines prior empirical evidence and then suggests how further research is needed because there is not much exploration in this particular area of study (p. 111).  Moreover, he posits that there is a lack of empirical evidence because of the nature of the study (pp. 111-112).  That is, the allocation of such information is difficult to come by due to the missing co-operation of officials in the corrections industry (pp. 111-112).  Ross (2013) does mention that there are several social scientists who have attempted to conduct research on correctional officer deviancy, but also explains how a lot of the theoretical efforts are not consistent with their conceptualizations of the term “deviance (p. 111).”  This, in turn, has given merit for the publication by Ross (2013), as well as how he is correct in his idea about how his work is a “framework that serves as a basis for further theory building and possible model development (p. 123).”

The fifteen typologies explain the various renditions of correctional officer deviancy, and does cover most of the types of deviant behaviors that could be found in such a setting (pp. 113-117).  More specifically, the typologies are a collection of officer-on-officer, officer-on-institution, and officer-inmate misconduct (pp. 113-117).  Each of these groups are exhibited in numerous examples so that the reader has a better understanding of what Ross (2013) is exactly referring to.  As for the sixteen solutions, Ross (2013) posits that they can be assorted into three categories, which are: Preservice, In-Service, and Continuous (pp. 118-123).  These three categories are basically a functionality of simultaneous activity once a correctional officer starts the hiring process and begins to enter the occupation.  For example, the categories are initiated into the formal and informal regulations prior to beginning the occupation (the hiring process), and then carried on as the correctional officer becomes acclimated to the profession (pp. 118-123).  Ross’s (2013) methodology is ingenious, and is definitely able to be the foundation for other social science efforts for such an area of study.  However, as previously mentioned, there are flaws and problems within his publication, and thus they will be expounded in one of the following sections within this article.  

Findings

The findings are not as complex or exact as other studies in the field of corrections are, but this is due to the nature of Ross’s (2013) article.  In particular, the study acts as reference for other studies to base their hypotheses from.  Ross’s (2013) article is mainly a contingency for other social scientists to explore the contrivances of the corrections industry, and in turn can lead to the producing of results that enhance the theoretical explanations and solutions for corrections officer deviance (p. 123).  In detail, the fifteen types of deviance and three categories are as followed:

   

Deviance Against the Institution

·         Improper Use/Misuse of Agency Equipment and Property

·         Purposively Shirking One’s Duties

·         Theft of Correctional Facility Property

·         Abusing Sick Time

·         Accepting Gifts From Inmates and Contractors

Deviance Against Inmates

·         Abuse of Authority

·         Mishandling/Theft of Inmate Property

·         Discrimination Toward Inmates

·         Violence/Excessive Force Against Prisoners

·         Sexual Relations With or Assault of Inmates

Deviance Against Other Correctional Officers

·         Drinking on the Job

·         General Boundary Violations

·         Discrimination

·         Sexual Harassment of Fellow Corrections Workers

·         Smuggling Contraband

Each of the typologies are mostly self-explanatory, and does present the structure for the rest of Ross’s (2013) article.  Additionally, the three categories bring a more specific criteria for the types of correctional officer deviancy; this should allow other researchers, as well as laypeople, to better understand how deviancy can vary in the corrections environment.  These types of correctional officer deviancy also gives Ross (2013) the capability of rendering findings/solutions for correctional officer deviance.  To be more precise, by classifying the numerous forms of deviancy it is possible for Ross (2013) to implement solutions for the aforementioned issues; which was done and can be considered to be the results of Ross’s (2013) article (pp. 118-123).  In verbatim, they are:

            Preservice

·         Conducting Thorough Background Investigations on Applications

·         Proper and Thorough Training

·         Certification

In-Service

·         Participative Management/TQM

·         Using Power Appropriately

·         Reporting Malfunctioning or Broken Equipment in a Timely Manner

·         Exposing Waste and Violations of Rules

·         The Use of Ombudsmen and Ethics Committees

Continuous

·         Realistic Alternatives to Selective Contraband and Banned Inmate Behavior

·         Cultural Awareness

·         Accreditation

·         Proper Employee Evaluation

·         Random Drug, Criminal Background, and Credit Checks

·         Better Leadership

·         The Creation and Use of Internal Affairs Units

·         Sanctions

·         Professionalism

Again, the findings/solutions are mostly an opportunity for other social scientists to use as a basis for more research in this concentration (p. 123).  Nevertheless, Ross (2013) infers how these solutions are capable of  bringing a better understanding to the deviancy without further research, but with the authenticity of social science work being a norm (replication) this is briefly expounded (p. 111).  Meaning that Ross (2013) is suggesting that his work is credible, but having more validations by other researchers is one of his main agendas (p. 123).  The findings/solutions also allow for better administrative methods that could be undergone.  Ross (2013) suggests that even with the dilemma of monetary contributions being an obstacle, there is much that could be done prior to the necessary financial allocation for the improvement of correctional administration (p. 123).  Albeit, he also posits that this is a difficult barrier to overcome, but other remedies are possible and in turn would make the preservice, in-service, and continuous categories prosper (p. 123). 

Critiquing the Solutions

           

            Rather than reviewing the work of Ross (2013) in a systematic fashion, this critique will employ general inferences about each of the solutions in a manner that presents the issues that were not mentioned.  Furthermore, the critique will exhibit other possible remedies for the corrections officer deviancy that is not posited by Ross (2013).  By doing such, this article will also serve as a catalyst for other research in the particular field of study, as well as provide others with different topics to approach for when it comes to studying corrections officer deviancy.  The critiquing of only the solutions was conducted because the author of this article finds no discrepancies in the typologies that Ross (2013) has exhibited.  

  

Critiquing the Preservice Solutions

            In this author’s opinion, many of the typologies can be countered by better hiring or screening processes.  Ross (2013) mentions some ideas of better training during the preservice category, but he only posits three descriptions of possible solutions that could eliminate or severely disrupt correctional officer deviancy (pp. 118-123).  Moreover, he does this in such a brief manner that the particularities of the solution leave the audience with little understanding of what he is exactly addressing; this is where the problems start to arrive.  A particular method that the critiquing author suggests is a background investigation that is extremely detailed.  Precisely, measuring intelligence should be one of the major components of the background investigation, and include a threshold for what is acceptable intelligence for the particular position.  That is, not only should there be a general testing of logical and analytical thinking skills, but there should also be a measurement of how well an individual understands the criminal justice system, especially the corrections part of it; Ross (2013) makes no inclinations about the aforementioned suggestion. 

Also, a test that could determine the person’s knowledge of the state and federal laws, particularly the corrections law, in the jurisdiction that the place of employment falls under is also suitable.  This would allow the candidate to understand the position with more depth and thus create a more professional outlook on the specific position and its purpose.  Another examination that would allow for less deviancy would be to utilize the medical technology that is currently available (Phillips, 2013, pp. 21-34).  Although, the consistency of these machines is still being questioned, there is credible scientific evidence that does demonstrate which individuals are more likely to engage in violence and destruction (deviant behavior) (Phillips, 2013, pp. 21-34).  Not utilizing these devices is an ideal example of how lax and unprofessional the corrections industry has become, and then in turn condones the deviant behavior of corrections officers. 

            Training and certification does have merit when discussing the solutions for correctional officer deviancy, yet the answers that Ross (2013) expounds are too vague and do not demonstrate detailed proponents that could stop the deviant actions before they occur.  As previously mentioned, the testing of state and federal laws would allow for a more in-depth comprehension for the purpose of the corrections industry and particular occupations within it.  With this being said, the testing of this knowledge should occur more than one time.  Meaning that this should be sustained throughout an officer’s career, by giving more training seminars and examinations about the aforementioned procedures the professionalism could be better maintained.  By implementing rigorous and consistent retraining and re-certifying, the practitioners should sustain respectable and professional attributes, as well as be involved in a system that would eliminate those who become lethargic and unskilled as their career progresses.  Complacency can be eliminated, and should be a top priority for professionals who work in an environment that requires the adherence to laws and safety or security regulations (Slate & Vogel, 1997; Stinchcomb, 2000; Tracy & Scott, 2006).  Ross (2013) does not make any inferences about this type of commitment, and thus becomes an obvious known fallacy in his publication.  

  

Critiquing the In-Service and Continuous Solutions

            Most of the in-service solutions can be better applied by simply redistributing the power of administrative authority to external unbiased organizations; Ross (2013) fails to posit such an application in his article.  This tactic is necessary because of the impervious “blue shield” philosophy that so many penal institutions abide by (Ogus, 2004; Farkas, 2000).  Without having a third party that has no biased agenda, many of the unnecessary use of force cases, improper disposal of waste situations, and reporting of dysfunctional or broken equipment will not be conducted in a fashion that is considered to be legitimate (Bogard, 2010, pp. 1649-1651).  The main reason this will most likely not occur is because the administrative authority is not exactly as persuasive as they should be (Slate & Vogel, 1997; Toch, 1978).  When there is a standard of “I’ll watch your back if you watch mine” the regulations of a correctional institution fall to the wayside and become a system that is set up only to counteract any protestant behavior when a claim is made about the particular forms of deviancy (Bogard, 2010; Slate & Vogel, 1997). 

Using the privately operated American Correctional Association as the main source for accreditation, as well as other government agencies or internal committees, is outrageous and certainly an attempt to dissuade the public or inmates from ever achieving an acceptable emplacement of reasonable conditions in a correctional facility (Bogard, 2010, pp. 1649-1652).  Therefore, the critiquing author is implying that a third party that has no government or correctional affiliation be wholeheartedly employed.  Having an unbiased system of checks and balances -- a third party that does not cater to the “blue shield” philosophy -- is more than reasonable; in fact, it is quite necessary at this point.  Once again, Ross (2013) does not suggest that a strategy like the aforementioned be conducted.  He simply relies on institutional means to prevent or eliminate the deviancy that he discusses (pp. 118-123).  By doing such, he in turn suggests that the integrity of the professionals in the corrections business is phenomenal and that a “blue shield” structure does not exist to the extent that it actually does.  Internal investigations by a person or persons who work, or have worked, in the correctional setting is the most outrageous form of investigation that can ever be suggested.  Reiteratively, when there is an informal system (blue shield ideology) being permitted then the possibility of having an authentic investigation or citation hearing is quite problematic.  It posits that the people who work closely with one another will be able to administer a judgment without taking these relationships into consideration.  The critiquing author disagrees with this attempt of professionalism and claims that corruption is more abundant than some researchers think, particularly what Ross (2013) exhibits in his solutions for suppressing correctional officer deviancy.

   

Most of the solutions for the in-service and continuous categories can be, and were, simultaneously criticized.  Yet the analyzing of Ross’s (2013) components of cultural awareness and random drug testing will be separated in order to evaluate and admonish their significance; this was chosen to be done because of the uniqueness that each solution offers, or does not offer.  Specifically, Ross (2013) posits that cultural awareness training is conducted but needs to be done more so than it is currently being emphasized (p. 121).  However, as the critiquing author agrees with the training being done more often he also suggest that the diversity training is improperly conducted, and therefore needs to be reevaluated and implemented differently.  For instance, the idea of cultural diversity training for corrections officers is a great idea and can have great impacts on diminishing correctional officer deviancy, but the professionals who are doing the training need to be fully betrothed in the particular culture so that misinterpretations of the customs does not happen.  The critiquing author is making a simple suggestion: By locating people who are actually part of a specific cultural and then having them teach the seminars would allow for a more thorough understanding.  Additionally, another method to decrease correctional officer deviancy in this area is by acknowledging the specific demographics of the inmate population and in turn provide training based on those statistics; Ross (2013) does not posit anything within this nature of diversity training.  Once more, he simply relies on institutional means as an adequate methodology for enhancing correctional officer knowledge, as well as using a botched technique for desisting their deviant behavior; this is a far-fetched assumption by Ross (2013).  

  

As for the random drug testing solution, this method needs to be initiated weekly rather than on a random basis. A structure like this would eliminate the deviancy that corrections officers engage in, as well as make an institution more secure for other employees.  Ross (2013) proclaims that random drug testing is a viable solution, and would somehow combat the deviant behaviors of correctional officers in a permanent manner.  In some instances random drug testing could reduce the deviant activity, but if the testing were to be introduced in a weekly fashion the possibility of correctional officer deviance would decrease at a more acceptable rate.

Conclusion

            

            Overall, Ross (2013) makes many valid claims that could improve the workplace settings of penal institutions and decrease the possibilities of correctional officer deviancy that he explicates.  But he does fail to produce specific measures within the solutions and does somewhat suggest that some of his answers have not been implemented.  That is, criminal background checks, random drug testing, certification, accreditation, professionalization, internal investigations, and the remaining solutions are present in the majority of correctional institutions.  However, Ross (2013) falls short when going into detail about how these solutions that are already set in place could be better enforced if they were shifted over to an unbiased third party, which is the purpose of this critique.  He simply applies the resolutions in a manner that inclines that they are not currently being undergone by the majority of contemporary correctional facilities.  The critiquing author posits that most of the methods that are suggested in Ross’s (2013) article are being used, but not in an adequate projection that would drastically reduce correctional officer deviancy.  Relying on institutional means, which is what Ross (2013) mostly posits, is not an adequate solution to relinquishing corrections officer deviancy from the profession. 

A more stringent application of certification, training, drug testing, external investigation, and accreditation needs to be reorganized, and more importantly put into action.  Ross (2013) only sets the framework for further studies, which is duly noted, but he does go as far as manifesting internal solutions for the typologies that he presents and then calls for more social science research.  In the critiquing author’s mind, the issues need to be resolved by external agencies other than public bureaus and organizations that provide accreditation.  It is quite obvious that scrutiny from internal parties is not as existent as Ross (2013) professes.  Accordingly, the previously mentioned unbiased third parties needs to be consummated in order to alleviate the deviancy within the correctional entities.  Utilizing internal affair committees, unions, kangaroo courts, and any other shabby administrative procedures only adds to the acceptance of deviant behavior by correctional officers and the administrators. 

Lastly, Ross (2013) does not discuss much about the strength of the brotherhood that is quite evident within the professions of corrections.  There is some mentioning of the solidarity, but he does not come up with many solutions to counteract the informal unity that is quite evident.  This calls for other studies to be conducted on the corrections culture and also infers how this unity is a major part of deviancy within the specific occupation. 

References

Bogard, D. (2010). Effective corrections oversight: What can we learn from aca standards and

            accreditation?. Pace Law Review, 30(5), 1625-1687.

Farkas, M. A. (2001). Correctional officers: What factors influence work attitudes?. Corrections

            Management Quarterly, 5(2), 20-26.

Ogus, A. (2004). Corruption and regulatory structures. Law & Policy, 26(3-4), 329-349.

            doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2004.00181.x

Phillips, K. (2013). Empathy for pyschopaths: Using fmri brain scans to plea for leniency in

            death penalty cases. Law and Psychology Review, 37, 1-47.

Ross, J. I. (2013). Deconstructing correctional officer deviance: Toward typologies of action and

            controls. Criminal Justice Review, 38(1), 110-126. doi: 10.1177/0734016812473824

Slate, R., & Vogel, R. E. (1997). Participative management and correctional personnel: A study

            of the perceived atmosphere for participation in correctional decisions making and

            its impact on employee stress and thoughts about quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice,

            25(5), 397-408. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2352(97)00023-8

Souryal, S. (2009). Deterring corruption by prison personnel: A principle-based perspective.

            Prison Journal, 89(1), 21-45. doi: 10.1177/0032885508329979

Stinchcomb, J. B. (2000). Developing correctional officer professionalism: A work in progress.

            Corrections Compendium, 25(5), 1-19.

Toch, H. (1978). Is a “correctional officer,” by any other name, a “screw?”. Criminal Justice

            Review, 3(2), 19-35. doi: 10.1177/073401687800300204

Tracy, S. J. & Scott, C. (2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters

            and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “america’s heroes” and the “scum

            of law enforcement”. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 6-38.

            doi: 10.1177/0893318906287898