Record of the 23rd APCCA
Agenda Item Three
1. INTRODUCTION
The issue of prison officer culture has arisen indirectly during discussions at a number of recent APCCA conferences. Generally, this has been in the context of discussions about recruitment and training, which were agenda items in Malaysia in 1997 and Indonesia in 2002. Back in 1989, in India, the conference also discussed the changing role of correctional staff. However, this is the first time that the topic has been an agenda item in its own right. It presented an opportunity to explore such questions as what we mean by ‘prison officer culture’ in different jurisdictions, the importance of a good culture to effective prison management and how it can best be developed and enhanced. Brunei, China, Hong Kong (China), Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines Singapore and Thailand made formal presentations on this topic. The Rapporteur summarised the main themes and an animated discussion ensued.
This paper first discusses a range of contextual issues surrounding the meaning of ‘prison officer culture’ and the challenges of the changing penal environment. It then outlines some of the strategies that have been adopted across the region to promote a ‘healthy culture’.
2. WHAT IS ‘PRISON OFFICER CULTURE’ AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Prison officer culture is not an easy concept to define or describe. Broadly speaking, the culture of prison staff is an unwritten code of general beliefs, values and attitudes that can have a profound influence on behaviour. Such cultural values often form a primary reference point for staff in their daily work and appear to be regarded by some staff as at least as important as the formal rules and procedures relating to their job. Hong Kong (China) encapsulated the importance of prison officer culture in the following way: “Culture is a system of shared beliefs that determines how people act. It pervades every organisation and permeates down through each level. Naturally it bears direct impact on the way members behave and affects tremendously the organisation’s efficiency.” Korea wrote that “understanding correctional office culture and behaviour is meaningful for ensuring safe custody and good order in prison because their culture and behaviour decide their attitude towards inmates and correctional administration.”
Consequently, prison officer culture can play a major role in prison administration. A positive culture can assist correctional systems to achieve their goals but an antagonistic culture may hinder – or, at worst, undermine – key correctional objectives and reforms. As the delegation from Brunei said, it is important, but difficult, to address such attitudes as “It’s not my job” or “If it’s not broke, why fix it?”
The papers revealed a good deal of agreement on the notion of ‘prison officer culture’ but there were also some differences of emphasis. All agree that there must be discipline in a prison system but New Zealand commented that “the more rigid and authoritarian the environment, the more negative the outcome for prisoners.” Malaysia, on the other hand, said that “enforcing punishments and strict discipline … is viewed as a positive culture.”
During discussions, the delegation from New Zealand also challenged other delegates to consider whether administrators really want one homogenous ‘culture’ given the diversity occupations and function in correctional organisations. He suggested that some degree of diversity of culture may be a good thing provided that there are certain core shared values within the organisation.
3. ROLE CONFLICTS AND THE CHANGING CLIMATE OF IMPRISONMENT
Traditionally, as noted by Hong Kong (China), prisons have been ‘closed institutions, operating at the periphery of society.’ Historically, prisons operated in a highly bureaucratic, hierarchical and rigid manner in which prison officers’ roles were clear, as were the boundaries between staff and inmates. As a result of this work environment, prison staff across the globe often developed what Hong Kong (China) called a “unique culture…. They communicated in jargon, identified themselves as custodians and functioned in a way which emphasised coercive authority, toughness and social distance from inmates.”
These traditional roles have increasingly been questioned as a result of a number of factors, each of which carries different weight in different jurisdictions:
(a) Changing Penal Policy
All papers referred to the fact that prison officers must now play dual or multiple roles. They are no longer simply custodians but are working in an environment where the focus, increasingly, is on rehabilitation and delivering a human service. This is exemplified in many jurisdictions by changes to the title of the relevant department. In Hong Kong (China) for example, the Prisons Department was renamed the ‘Correctional Services Department’ in 1982.
Korea and Malaysia, amongst others, noted that these changes have caused considerable conflict and confusion as they cut to the core of the prison officer’s job, and Canada pointed out that they can affect a person’s career structure. They can also create ‘generational’ issues in that the entrenched attitudes of older staff, if not addressed, may conflict with those of more recently appointed staff. Nor is it easy to address such issues because the older staff, used to operating in a particular way and within a particular environment, may be unwilling to change their working habits. New Zealand suggested that this may be because some of these staff may have become very cynical as a result of being in the industry for too long. Hong Kong (China) experienced similar problems: “for fear of losing status and power in the hierarchy, most prison officers remained the way they were, clinging tightly to the custodial rather than the human service role.”
The delegate from the Philippines made an important observation in this context, with respect to jurisdictions that ‘are not so developed.’ Whilst recognizing the importance of changes in penal philosophy in setting aspirations and future directions, he stressed that the first stage was to ‘just go about doing the basics and to do them right.’
(b) Changing Prisoner Population Profiles
The National Reports on Contemporary Issues at recent APCCA conferences have tracked some significant changes in prisoner population profiles. Most jurisdictions have seen an increase in the number of offenders serving sentences for offences of violence, sexual offences and serious drug offences. In addition, here are now more elderly prisoners and more female prisoners.
In some jurisdictions, these population profile changes are impacting on prison officer culture and creating new challenges. Japan and Korea, for example, stated that they have an increasing number of high security prisoners and more prisoners who are difficult to manage. In Japan, this is occurring at the same time as an increase in overcrowdings, with the result that prison staff feel at greater risk and under increasing stress. In Korea, too, there is clear evidence of higher stress levels at higher security institutions.
The Philippines delegation noted that an increase in the number of ‘moneyed’ prisoners, some of whom have vast wealth through the illegal drug trade, is posing very serious problems of manipulation and corruption.
(c) External and Media Pressure
Across the region, there appears to be increasing scrutiny of prisons by the media, pressure groups and independent accountability agencies. A number of papers and the presentation by Thailand drew attention to the fact that, if these accountability issues are not properly managed, they can contribute to a ‘siege mentality’ on the part of prison staff and may serve to reinforce negative self perceptions and attitudes.
Against this backdrop, five broad conference themes emerged in terms of strategies that may be adopted to address and promote positive prison officer culture:
Ø Mission and vision statements
Ø Corporate cultural change
Ø Recruitment, training, supervision and professional development
Ø Improving the work culture / environment
Ø Public relations
4. VISION AND MISSION STATEMENTS
It has become common for correctional authorities to develop vision and / or mission statements. A number of delegations argued that carefully written mission statements provide a valuable starting point for promoting official goals, for ensuring that staff have a clear focus on their core obligations, and for assisting public understanding. Canada, Hong Kong (China), New Zealand and Singapore have a particularly strong focus on this. Hong Kong (China) developed its Vision Mission and Values (VMV) in 1996. It crystallises the goals of the Correctional Services Department and requires staff to focus on providing a “decent and healthy environment and comprehensive rehabilitative services in a secure, safe, humane and cost-effective manner.” The paper from Singapore also demonstrated how strongly its mission statement principles permeate into all aspects of policy development and into the Department’s expectations of staff.
It is important to note, too, that many jurisdictions (including Australia, Hong Kong (China), New Zealand and Singapore) have now supplemented their vision / mission statements with a stronger framework for promoting and enforcing professional and ethical standards. However, as Canada pointed out, such initiatives are likely to prove more difficult in those jurisdictions with a strong union movement.
5. RECRUITMENT, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
It is obvious that good recruitment and training practices are integral to the development of a positive culture amongst prison staff. This topic was discussed in detail at the 22nd APCCA in Indonesia in 2002, and reference should be made to the Report of that Conference. For the purposes of this report, it is sufficient to make a few brief observations.
First, in terms of recruitment, correctional departments across the region are seeking to recruit better qualified staff and to ensure clear, objective and transparent selection criteria. Brunei, China, Mongolia, Malaysia and Thailand were just some of the jurisdictions to stress the importance of initial recruitment procedures. Overall, the focus is no longer so much on an applicant’s size or physical strength (though fitness is still an important factor), but more upon attitude, aptitude and outlook.
There was some discussion about the merits (or otherwise) of psychological testing for recruits but there was no clear consensus of opinion. The Australian Capital Territory and New Zealand suggested that there probably is merit in properly constructed psychological tests and New Zealand said that such tests are applied not only to recruits but also to management positions. Singapore uses a range of psychometric tests and the leader of the delegation stated that, after the first two years, the results appear promising. However, he made the important observation that psychometric tests are of little use unless you are clear what you are looking for. In Singapore, psychometric tests are administered when recruiting new prison officers. The tests are designed to determine the existence of desired behavioural requirements and critical competencies essential for the successful performance of important job tasks as prison officers. Canada, on the other hand, does not employ psychological testing. The delegation stated that, because of the amount of information that is publicly available (on the Internet and elsewhere), they believe that applicants can prepare the ‘right’ answers and that tests may therefore not reveal their true values and beliefs. Consequently, they have found it useful to ask applicants how they have dealt with difficult scenarios in previous positions and then to validate their responses with their nominated referees.
Secondly, several papers made the point that staff attitudes, morale and culture can be improved by providing positive training and professional development opportunities. This takes various forms across the region, including sponsorship to undertake educational courses. It should also not be forgotten that staff must feel confident in their core custodial role and that refresher training in basic skills may usefully contribute to their morale and sense of well being. Given the current ‘severe working conditions’ outlined earlier, Japan has therefore provided security-focused training with respect to “martial arts, self defence, the use of restraints and emergency responses.”
A third and significant theme was the importance of adequate staff supervision – both as a form of support and as a form of checking. The Philippines delegation commented that this was essential if dangers of corruption are to be addressed and noted that this is one aspect of management that can be improved even at times of economic constraints. China went a stage further, stating that the promotion of a positive culture may call for recalcitrant officers to be subject to ‘restraint mechanisms’ including punishment.
6. CORPORATE CULTURAL CHANGE
There is a tendency for some critics to regard prison officer culture as a self-contained problem. However, prison officers work within a structured organisation and, as the Japanese report noted, they still operate in an environment where, by law, they must obey their superiors. Consequently, in understanding ‘prison officer culture’, it is essential to consider the total corporate culture, including the roles and attitudes of management and head office. In the words of Brunei, a ‘strong supportive corporate structure’ is essential.
In recognition of this, several jurisdictions have embarked on ambitious strategies to cement corporate policy. They include Hong Kong (China), New Zealand and Singapore. Hong Kong (China)’s Corporate Cultural Change Project commenced in around 2000, with the appointment of consultancy services to advise the Department on its corporate culture. Recognising the vital importance of communicating corporate policy to prison officers themselves, the Department established a steering group and selected a number of staff as ‘Change Agents’ for each institution. This was followed by a detailed process of staff surveys, survey evaluation, workshops and consultations. On the basis of this information, key priority areas were identified and each institution was required to draw up an action plan and to implement strategies to address these areas.
It is interesting to note that many of the ensuing initiatives in Hong Kong (China) have been relatively simple but they appear to have contributed to a much improved officer culture. They have included more frequent meetings between management and staff; encouraging staff to express their views; giving staff greater recognition for their services (for example by letters and monthly presentations); renovating canteens and installing home theatres; providing internet access in the officers’ Mess; and simplifying administrative procedures relating to matters such as keys and sick leave applications. In parallel with its Corporate Cultural Change Project, Hong Kong (China) has also developed a specific set of initiatives designed to ensure a comprehensive customer-focused approach.
7. IMPROVING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT
The preceding paragraph has shown some of the ways in which Hong Kong (China) has sought to enhance prison officers’ work environment. Some of the same basic approaches have also been used in other jurisdictions. Brunei, India, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have all sought to provide greater recognition and rewards for good staff (including, in Thailand, the ‘Good Guy in Corrections’ award and, in India, the President’s Correctional Medal). In view of the findings from a staff survey, Singapore remains concerned at the number of staff who feel reluctant to ‘speak up’ but a number of initiatives appear already to have improved the situation; with 69% of staff in 2003 (as opposed to 64% in the original survey) being prepared to speak out.
There was also a growing recognition that the promotion of a positive prison officer culture will necessarily involve a consideration of an officer’s family needs and responsibilities. Singapore has made particular efforts in this regard after staff surveys revealed that only 52.3% of staff said that the demands of their job did not affect their well-being (for example, physical health, mental health, well-being and social interactions). Interestingly, Korea has changed its shift regimes to make the job less disruptive to family life.
8. PUBLIC RELATIONS AND PROMOTIONS
Traditionally, part of the problem in promoting a positive prison officer culture has been negative media perceptions of the job and the culture. These perceptions and stereotypes also tend to be reinforced in the movies. A number of jurisdictions have therefore embarked on vigorous public relations campaigns to try to redress the balance. Canada, Hong Kong (China) and Singapore would appear to have had the greatest success to date in this difficult area.
9. CONCLUSION
‘Prison officer culture’ is not easy to define and it can be very difficult to undo a bad officer culture. Across the region, jurisdictions face rather different issues, ranging from corruption to resistance to change. Despite the jurisdictional differences, similar strategies are being adopted in many places. Perhaps the most significant development is that a more holistic approach is often now in place. Prison officer culture is no longer seen as a problem that exists in isolation, but as an issue that needs to be addressed in a firm and holistic manner, including strong corporate direction, a concern for the needs of family as well as the staff themselves, and a focus on media and public relations strategies.