Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
(USC Thesis Other)
Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EDUCATION BASED INCARCERATION:
EDUCATE TO CHANGE THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE OF
CORRECTIONS IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
By
David Cory Carlson
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
December 2014
Copyright 2014 David Cory Carlson
ii
Epigraphs
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”
– Nelson Mandela
“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be
changed without changing our thinking.”
– Albert Einstein
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
– Leo Tolstoy
“Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who
prepare for it today.”
– Malcolm X
iii
Dedication
This study is dedicated to the people who I love and who support all of my
dreams and desires. I give praise, love, and respect to my supportive and patient
wife Leticia. Her passion helped me succeed and motivated me to pursue this
awesome academic journey. She has always and will always be my inspiration.
To my parents, Dr. Wali and Darlene, they were the ones who set the bar
high by example. They always believed in my abilities and my dreams.
Thank you!
iv
Acknowledgments
I wish to offer special recognition and thanks to Dr. Peter Robertson for his
hours of commitment and support as my committee chair. His feedback and
words of encouragement truly helped get me through the process. I would also
like to thank Dr. Deborah Natoli, Dr. Tomson Ong, and Captain Michael Bornman
for their time and assistance on my dissertation committee. Their advice and
feedback helped lead to the project and paper that resulted. I also appreciate Dr.
Brian Fitch for his time and guidance to introduce me to the concept of Education
Based Incarceration.
The continuous support and encouragement that I received from my many
colleagues and friends has also been invaluable over the last several years. I
thank them all for challenging my thinking and pushing me to work hard. Their
belief that we can create a better environment for inmates continues to inspire
me.
v
Table of contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………...….. 1
1.1 Problem Statement………………...…………………………………….. 2
1.1.1 Criminogenic Behavior and Recidivism….…….…..…………….. 2
1.1.2 Criminogenic Nature of the Jails…..…….……....……………….. 5
1.1.3 Punishment Orientation…………………………………….…....… 6
1.1.4 The Role of the Jailers… …………………………………..….….. 7
1.2 Solution of Interest……………………………………………………..… 9
1.2.1 Rehabilitation Orientated Culture……..……..…………………… 9
1.2.2 LASD Education Based Incarceration…….………….….……… 12
1.3 Rationale for Study…………………….………………………………… 13
1.3.1 Need for Study……………………….…..................................… 14
1.3.2 Purpose of the Study…...…….……....................................…… 18
1.3.3 Research Questions…………………………………………….… 21
1.4 Conclusion………….………………..………………….……….…….… 24
CHAPTER 2: Scholarly Foundations………..……….………………………… 27
2.1 Inmate Education Programs ……………………………….…..…….… 29
2.2 Recidivism Reduction ……………………….…….………..….…….… 34
2.3 Factors Shaping Success of EBI Programs………...……………...… 41
2.4 Organizational Change ………………….....…………………………… 49
2.5 Theoretical Framework ……………………….…………………....…… 55
2.5.1 Organizational Diagnosis …………...….………………...….…… 55
2.5.2 Organizational Diagnostic Models …………………….…….…… 60
2.5.2.1 Weisbord’s Six Box Model ………………………………….. 60
2.5.2.2 McKinsey's 7S Model ……………………………....…..…… 63
2.5.2.3 Galbraith's STAR Model …………………………….….....… 65
2.5.2.4 Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model.…………..…… 67
2.5.3 The Weisbord Model as a Foundation for This Study ……… 68
2.6 Summary ……………………….…………………………………………. 70
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ………………………….…………….….…… 73
3.1 Research Design ……………….....….………………………………..… 76
3.2 Population and Sampling ……………..….……………………………… 77
3.2.1 Research Population ……………………………………..….…….. 78
3.2.2 Research Sample ……………………..……………………..….… 78
3.2.3 Research Confidentiality and Geographic Location ...…….…… 80
3.2.4 Data Collection Procedures ………………………...…………..… 80
3.3 Research Instrument ……………………..…………..……………….… 81
3.4 Data Analysis …………………………………………………….........… 83
3.4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ………………..…………………… 83
3.4.2 Analysis of Variance ……………………..……….…………….…. 85
3.4.3 Effect Size …………………………….……..….………………..… 86
3.5 Research Validity, Reliability, and Limitations ………………….…..... 87
vi
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND RESULTS ……………………………...…...… 90
4.1 Characteristics of the Respondents ………….…….….…………….… 91
4.2 Descriptive Statistics ………………………………….…………….…… 92
4.3 Factor Analysis of the Seven Constructs ……….….……………..…… 93
4.3.1 Construct #1: Purpose …………………………....................…… 93
4.3.2 Construct #2: Structure …………………..…….………………….. 95
4.3.3 Construct #3: Leadership ……………………..…………………… 96
4.3.4 Construct #4: Relationships ………………..……………….…….. 98
4.3.5 Construct #5: EBI Program ……………………………………….. 99
4.3.6 Construct #6: Helpful Mechanisms …………..……………...…… 101
4.3.7 Construct #7: Attitude to Change ……………………………....… 102
4.4 T-Test Analysis of Supervisors’ and Non-supervisors’ Responses… 104
4.4.1 Results of the t-test for the Purpose construct …….……………. 104
4.4.2 Results of the t-test for the Structure construct …………...……. 105
4.4.3 Results of the t-test for the Leadership construct …….……..…. 105
4.4.4 Results of the t-test for the Relationship construct …….………. 106
4.4.5 Results of the t-test for the EBI Program construct...…………... 107
4.4.6 Results of the t-test for the Helpful Mechanisms construct …… 107
4.4.7 Results of the t-test for the Attitude to Change construct……… 108
4.5 ANOVA ……………………………………………..………………….…. 109
4.5.1 Purpose ……………………………………..………………………. 109
4.5.2 Structure ………………………………….……………………….… 111
4.5.3 Leadership …………………………………..…………………....… 113
4.5.4 Relationships ………………………………………………....….…. 116
4.5.5 EBI Program …………..…………................................................ 118
4.5.6 Helpful Mechanisms …………………………….……………….… 120
4.5.7 Attitude to Change ……………..……………...……………….….. 122
4.6 Summary …………………………………..……………………….……... 125
4.6.1 Construct #1: Purpose ……………………….………………….… 125
4.6.2 Construct #2: Structure ………………………………………...…. 125
4.6.3 Construct #3: Leadership …………………………..…..…………. 126
4.6.4 Construct #4: Relationships ……………………….……………… 127
4.6.5 Construct #5: EBI Program ……………………………..………... 127
4.6.6 Construct #6: Helpful Mechanisms ………………………………. 128
4.6.7 Construct #7: Attitude to Change…………………………………. 128
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…….…………. 130
5.1 Conclusions…………………………………………………………….…. 131
5.1.1 Purpose Construct………………………………………………….. 132
5.1.2 Structure Construct…………………………………………………. 135
5.1.3 Leadership Construct………………………………………………. 138
5.1.4 Relationships Construct……………………………………………. 141
5.1.5 EBI Program Construct…………………………………………….. 143
5.1.6 Helpful Mechanisms Construct……………………………………. 145
5.1.7 Attitude to Change Construct……………………………..………. 147
5.1.8 Holistic Conclusion………………………………………….……… 150
vii
5.2 Recommendations………………………………………….……………. 155
5.2.1 Custody Division Purpose…………………………………………. 156
5.2.2 Custody Division Structure………………………………………… 159
5.2.3 Custody Division Leadership……………………………………… 162
5.2.4 Custody Division Relationships…………………………………… 163
5.2.5 Custody Division EBI Program……………………………………. 165
5.2.6 Custody Division Helpful Mechanisms…………………………… 166
5.2.7 Custody Division Attitude to Change……………………..……… 167
5.3 Summary…………………………………………………………..……… 169
References…………………………………………………………..…………..... 172
Appendices………………………………………………………….…...……….. 197
viii
List of tables
Table 3.1…………………………………………………………………………… 84
Table 3.2…………………………………………………………………………… 89
Table 4.1…………………………………………………………………………… 91
Table 4.2…………………………………………………………………………… 94
Table 4.3…………………………………………………………………………… 95
Table 4.4…………………………………………………………………………… 97
Table 4.5…………………………………………………………………………… 98
Table 4.6…………………………………………………………………………… 100
Table 4.7…………………………………………………………………………… 101
Table 4.8………………………………………………………………………….. 103
Table 4.9………………………………………………………………………….. 104
Table 4.10………………………………………………………………………… 104
Table 4.11…………………………………………………………………………. 105
Table 4.12…………………………………………………………………………. 105
Table 4.13…………………………………………………………………………. 105
Table 4.14…………………………………………………………………………. 106
Table 4.15…………………………………………………………………………. 106
Table 4.16…………………………………………………………………………. 106
Table 4.17…………………………………………………………………………. 107
Table 4.18…………………………………………………………………………. 107
Table 4.19…………………………………………………………………………. 107
Table 4.20…………………………………………………………………………. 108
Table 4.21…………………………………………………………………………. 108
Table 4.22…………………………………………………………………………. 108
Table 4.23…………………………………………………………………………. 110
Table 4.24…………………………………………………………………………. 111
Table 4.25…………………………………………………………………………. 112
Table 4.26…………………………………………………………………………. 113
Table 4.27…………………………………………………………………………. 114
Table 4.28…………………………………………………………………………. 115
Table 4.29…………………………………………………………………………. 117
Table 4.30…………………………………………………………………………. 117
Table 4.31…………………………………………………………………………. 119
Table 4.32…………………………………………………………………………. 120
Table 4.33…………………………………………………………………………. 121
Table 4.34…………………………………………………………………………. 122
Table 4.35…………………………………………………………………………. 123
Table 4.36…………………………………………………………………………. 124
ix
List of figures
Figure 2.1………………………………………………………………….……….. 61
Figure 2.2………………………………………………………………………...… 64
Figure 2.3……………………………………………………………………...…… 66
Figure 2.4………………………………………………………………….…..…… 68
Figure 4.1………………………………………………………………….…..…… 94
Figure 4.2………………………………………………………………….…..…… 96
Figure 4.3………………………………………………………………….…..…… 97
Figure 4.4…………………………………………………………………..……… 99
Figure 4.5…………………………………………………………………...……… 100
Figure 4.6…………………………………………………………………..……… 102
Figure 4.7…………………………………………………………………..……… 103
Figure 4.8……………………………………………………………………..…… 109
Figure 4.9……………………………………………………………………..…… 112
Figure 4.10………………………………………………………………………… 114
Figure 4.11………………………………………………………………………… 116
Figure 4.12………………………………………………………………………… 118
Figure 4.13………………………………………………………………………… 121
Figure 4.14………………………………………………………………………… 123
Figure 5.1………………………………………………………………………..… 132
Figure 5.2………………………………………………………………………..… 134
Figure 5.3……………………………………………………………………..…… 136
Figure 5.4……………………………………………………………………..…… 139
Figure 5.5………………………………………………………………………..… 142
Figure 5.6………………………………………………………………………..… 144
Figure 5.7………………………………………………………………………..… 146
Figure 5.8………………………………………………………………………..… 148
x
Abstract
In a time when the jail systems were guided by a philosophy that aims to
punish criminal behavior through the methods of deterrence and incapacitation,
traditional rehabilitative practices developed to change inmates thinking. This
current style, whose primary objective is to reduce the rates of re-arrest and
recidivism, has been generally successful in achieving these goals. Therefore,
Sheriff Baca focused on short-term gains made by implementing the Education
based Incarceration program at the Los Angeles County Jails. From this
perspective, attention is given to decreasing an offender's behavioral problems
and emotional crises, while at the same time improving levels of adjustment and
coping skills.
One of the key figures with significant influence over inmate behavior is
the jailer, who is charged with supervising the inmate in order to maintain a safe
and secure environment. However, the nature of the jailer's interactions with the
inmate is shaped by the jailer's professional orientation, which can be based
upon custody, punitive, or rehabilitative attitudes. The jailer’s perception and
cultural attitude affects the type of role that the jailer assumes in the inmate's
adjustment and adoption of rehabilitation services and pro-social behaviors.
Unfortunately, this information is not adequately included in the jailer's training.
This dissertation examines the current situation regarding inmate
rehabilitation and provides a thorough review of the literature on explains the
three elements of Recidivism Reduction, Comparative Current Practices, and
Staff Development. A survey of employees from Los Angeles County Men’s
xi
Central Jail provided data which was analyzed to evaluate the differences in
perceptions between the supervisors and the non-supervisors regarding cultural
constructs within the organization. This information is then synthesized into the
format of guidelines and discussion points intended for use by custody division
administrators as a reference source for enhancing rehabilitation through
Education Based Incarceration training. These suggestions are made in an effort
to promote a rehabilitation approach to maintaining the care, custody, and control
of the inmates.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
County jails throughout California struggle with jail overcrowding and jail violence.
The Los Angeles County jails lead the nation by housing roughly “171,000 people
booked annually and a 2009 daily inmate population that is close to 19,000—and
expected to reach 29,000 by 2019” (McGarry, 2009, pp 3). The overcrowding places a
strain on the budget and workload of the jail staff members. Prolonged congestion in the
county’s jail facilities has caused several system-wide difficulties: “the federal
government placed a cap on the number of people the jails can legally house and the
jails have high levels of violence—both among inmates and between inmates and
correctional officers” (McGarry, 2009, pp 3).
An estimated nine million inmates are admitted and released through the local jails
each year throughout the United States (Osborne & Solomon, 2006). Although jails in
California admit and release a large number of inmates each year, the daily population
of inmates often exceeds the jail population capacities. Assaults and suicides are more
common in California jails than nationally (Petersilia, 2008).
The extraordinary growth in correctional facility populations over the past three
decades has forced both practitioners and scholars to consider institutional crowding as
a possible contributor to jail violence and an environmental inhibitor of inmate safety
(Camp et al., 2003). The dynamics of custody operations have evolved over the past
few decades, requiring custody administrators to seek alternatives and changes in jail
purpose.
Overcrowding in the county jails has several contributing factors causing strain to
the jail system. Empirical studies of contributing environmental factors on inmate
2
deviance and violence now routinely include levels of overcrowding or population size
as predictors (Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando, 2002). High recidivism rates contribute greatly
to the overcrowding of jails and prisons in California (Austin, 2010).
1.1 Problem Statement
The dramatic growth in interest over prison crowding is typically regarded as
simply a product of the rapid increase in prison populations and corresponding space
shortages (Bleich, 1989). This oversimplified reaction by politicians regarding space
shortage as the main causal factor for overcrowding does not take into account other
causal factors that also contribute to the overcrowding of the jails. This section focuses
on the following four factors that contribute to the overcrowding of the jails: 1) the high
rate of recidivism; 2) the criminogenic nature of the jails; 3) the conflict between the
punishment and rehabilitative goals of the jails; and 4) the attitude of the jailer as
influenced by the jail culture.
1.1.1 Criminogenic Behavior and Recidivism
A large number of the inmates in Los Angeles County jails come from
disadvantaged neighborhoods and may lack much formal education. Studies suggest
that the risks associated with being arrested increase over time for those living in
poorer, disadvantaged neighborhoods (Rose & Clear, 1998). At least some of this
increased risk appears to be the product of stricter police enforcement—often for minor
or drug-related offenses—even as crime rates fall (Tonry, 1995). This situation creates
a cycle of arrest and re-arrest that continues despite changes in the labor market,
population structure, or reduction in crime. The stricter enforcement invites more
aggressive re-enforcement, which then re-supplies incarceration (Fagan et al., 2003).
3
The high rates of incarceration continue to stimulate administrative and public
examination of the management of jail and rehabilitation facilities. This interest appears
to be motivated by the conflicting concerns of economic forces and philosophical
changes. After decades of handling crime in the United States through incarceration,
the past decade saw renewed interest and increased funding for rehabilitative programs
(Second Chance Act, 2007), creating significant confidence in non-punitive alternatives
that balance safety concerns with rehabilitative benefits. In California, spiraling
expenses of corrections facilities seem to entice politicians to contemplate less punitive
models which may become more effective at decreasing crime and reducing costs.
Many of the programs being funded by the legislatures to combat crowding may be
unsuccessful because they are ill-suited to the underlying causal factors of
overcrowding (Bleich, (1989).
High recidivism rates increase the costs required to manage jails. America has
more than 7.3 million adults housed in some custody facility, at an unmanageable cost
of nearly $60 billion per year (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). During a study of Los
Angeles County Jails, “42% of those re-arrested experienced that re-arrest within three
months of release from the Los Angeles County jail. Nearly 80% of those re-arrested
were re-arrested within 12 months of leaving the facility” (Petersilia, 2008, P.17).
The lack of a proper education system impacts the lives of inmates prior to their
arrest. A large portion of the inmates in county jails lack life skills and a usable
education that can sustain them in society. There is support for the claim that sentenced
inmates have on average received less education and possess fewer employable skills
than other members of society (Greenberg, Dunleavy, & Kutner, 2007). To further
4
complicate matters, incarcerated adults demonstrate high levels of illiteracy—with some
experts estimating the literacy levels of more than half of America‘s inmates at the sixth
grade level (Ryan, 1990).
Jails, like the Los Angeles County Jail, have been actively pursuing measures to
diminish the county jail population. California spends more than $9 billion a year on its
correctional system, yet 66 percent of released inmates return to jail within 3 years
(Petersilia, 2008). A concern by jail executives regarding inmate overpopulation and jail
violence led to a search for a way to reduce recidivism. This concern to reduce
recidivism is promoted by considerable changes in jail philosophy supported by
organizations like the National Institute of Corrections.
Recidivism is one reason the jail populations remain high, because the inmates are
returning to jail. There have been important advances over the last 40 years in the
evaluation of recidivism reduction needed in jail facilities (Gehring, 2007). Institutions
are being held accountable for funding and are expected to produce positive outcomes
in terms of reducing costs, violence, and recidivism. In California, the total three year
recidivism rate (return to prison) for all felons released during fiscal year 2007-2008 is
66 percent. County jails that focus more on warehousing inmates have a higher rate of
recidivism that could lead to overcrowding. If more than six out of ten adult American
offenders return to prison within three years of their release, the system designed to
deter them from continued criminal behavior clearly is falling short (Pew Center on the
States, 2011).
5
1.1.2 Criminogenic Nature of the Jails
Criminologists and correctional practitioners consistently debate whether
correctional institutions are rehabilitative or criminogenic. A criminogenic environment is
one that has strong positive incentives to engage in crime (Sampson & Laub, 1993,
2003). The word criminogenic references inmate misconduct which may or may not be
criminal. Criminal propensity has been described as depicting the tendencies
(probabilities) of individuals to commit a crime (Blumstein 1988a; 1988b; 1986,
Gottfredson and Hirschi 1986; 1987, Farrington, 1986). A 1990 study found that,
according to research, programs that lower recidivism rates include identifying
criminogenic needs and the methods of treatment that are coordinated with identifying
needs and inmate’s learning styles (Andrews et al, 1990).
U.S. Supreme Court stated that overcrowding in California prisons, “which have
become criminogenic,” must be reduced if the prison system is to achieve constitutional
compliance (Petersilia, 2004, pp.133). Criminogenic is a term for behavioral conditions
in a jail that potentially contribute to crime. Jail inmate criminogenic risk factors are anti-
social values, criminal peers, low self-control, dysfunctional family ties, substance
abuse, and criminal personality (Christensen & Clawson, 2008). These risk factors of
criminogenic conditions contribute to overcrowding because the inmates are housed in
jail conditions that contribute to further criminal behavior.
“California truly is different when it comes to the way inmates are housed, the way
they are treated while incarcerated, the way they are released, and the way their parole
is handled and revoked. As a consequence, California jails have one of the highest
return-to-prison rates in the nation” (Petersilia, 2004, pp. 134). Criminologists and
6
correctional practitioners worry that prisons encourage criminal behavior among
inmates, i.e., that prisons are criminogenic (Berk et al., 2003). The criminogenic
behavior is engrained in the jail culture. There is considerable and justifiable concern
that prisons make the behavior of those incarcerated in them less desirable, e.g., that
prisons have a criminogenic effect. Presumably, many feel that inmates serve as
training schools for criminals (Camp & Gaes, 2005).
Criminogenic behavior involves three influential behavioral factors in the jail. The
first influence is the criminal propensity that inmates bring with them to prison. The
second influence upon inmate behavior is the inmate culture of the prison. The final
influence upon inmate behavior is the formal organization of the prison typically thought
of as the environmental influences upon inmates (Camp & Gaes, 2005). These
criminogenic influences contribute to potential criminal behavior which leads to
increased overcrowding.
1.1.3 Punishment Orientation
Probably the most common concern some people have about inmate rehabilitation
to reduce recidivism is the idea that taxpayers should not have to pay for a criminal’s
rehabilitation and that criminals should be punished for their offenses instead. Punitive
incarceration is a valid approach that should not be overlooked. Some people may state
that criminals should be locked up and forced to pay for their offenses by working in the
jails. On the other hand, a variety of opinion polls and scholarly surveys show that the
public wants prisons to be places that reduce recidivism. Virtually no support exists for
prisons to function mainly as warehouses devoid of a broader social purpose (Cullen,
Fisher, & Applegate, 2000). Some county jails and state prisons focus their limited
7
resources on programs that appear like punishment and not rehabilitation by creating
chain gangs, providing statute minimal cold food, and eliminating luxuries like television.
The common belief appears to be that if inmates are “punished” for committing
offenses, they should not re-offend. However, without education, job skills, and other
basic services, offenders are likely to repeat the same steps that brought them to jail in
the first place (Guevara & Solomon, 2009).
1.1.4 The Role of Jailers
Custody jailers receive training and custody orientation in the academy regarding
jail safety procedures and duties. How the custody jailer carries out their duties can vary
based upon the jailer's professional orientation. Once the custody jailer is placed on the
job, how the jailer is trained to relate to the inmate does not always transform into
support for rehabilitative programs. When a custody jailer models his professional role
identity from jail security centered custody training, it means that he views himself as an
agent of control whose first obligation to the institution is one of supervision and control
(Griffin, 2002).
Often overlooked is the influence of experienced custody jailer’s attitudes about
their role on the newly graduated recruits (Dowden, 2000; Ulmer, 1992). Although in
theory, it is the basic academy training that is supposed to shape the jailer's
approach to his job, the socialization process by peers plays a significant role in
establishing the social reality by which new jailers orient themselves and which then
guide their actions to support or reject a rehabilitation program (Ulmer, 1992).
Social information processing theory maintains that work-related attitudes and
behaviors are constructed through social interactions with other employees in the job
8
setting (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000). Inside the custody environment, new jailers
undergo an informal learning process, known as occupational socialization, by jailers
who are described as a small but active group who become a point of reference for
inexperienced custody staff (Ulmer, 1992).
During training, the jailer’s role becomes defined through his or her experience and
exposure to the custody culture. A custody culture represents the belief that this
obligation is the main purpose of the jailer's duties and is viewed by the Custody
Division as the formal role expectation of the custody jailer (Griffin, 2002).
A type of role identity that is common among custody jailers is that of a punitive-
orientation. Jailers who fall into this category hold the assumption that inmates warrant
a sentence in a jail environment (Griffin, 2002). These staff members tend to rely on
coercive power to enforce the rules and often view the inmates as an enemy.
Sometimes, custody jailers wrongly assume that their peers do not trust or support the
rehabilitation based jail and would ostracize them if they showed their willingness to
help inmates (Lombardo, 1981).
When a jailer becomes concerned or frustrated over the role strain that is
associated with rehabilitative versus custodial responsibilities, this can fuel angry
feelings toward jail administrators. Frustration from not learning enough information
about what the jail administration’s goals and expectations are can create distrust and
uncertainty. Occasionally, custody jailers who become frustrated about what role to
follow reject rehabilitative goals (Farmer, 1977).
Jailers who maintain a custodial or punitive position tend to show no evidence
that their negative feelings toward prison administration decrease with length of
9
employment (Ulmer, 1992). Thus, as a result of the influence of jailers’ pessimistic
attitudes on their fellow co-workers, formal guidelines for staff-inmate relations become
supplemented by more informal, peer-influenced methods of maintaining custody.
Suspicion of administrators and uncertainty about new programs contribute to the jailer
steering clear of human-service approaches to inmate management and resist
administrative rules and regulations (Ulmer, 1992). Such resistance seems to parallel
the inmate's relationship to authority figures, creating an institution in which interactions
are polarized, conflictive, and hostile.
1.2 Solution of Interest
Jails, like the Los Angeles County Jail, have been actively pursuing measures to
diminish the county jail population. A concern by the jail executives regarding inmate
rehabilitation initiated the development of Education Based Incarceration (EBI). This
approach to inmate rehabilitation is supported by considerable changes in jail
philosophy promoted by organizations like the National Institute of Corrections.
1.2.1 Rehabilitation Oriented Culture
The societal change regarding inmate incarceration from warehousing inmates to
rehabilitating inmates caused the California Department of Corrections (CDC) to
address its role as an inmate correctional institution. The recent movement toward
inmate rehabilitation sparked an organizational change inside the CDC that caused the
organization to revise its vision, mission, and goal statements to include inmate
rehabilitation and recidivism reduction. The organizational change eventually resulted in
the re-naming of the CDC to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR).
10
Rehabilitation is a proactive category of professional orientation that reflects the
extent to which the jailer believes in the need for and the benefit of rehabilitation for the
inmate during his incarceration (Griffin, 2002). The rehabilitative-oriented custody jailer
supports the idea that front-line staff, which have daily contact with the prisoner, require
human-service skills in addition to security and supervisory abilities in order to improve
the quality of staff-inmate interactions (Lombardo, 1981). It has been shown that
increased frequency of positive, direct contact with an inmate is correlated with the
jailer's feelings of personal accomplishment, as well as with a decrease in job-related
stress levels (Morgan et al, 2002).
There are significant effects on work performance when jailers are not conflicted
about their role or discouraged by a lack of institutional support for their attempts to
utilize a rehabilitative approach to problem solving (Lambert et al, 2002). This situation
tends to foster greater job satisfaction which leads to more productive, creative, and
motivated employees. Studies have indicated that, with improved levels of staff
satisfaction, the jailer is more likely to hold stronger rehabilitative attitudes and a more
positive view of offenders (Lambert et al, 2002).
In jails where the jailers actively support rehabilitation programs, inmates have
reported living in a safer environment, as well as identified the relationship with the jailer
as a source of social support that helps to reduce feelings of anxiety, depression, and
hopelessness (Biggam, 1997; Lambert et al, 2002). Furthermore, for those jailers who
are able to maintain a human-service orientation, disparaging attitudes have been
shown to decline as the custody jailer gains more experience over time (Ulmer, 1992).
11
A difficult part of this new rehabilitation transformation process is changing the work
culture and individual attitudes. In a changing situation, employees try to make sense of
the new environment and draw conclusions about its possible outcomes by being
actively involved in information seeking, meaning ascription, and assumption making
about the change process (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, &
Chittipeddi, 1994). In order for new ideas (vision, mission, and goals) and new
rehabilitation programs to take root and hold during the transformation, work culture and
individual attitudes need to be acknowledged and transformed.
Making changes in how custody staff members perform their job functions
requires the ability to not only learn new rehabilitation ideas but to alter how the people
in the culture think about their work. Change comes from the new concept, the new
leaders, the new staff member roles, and new policy. Transition is the mental process
through which people understand new concepts and situations. Change relates to the
external and transition relates to the internal (Bridges, 1991).
The implementation of EBI as a new rehabilitation program needs the support and
commitment of the custody staff members. A commitment to change involves a thought
process that holds an individual to a course of action considered necessary for the
successful implementation of change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). An employee’s
commitment to new programs relates to the perceived adaptability of the new program
to the employees’ values such as the personal and social desirability of modes of
conduct (Klein & Sorra, 1996).
In order for employees to feel a commitment to the new changes toward
rehabilitation, the staff members need to be open to the change. An employee’s
12
openness to change depends on the inclination of the employee to support the change
and realize a positive affect about the potential significance of the change (Miller et al.,
1994). Focusing on openness to change, Miller et al. (1994), Wanberg and Banas
(2000), and Ertürk (2008) examined how the information environment affects
employees’ attitudes toward organizational change. When an employee is well informed
about his or her role and the goals of the organization, they are likely to be open to
change (Miller et al., 1994; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Ertürk, 2008).
1.2.2 LASD Education Based Incarceration
A major focus of the L.A. Sheriff’s Department is to provide inmates with
rehabilitative programs, family reunification, education, and vocational skills while they
remain in custody to assist them in living successful lives outside custody. By working
collaboratively with inmates, department members help develop discharge plans and
link inmates to appropriate community resources upon their release, while fostering a
collective continuation of support.
The Education Based Incarceration Bureau manages the EBI program, which
consists of the following education based rehabilitative programs: adult basic education
(ABE), vocational (career technical) programs, jail enterprises unit (JEU), behavioral
modification courses, and multidisciplinary programs. Each of these programs offers jail
inmates an opportunity for personal improvement toward rehabilitation.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department started the Maximizing Education
Reaching Individual Transformation (MERIT) program as a pilot rehabilitation program
to teach inmates basic skills they did not learn before incarceration. The MERIT
program (currently part of the EBI program) participants are housed in a separate dorm
13
and participate in a four-phase program focusing on personal relationships, parenting,
substance abuse, and leadership and job skills. The program primarily serves domestic
violence offenders, veterans, and drug court participants (Sandwick et al, 2013).
Inmates who complete rehabilitation programs become better prepared for their
transition or reentry back into the community. Education Based Incarceration lessons
are designed to specifically assist inmates in their transition from custody to civilian life.
Inmates learn life skills such as domestic violence awareness, cultural tolerance, job
interview preparedness, and self-help proficiencies. Parker stated that, “by increasing
the number of inmates participating in vocational and educational programs and linking
them to jobs and housing upon their release, the Community Transition Unit and LASD
are improving the lives of inmates, their families, their victims, jail staff, and all our
communities” (Parker, 2001, pp 23).
The current LASD EBI program helps inmates change their method of thinking and
promotes values and acceptable behavior skills to allow inmates to become successful
in society. Spending time behind bars can impair an inmate’s capacity to handle societal
rules because the behaviors and values needed to succeed in jail are often in direct
struggle with societal customs (Bloom, 2006; MacKenzie, 2008). The LASD EBI
program encourages the inmate’s ability to think critically in the hope of elevating above
the recent rises in incarceration and recidivism by thinking differently about their actions
while incarcerated.
1.3 Rationale for Study
The problem of recidivism requires leaders to revisit the questions of value, purpose,
and process associated with the current correctional system (Heifetz et al., 2009).
14
Undeniably, the failure to do so will result in a greater public expenditure, larger
numbers of individuals in custody, and higher rates of recidivism. Rather than seeing
monies spent on correctional education as futile attempts to rehabilitate those who have
violated societal norms, it is time to begin looking at correctional education as an
opportunity to promote positive social change, specifically in the areas of equal
education and opportunity that promotes social justice.
1.3.1 Need for Study
Education Based Incarceration enhances the correctional system by maintaining
focus on discouraging and diminishing future criminal behavior by empowering the
inmates using rehabilitation and educational programs. Offering educational and self-
improvement programs in the local jail facilities helps county jail inmates find
opportunities to develop and grow instead of recidivate. An academic approach requires
a supportive system rather than a punitive only system in efforts to reduce crime related
behavior. EBI focuses on offering inmates the skills needed to live industrious, law-
abiding lives outside the custody environment. The focus of this study is on the training
of jailer staff educators and jail supervisors intended to improve the quality of the
education programs for inmates that in turn are understood to reduce recidivism rates.
The successful implementation of EBI programs is contingent not only on modifying
the behavior of the inmates but also the culture of the facilities that house them
(Christensen & Clawson, 2006; Gornik, 2002; Mellow, Mukamal, LoBuglio, Solomon &
Osborne, 2008; Solomon, Osborn, LoBuglio, Mellow & Mukamal, 2008; Travis, 2003).
One of the current primary objectives of incarceration focuses on rehabilitation. Thus,
social justice requires that political leaders and correctional institutions focus their
15
limited resources on rehabilitating and educating offenders. A link exists between higher
levels of education and fewer instances of recidivism (Frolanderr-Ulf & Yates, 2001) and
increased occurrences of post-release employment (Aos et al., 2006; Jenkins et al.,
1995).
When the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department presented a new concept of EBI in
correctional rehabilitation, the idea needed to be formally and informally introduced to
the custody staff. New program introductions often require a change in the perceptions
of the staff members involved in the change. “Organizational change is a set of
behavioral science-based values, strategies, and techniques aimed at augmenting
individual development and improving organizational performance. Organizational
change is modified when the perceptions of the roles and behaviors of the
organizational members change” (Porras & Robertson, 1992 pp 723). This new work
setting or “change” can cause stress to the staff members of the division.
The leadership of the LASD Custody Division comes from both the management
level and the supervisor level. Managing change in a jail organization not only needs
these leaders to lead by example, but also needs these leaders to show people how to
act (Kotter, 1996). The needed change in the custody setting comes from those placed
in a role model and leadership position. Positive change comes from the top and allows
subordinates to understand the meaning of the change that management shares. To
create change to the mindset of the employees, leaders need to make profound
changes in themselves (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996).
Once the leaders adjust their behavior to serve as a model for a new division culture,
the leaders’ modified behaviors draw positive behaviors from their subordinates. When
16
leaders display their own personal transformation, planned organizational changes
follow more smoothly. A similar logic emphasizes that supervisors develop a
teacher/student point of view (Cohen & Tichy, 1997). Custody Services Division
managers and supervisors need to show their subordinates that they understand and
support the Education Based Incarceration program in order for their subordinates to
emulate their behavior.
Although LASD continues to send custody personnel to tactical communications
courses, personal dialog between supervisors and non-supervisors remains an
important part of communication. “The most basic mechanism of acquiring new
information that leads to cognitive restructuring is to discover in a conversational
process that the interpretation that someone else puts on a concept is different from
one’s own” (Schein, 1996 pp 31). Interactions between supervisors and non-supervisors
create unique modifications in organizations that happen during normal conversation
(Barrett et al., 1995; Dixon 1997). Custody Services Division provides jail employees
with jail related training, workshops, and seminars to keep the employees current with
jail related topics. During most training workshops, dialog becomes an integral part of
critical thinking and awareness training. Regarding the framework of strategic
organizational development, good conversation is verbal, rational, imaginative, and
authentic (Quinn, 1996).
LASD EBI focuses on providing inmates with an opportunity to improve their lives.
LASD has not designed a portion of the program that focuses on staff involvement in
the rehabilitation of inmates. Custody rehabilitation relies on the majority of staff
members understanding their roles and actively involving themselves in the concepts
17
related to rehabilitation. LASD EBI needs support from the custody staff to realize the
goal of inmate rehabilitation. A group of supervisors and jailers need to create an
employee training program that meets the needs of this EBI program. Developing
properly trained and motivated custody staff members to support and help the
Education Based Incarceration program remains a focus of the program’s realization.
Educational programs may be most effective when every staff member involved
understands their own function and the idea that the inmates can change. Custody staff
members need to be aware that the inmate is worthy of change and is worth the
investment of time. Successful employee training regarding inmate rehabilitation can
help jailers understand their rehabilitative role and support the opportunity to help
improve an inmate into a good person and a good citizen.
The staff jailer occupies the role of counselor or facilitator for many of these
programs, however they do not always receive the proper training needed to fulfill the
roles they are asked to assume. The staff members need training to understand that
their role includes the development and training of jail inmates to accomplish that
mission. Because most correctional staff jailers may not understand their role regarding
rehabilitative efforts, they may not support rehabilitation. This study is intended to learn
from the LASD custody jailers and supervisors what they think their roles are with
regards to the rehabilitation of inmates and their understanding of the entire program to
reduce recidivism through Education Based Incarceration. The results of this study
provide a foundation for the development of a model for the training of jailer staff
educators and general jail staff members. A model for training could educate the
18
custody employees regarding the goals and purposes of inmate rehabilitation in the
county jail system.
Although these EBI programs have shown some positive effects regarding
recidivism and jail violence, the current LASD inmate education program designs lack a
focus toward jailer cultural development. The development of the culture of the jail staff
members to support the jail inmate education may improve the quality of life for the jail
inmates. This study will support a model to improve the quality of the programs
designed to reduce the violence and recidivism rates in the jail.
1.3.2 Purpose of the Study
LASD jail administrators have tried to create an education based incarceration
program that focuses efforts toward empowering inmates to improve their behavior by
changing their inappropriate thought patterns through social cognitive training. The
focus of this study concentrates on studying the differences in staff perceptions of the
EBI program and the goals of the Custody Services Division in an effort to design a
model preparing the custody jailers for their role in aiding the rehabilitation through
Education Based Incarceration.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department started an Education Based Incarceration
Bureau during the spring of 2012 in an effort to rehabilitate jail inmates. This bureau’s
goals comprised the following six operational principles from Sheriff Baca:
Principle One: Evaluate and assess both the educational and trade skills of all
offenders.
19
Principle Two: Develop a system of educating Los Angeles County prisoners who
inevitably will serve time in the state prison system that begins and ends in the
Los Angeles County Jail.
Principle Three: Develop and implement proper educational and preparation
skills for prisoners to reduce the likelihood of recidivism.
Principle Four: Strengthen and systematize the partnership with the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Principle Five: Develop curriculum that focuses on Action Learning Programs
(ALP) that are a structured and a learner centered classroom setting.
Principle Six: Transform the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Custody Services
Division and California State Correction’s cultural thought to support and
embrace the principles of Education Based Incarceration (Baca, 2009).
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Custody Division has developed
and employed a program that focuses on principles one through five. The executives
felt as though they needed to implement the rehabilitation program though EBI quickly
so the plan would not remain simply an idea. The LASD executives believed that
principle six was considered too time consuming to research before the implementation
of the EBI program at LASD. It is the purpose of this study to concentrate on LASD EBI
principle number six: transform the Custody Services Division and State Correction’s
cultural thought to support and embrace the principles of Education Based
Incarceration.
In order to identify the cultural issues in the LASD Custody Division, a strategy must
be used to examine the organization and find solutions. Over time, there have been
20
many strategies identified to improve organizational performance. One starting point is
organizational diagnosis, the assessment of the current situation of an organization to
recognize the most applicable interventions regarding development. When an
organization wants to improve its performance, it is necessary to evaluate current
performance. Organizational diagnosis involves a process that provides data on the
several subsystems of the organization, processes and rules of behavior that occur
within the organization (Beckhard, 1969).
One of the benefits of organizational diagnosis is it provides information on
organizational activities that operate with reduced functionality. The information can be
used to find ways to increase efficiency. The diagnosis ensures the organization's
ongoing involvement in the process of continuous improvement and allows a systematic
interpretation of data, while enabling the development of appropriate change strategies
(Beer and Spector, 1993). These organizational diagnosis benefits help the organization
acquire the ability to find solutions to solve problems.
Diagnosing an organization through questionnaires distributed to its members is an
effective way to get information on what is not working properly and how well aligned
the organization is to achieve its objectives efficiently. The organizational diagnosis
questionnaire acts as the diagnosis instrument because it shows the manager’s or
consultant’s a number of variables that interact with each other (Leavitt, 1965;
Weisbord, 1978). The survey questionnaire used to analyze the employee culture in
LASD was based on Weisbord's Six Box Model to the Custody Services Division staff
using the Organizational Diagnostic Questionnaire developed by Preziosi and further
developed in this study (Weisbord, 1978). The Weisbord Six Box Model has the
21
following six categories: purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, and
helpful mechanisms.
Statistical inquiry studies use non-experimental methods to study the current
organizational issue at the time the study starts (Trochim, 2007). This study observed
the differences between custody supervisors and non-supervisors regarding multiple
aspects of organizational culture. This researcher modified the Organizational Diagnosis
Questionnaire (OQD) from Preziosi’s study to pertain to the Custody Services Division
culture. The Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire designed for this study gathered
data about current staff member perceptions of the organizational culture in the jail. The
study intended to find any variations in perceptions but not to look for causes to any
variances. The use of this study intends to find a relationship between what the
employees understand about the EBI goals and the Custody Division’s goals regarding
rehabilitation. The ODQ was used to ask the employees questions related to the current
climate of rehabilitation within the Custody Division. Conducting a survey to analyze the
perceptions related to the cultural understanding of the organization is suitable for this
study.
1.3.3 Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to look for differences between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors (Lieutenants, Sergeants, and Senior Jailers) and non-supervisors
(Deputies and Custody Assistants) regarding seven cultural constructs (purpose,
structure, leadership, relationships, staff roles in EBI program, attitude toward change,
and helpful mechanisms).
22
For the analysis, this study explores the differences in perceptions for each of the
constructs and identifies the severity of these differences. The constructs with the
largest difference in perception between the supervisors and the non-supervisors show
a difference in the custody culture as perceived by supervisors versus non-supervisors.
These differences in perceptions determine what the needs are regarding employee
training for the EBI program. As an example, if supervisors and non-supervisors display
a large difference between the perceptions of leadership, this would indicate that the
employees may not receive enough vision or strategy support information from the
supervisors regarding the entire purpose of the EBI program.
The differences in perceptions of each of the constructs help clarify how staff
understand their role in inmate rehabilitation. Each of the constructs identifies a different
aspect of the Custody Services Division’s culture. Identifying the participants’
perceptions of each of the constructs allows this research to identify how staff members
of custody division understand the mission, goals, leadership, and the concept of
rehabilitation. Any deficiencies in understanding of the mission, goals, or leadership
regarding rehabilitation can be addressed and set up as training development topics for
an EBI training program. The findings can help with the plan for staff training,
awareness, and program orientation to improve the rehabilitation of inmates by custody
employees at the levels of the organization.
Research Questions:
Question One: What are the differences in perceptions between custody
supervisors and non-supervisors/jailers toward the seven
23
constructs (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, EBI
program, helpful mechanisms, and attitude to change)?
Question Two: What are the differences in perceptions between the five groups of
employees (Lieutenants, Sergeants, Senior Jailers, Deputies, and
Custody Assistants) toward the seven constructs (purpose,
structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program, helpful
mechanisms, and attitude to change)?
Based on the research questions, the alternate and null hypotheses for the research
were:
H1A: Supervisors and non-supervisors in custody do not perceive the concepts in the
seven constructs (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program,
helpful mechanisms, and attitude to change) differently.
H1B: Supervisors and non-supervisors in custody perceive the concepts in the seven
constructs (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program, helpful
mechanisms, and attitude to change) differently.
H2A: The five groups of employees (Lieutenants, Sergeants, Bonus Deputies,
Deputies, and Custody Assistants) in custody do not perceive the concepts in the
seven constructs (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program,
helpful mechanisms, and attitude to change) differently.
H2B: The five groups of employees (Lieutenants, Sergeants, Bonus Deputies,
Deputies, and Custody Assistants) in custody perceive the concepts in the seven
constructs (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program, helpful
mechanisms, and attitude to change) differently.
24
Based on the fact that LASD has not developed an EBI employee training program,
this research practitioner believes that most current inmate rehabilitation programs were
created for the inmates without much thought or effort regarding a change in cultural
thinking through screening, indoctrination, training of the jailers. A program designed to
promote change in cultural thinking in custody staff helps the rehabilitation efforts see
long-term program success by informing the employees of the mission and goals of the
EBI rehabilitation program. This research method seems appropriate for this research
because the method allows an examination of the questionnaire survey data to provide
objective assessments of the research questions (Salkind, 2003).
1.4 Conclusion
This study compared, through the ODQ survey, the perceptions of the
supervisors and non-supervisors/jailers regarding the jail wide organizational culture to
find differences in the perceptions of the seven constructs. The information provided by
jailers was compared to that from supervisors. A total of 300 supervisors and jailers
from the LASD Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) were asked to contribute to this ODQ survey.
Almost half of the 616 assigned MCJ custody staff agreed to contribute their opinions to
this ODQ survey.
The ODQ questionnaire was used to evaluate Custody Services Division’s
employees’ perceptions that may or may not align with the Education Based
Incarceration program framework. From these responses to the ODQ survey, this
research will provide a good picture of this agency’s organizational traits as they relate
to the rehabilitation efforts of the custody unit.
25
The purpose of the focus on the organizational culture of staff members in the LASD
jail is to start the change of organizational culture to embrace the idea of rehabilitation.
Eventually, this training plan will involve all of the custody employees and get them to
feel as though they are each a mentor or teacher of rehabilitation. Custody Division
training staff intend to design training programs for all custody employees to become
aware of and understand the Education Based Incarceration mission and the role of
rehabilitation. The ODQ survey allows this researcher an opportunity to see perceptions
of the staff members regarding organizational culture elements. Each of the seven
constructs exposes a potential weakness in the employees’ understanding of the EBI
program as it relates to the goal of rehabilitation of inmates.
The following chapter details the literature related to the five topics. The material
conveyed in chapter two addresses the topics covered by this project and explains the
five topics of Inmate Education Programs, Recidivism Reduction, Factors Shaping
Success, Organizational Change, and Theoretical Framework.
Chapter three covers the methodology used in this study. The purpose of this
chapter is to present the research design employed in this study based on Weisbord’s
organizational diagnosis model which was adapted by Preziosi. Chapter three describes
the research design and explores the suitability of the study. The chapter also presents
the population, sampling and data collection of the study, and explains the purpose of
the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) designed by Preziosi and modified
by this researcher for this study.
Chapter four presents the results of the descriptive analysis using the ODQ to gather
information from employees to determine whether or not any differences in perceptions
26
of the supervisors and the non-supervisors exist. The research validity, reliability, and
limitations section of chapter four clarifies the relationship between the concepts and the
data.
Chapter five explains the characteristics of the respondents. The chapter describes
findings from the analysis of the perceptions of the supervisors and non-supervisors
regarding the rehabilitation culture related to custody. Descriptive statistics that
summarize the sample were used to describe the basic features of the data gathered
from this study. This chapter presents the results of a reliability analysis, which justifies
the formation of the seven scales. T-tests were conducted to assess the differences in
the mean scores between the supervisors and the non-supervisors for each of the
seven constructs. This study intended to examine possible differences between the
perceptions of the supervisors and non-supervisors regarding the jail wide
organizational culture as it pertains to what they feel their role and responsibilities are
for inmate rehabilitation.
Chapter six explains the conclusions and recommendations of the study based on
the findings. This chapter discusses suggestions for an EBI training program aimed at
creating employees committed to the EBI program. The training covers all custody
employees and a training team of trainers. Chapter six explains how the results of the
study relate to the necessary changes in the organizational culture needed for
employees to support rehabilitation and reduce recidivism.
27
CHAPTER 2: SCHOLARLY FOUNDATIONS
The chapter reviews the literature on five major topics. The five topics are inmate
education programs, recidivism reduction, factors shaping success of EBI programs,
organizational change, and theoretical framework.
While most educational rehabilitation programs focus on changes for the
inmates, this study focuses on the staff training side of support for rehabilitation. Most
correctional agencies write useful policies regarding issues pertaining to jail security and
safety, but most fail to include staff development and training regarding support for
rehabilitation programs.
This study identifies an advance in the action agenda for change regarding the
training and procedures of the jail staff. The results of the survey provide a cultural
understanding and perspective regarding the current EBI program and the goals of the
custody division. By analyzing the cultural difference between the supervisors and non-
supervisors in the perceptions of rehabilitation in the jail, the study provides a guideline
for understanding the staff member’s perceptions of their role regarding rehabilitation
through EBI in a set of training sessions.
The first section of this review explains the details of the inmate education
programs. A primary focus of the Sheriff’s Department is to provide inmates with
rehabilitative programs, family reunification, education, and vocational skills while they
remain in custody. These programs will help the inmates learn skills needed to live
successful lives outside custody. By working collaboratively with inmates, department
members help develop discharge plans and link inmates to appropriate community
resources.
28
The second part of the review addresses the effects of rehabilitative education in
vocational programs, basic education programs, and cognitive training on the reduction
of recidivism and jail violence. Understanding the effects of recidivism reducing
rehabilitation programs serves to clarify the value of inmate rehabilitation programs in
the jail. Reducing recidivism reduces the overall cost of housing jail inmates because
the inmates do not return to jail.
The third part of the chapter reviews literature on leadership and organizational
culture, and employee relations and role responsibilities. A successful educational
program is not possible without instituting methods and procedures to maintain security
and order within the prison environment to allow the inmates and staff a safe place to
focus on rehabilitation (DiIulio, 1987; Gillespie, 2003; Miller, 1978; Roberts, 1974). The
screening, indoctrination, training, and feedback of staff jailers should be developed for
an organization based on the goal of providing jailers with understanding regarding their
role in support of inmate rehabilitation.
The core focus of the fourth section on organizational change is on the value of
engaging and involving employees, creating a collaborative environment to involve all
members in designing, modifying, and implementing organizational and cultural change
to positively affect inmate rehabilitation. Creating and managing organizational and
cultural change in order to create higher performing organizations in which individuals
can grow and develop is a central theme of the field of organizational development.
Because of its impact on the organizational culture and potential value to the
organization’s success, organizational change has been a frequent topic of interest to
both academic and management thinkers. It is important to know when to make
29
changes to management and organizational structure as well as how to manage those
changes effectively as to not interrupt business. There are volumes written about
organizational and cultural change and the reasons that people resist change.
The purpose of the theoretical framework section is to clarify the concept of
organizational diagnosis as a key step in the process of organizational development.
This section attempts to explain the concept of organizational diagnosis and give a
comprehensive presentation of the organizational diagnostic models that were found in
the literature and practice. The explanation attempts to answer the following questions:
What is the role of organizational diagnosis in the organizational development process?
What are the main organizational diagnostic models that were found in the literature?
2.1 Inmate Education Programs
The Education Based Incarceration Bureau contracts with approved adult
educational schools to provide basic educational courses at all jail facilities. The
curriculum is based on California state standards and complies with current
requirements. Adult Basic Education (ABE) is a series of courses offered to students
preparing for the formal GED preparation course. It features a systematic “building
block” approach to development of improved reading, writing, and math skills.
The Education Based Incarceration Bureau offers a wide variety of industrial training
courses designed to increase the likelihood of employment in specific vocations after
release. Cement and concrete block masonry classes teach a wide variety of modern
masonry techniques. Commercial painting classes include instruction in brushes, rollers,
spray equipment, abrasive blasting, and rigging of scaffolding. Building maintenance
30
classes prepare the inmate students for careers in the rapidly growing field of custodial
maintenance, basic repairs, floor care, and insect and rodent control.
Residential construction courses offer comprehensive instruction from foundation to
roofing in the construction industry. Commercial welding teaches the full spectrum of
various types of industrial welding. Landscaping is a growing industry that offers career
potential on a number of levels, and the landscaping courses train students in lawn
care, irrigation, plant care, and basic landscape design. The culinary arts program
provides active training in food services, baking, cooking and the full spectrum of food
preparation career preparation. The directory assistance operator program is an entry-
level training course for state of the art telecommunications, taught by a contracted
education agency. Inmate students provide information services to the public over the
phone on three shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Jail Enterprises Unit (JEU) oversees vocational shops spread over several
separate jail facilities. The shops feature workforce training utilizing credentialed
instructors who train the inmate students while the products they manufacture are sold
to Los Angeles County departments and employees. This process generates revenue
for the Inmate Welfare Commission to support the entire scope of inmate programs.
These courses include:
Print shop: Inmate students produce products such as forms, flyers, brochures,
invitations, envelopes and magazines.
Wood shop: Provides inmate students both classroom instruction and hands-on
training in numerous types of woodworking, such as millwork, finish carpentry
and cabinetmaking.
31
Sew Shop: Introduces inmate students to the power-sewing industry. The inmate
students produce all the inmate clothing, linen, property bags and mattresses.
Wheelchair Repair Shop: Inmate students repair wheelchairs for the Medical
Services Bureau, while the backs and seats are sewn at the Sew Shop.
Sign Shop: Inmate students learn basic computer-aided fabrication and are
introduced to graphic arts design. In addition to signs, they also produce
engraved awards such as plaques, trophies and medallions.
Bike Shop: The bike repair shop receives donated bikes from commercial bike
shops throughout the county, as well as abandoned property. Inmate students
repair and refurbish them from start to finish, providing practical instruction in
mechanics, repair and maintenance.
Plastic Bag Manufacturing: This program supplies much of the Department’s
requirement for lunch bags and large trash bags. Inmate students learn industrial
machine operations, packaging and small-scale warehousing.
Commercial Embroidery Shop: Inmate students learn embroidery basics,
machine maintenance, and technical applications. The students use cutting-
edge, computerized embroidering machines.
Pet Grooming: Inmate students learn skills used in the pet-service industry, and
this training prepares students for jobs in such businesses as kennels, animal
shelters, pet shops and pet salons.
Behavioral modification courses of instruction are referred to as Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy (CBT). Studies worldwide have consistently shown them to be very effective in
reducing recidivism. EBI offers a wide variety of such critical thinking and perception
32
courses of 6-8 weeks in length. They are taught using a modern interactive method
known as “facilitation.” EBI facilitators include specially trained sheriff’s deputies and
custody assistants in each of the jail units countywide. All the following courses aim to
improve the conscious process of decision-making and purposeful behavior:
Moral Reconation Training (MRT): This is a systematic, cognitive behavioral, step
by step treatment strategy designed to enhance self-image, promote growth of a
positive, productive identity and facilitate the development of higher stages of
moral reasoning.
Anger Management: Helps students understand how to recognize and control
emotions, resolve conflicts, and develop interpersonal relationships.
Conflict Resolution: This course focuses on how to manage and resolve
interpersonal conflicts, including managing responses, achieving rapport, taking
perspective, and managing emotions.
Interpersonal Communication: Discusses the interpersonal communication
process, including verbal and non-verbal language, conflict management, and
causes of miscommunication.
Leadership Training: Offers the basics of individual and group leadership,
including the importance of values, ethics, and attitudes.
Parenting: Discusses the techniques and skills of effective parenting, including
behavioral modification techniques.
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Covers the basics of Dr. Steven
Covey’s popular program, including being proactive, putting first things first,
seeking first to understand, and synergy.
33
Substance Abuse Education: This course covers the physiology and psychology
of substance abuse, including the effects of drugs and alcohol on the mind and
body, and strategies for quitting.
Domestic Violence: Helps students understand what constitutes an abusive
relationship and how to develop the skills needed to resolve conflicts
constructively.
Thinking for a Change: Students learn how internal thoughts affect our feelings,
not external things like people or events. By changing how they think, they can
change how they feel and behave.
The Maximizing Education Reaching Individual Transformation (MERIT) program is
one of the flagship programs in EBI. The MERIT program is based on a close and active
partnership between the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, community based
organizations and faith based organizations. The strength of the MERIT program comes
from the instructor’s ability to bring each participant to the point that they realize the
necessity of personal commitment to reaching their goals, accepting responsibility for
their actions, and being accountable for their life choices. The inmate students learn
how to make those decisions in a rational manner, and employ their positive attributes
toward building a successful family, career, and future.
Some educators assert that education is a pre-requisite to moral thought, as well as
an important part of pro-social behavior (Dewey, 1916; Kohlberg, Kauffman, Scharf, &
Hickey, 1975) and, for these reasons, a necessary part of any legitimate effort to
rehabilitate inmates. The LASD EBI program offers many benefits to the overall
functioning of the correctional system. Given that schooling allows inmate students to
34
remain active and engaged, while minimizing chances for misconduct, the LASD EBI
program can potentially lead to less violence among inmates, thereby creating a more
positive and manageable environment for both jail staff and other inmates (Vacca,
2004). EBI may be beneficial to the post-incarceration adjustment of inmates and can
also increase the quality of the jail facilities.
The LASD EBI program supports a learning path to assist inmates in transition from
incarceration to community. Since most offender rehabilitation programs are about
inmate rehabilitation, the LASD EBI program establishes a process by which jail
inmates learn and advance from criminal activity and thoughts to thoughts of an
instrumental citizen. The process of the EBI program allows the jail inmates to change
their thinking and support better decision-making through social and cognitive training.
2.2 Recidivism Reduction
This section of the literature review addresses the effects of rehabilitative
education in vocational programs, basic education programs, and cognitive training. The
goal of rehabilitation comes from the organizational desire to reduce recidivism and jail
violence. Understanding the effects of recidivism reduction rehabilitation programs
creates an image of the value of inmate rehabilitation programs in the jail. Reducing
recidivism reduces the overall cost of housing jail inmates because the inmates do not
return to jail.
The increasing amount of inmate incarceration stimulates administrative and
public examination of efforts to control jail and rehabilitation facilities. In California, the
spiraling expenses of custody facilities operations seem to entice legislators to
35
contemplate more rehabilitative measures available decrease criminal behavior and
reduce expenses (Second Chance Act, 2007).
A few years ago, the Pew Center stated that about one percent of the adults in
the United States was incarcerated in a jail or rehabilitation facility, costing taxpayers an
unmanageable expense of almost $60 billion annually (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2008). There have been important advances in the evaluation of educational needs in
jail facilities over the last 40 years (Gehring, 2007). Institutions experience increased
accountability for funding and generate more expectations to produce positive outcomes
to reduce costs, violence, and recidivism.
A study by California Corrections provides significant evidence affirming that
education based incarceration programs have a positive outcome on recidivism rates
and rehabilitation (CDCR, 2007). Inmates who participate in education based
incarceration programs are more likely to succeed and not recidivate when they leave
the jail system. This rehabilitative responsibility creates the likelihood inmates commit
less crime and find employment more easily than those not involved in any program
(CDCR, 2007).
Since the Education Based Incarceration rehabilitation programs consist of many
parts, this review covers the effects of current EBI rehabilitation program components.
The Education Based Incarceration program as a whole encompasses multiple
rehabilitative programs such as vocational training, general education, and cognitive
behavioral therapy.
Inmate rehabilitation programs like vocational skills training started when people
realized the damaging emotional effects of solitary confinement (MacKenzie, 2006).
36
One solution that provided temporary time out of a confinement cell included periods of
the day during which inmates worked in vocational studies learning manual labor tasks
such as working in the jail library or assisting the medical staff regarding the medical
housekeeping in a housing area. The vocational studies work gave the inmate a few
hours out of the cell and provided the jail with another free laborer to support the civilian
staff. An inmate rehabilitation study found about 94% of adult correctional facilities
offered vocational/industrial arts and educational programs (MacKenzie, 2006).
Vocational rehabilitation programs allow the inmates to remain busy and out of
the confinement of their cells. The programs reduce expenses, give facilities more
laborers, function as justice for committing a crime, and conserve cleanliness of the
facility. More notably, the programs help with the rehabilitation of the inmates by
providing them with vocational and industrial skills (MacKenzie, 2006). Research
discovered a link between crime and unemployment so jail facilities offer vocational and
industrial based programs to help the inmates better prepare for their future life outside
of jail (MacKenzie, 2006). These types of EBI programs include in-class based
education providing training in subjects like plumbing, electrical work, flooring,
carpentry, and basic job seeking skills (MacKenzie, 2006).
A study in 2003 found that education based incarceration programs involving
vocational training and work release programs reduced recidivism (Seiter et al., 2003).
Also, a similar study conducted in Maryland, Ohio, and Minnesota observed education
based incarceration programs and found that inmates who actively participated in
vocational and industrial rehabilitative programs reduced the likelihood of recidivism by
13% after they were released from jail (California Performance Review, 2007).
37
Another part of the EBI rehabilitative training to reduce recidivism uses cognitive-
behavioral therapy or social learning techniques. Most behavioral modification programs
focus on positive reinforcement to advance and preserve suitable behavior (Pearson et
al., 2002). Several cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) courses include additional
treatments like social problem-solving training, rational-emotive therapy, and social
skills improvement training (Pearson et al., 2002). A recent study found some CBT type
courses reduce recidivism rates significantly (Pearson et al., 2002).
A CBT study assessing inmate reentry programs in North America and Canada
established that cognitive-behavioral therapy considerably reduced recidivism (Seiter et
al., 2003). This study found that the inmates who completed a cognitive behavioral
therapy program reduced their recidivism rate by 11%, compared to inmates who did
not finish the CBT program (Seiter et al., 2003).
Cognitive behavioral therapy programs expect to integrate an individual‘s thought
processes with their subsequent behaviors. The premise of CBT is that enabling an
inmate to envision alternative courses of action moves the inmate toward positive social
behavior. A consistent and increasing body of research supports CBT program’s
positive influence on rehabilitation and recidivism rates (Brazzell et al., 2009; Phipps et
al., 1999; Przybylski, 2008). CBT programs incorporate self-concept reformation, anger
management, and job preparation planning workshops. CBT programs use positive
reinforcement, emphasizing self-control and personal responsibility (Lipsey & Cullen,
2007).
Cognitive behavioral therapy programs can address criminal thinking and
behavior of inmates in a correctional setting. Research shows that CBT increases
38
interest and participation in educational pursuits and substance abuse rehabilitation
(MacKenzie, 2008). During a study of twenty-five CBT programs, the Washington State
Institute on Public Policy discovered that CBT programs decreased recidivism rates by
8.2 percent. All CBT programs reviewed were well structured and organized to provide
staff with comprehensive guidebooks and training workshops. Reasoning and
Rehabilitation programs (R&R), Moral Reconation Therapy programs (MRT), and
Thinking for a Change programs (T4C), are all part of and enhance CBT programs
(Phipps et al., 1999).
The Reasoning and Rehabilitation programs which are part of CBT teach social
cognitive skills to inmates. The Reasoning and Rehabilitation programs emphasize the
development of the awareness of thought patterns and attitudes. Over time, the
inmates’ impulsive, reactive thought patterns are modified and replaced with more
thoughtful patterns. Researchers found that those who completed the program had
improved problem-solving skills, which profoundly influenced their behavioral changes
(Golden, Gatchel, & Cahill, 2006).
Moral Reconation Therapy as a part of a cognitive-behavioral therapy originally
started as a prison-based drug therapy program. The primary goal of the MRT program
aims at the moral growth of the inmate. MRT is based on the belief that criminal
behaviors stem from defense mechanisms based on the reaction to tension that
produces conflict in the inmate’s personality (Armstrong, 2003). MRT combines
evaluations of domestic and peer relationships with the development of strategies for
successfully responding to life stressors and supporting capacity for good decision
making.
39
The Thinking for a Change classes, introduced by the National Institute of
Corrections, produce cognitive behavior change programs for adult inmates. The T4C
program focuses on improving the problem solving abilities of inmates in the program as
a part of CBT. A blend of cognitive behavior therapy and cognitive skills interventions
provides the means for achieving the desired results. T4C program lesson topics
include active listening, finding new methods of thinking, understanding your own
emotional state, being aware of other’s feelings, understanding for stressful
conversations, correcting self-anger, and filtering accusations (Bush, Glick, & Taymans,
1997).
In the United Kingdom, a medium to a long-term study of comparative
reconviction rates following treatment while incarcerated concluded that, in a two-year,
observed series of CBT programs, the recidivism rates for medium-low risk inmates
dropped by 14%. The rates for medium-high risk inmates fell by 11%, controlling for
known predictors of reconviction (Friendship et al., 2002).
A rehabilitation study in Canada revealed a three-year reduction in recidivism
exceeding 30% in inmates who had received continued CBT training (John Howard
Society of Alberta, 2002, p.5). Another recent Canadian study revealed that cognitive
behavioral workshops for inmates reduced recidivism and a clear pattern of learning
was apparent (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a). Cognitive-behavioral workshops associated
with recidivism reductions were encouraged by Canadian custody administrators. A
meta-analysis of 11 Canadian studies conducted in jail classroom settings that adhered
to the R&R principles found a 15% reduction in recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010a).
40
One of the studies from the meta-analysis evaluated inmates randomly assigned
to the Reasoning and Rehabilitation program (R&R). Other inmates belonged to the
control group and received regular probation. The randomized trial revealed a 70
percent rate of re-conviction and recidivism for the control group. The inmates who
received the R&R treatment program showed an 18 percent rate of re-conviction (Ross
and Ross, 1995).
An evaluation of the program at the Shelby County Correctional Center,
Tennessee revealed its recidivism reduction effectiveness (Little et al., 1998). The
inmates involved in the Moral Reconation Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy at
this correctional facility participated in two weekly meetings. These meetings lasted one
to two hours, and usually involved ten to fifteen inmates. About 38 percent of the group
in the program returned to jail for a new conviction. The comparison group showed a 53
percent rate of new conviction. Felony inmates who were in an EBI type rehabilitation
program showed differences in recidivism rates from the inmates who were not in any
program (Little et al., 1998).
The program at Wayne County Jail, Wooster, Ohio featured Moral Reconation
Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The MRT/CBT program involved a therapy
group with a trained facilitator. In this program, during the five-year follow-up period, 62
percent of MRT participants were re-arrested after release compared to 95 percent of
the comparison group who received no treatment. The difference between the groups
proved statistically significant (Krueger, 1997).
In 1993, research on the program at Lake County Detention Center, Florida
evaluated the results for inmates who participated in an MRT program against the
41
results for all other inmates released that year. Only 25 percent of the MRT participants
were re-arrested compared to 37 percent of the comparison group during the two-year
follow-up period. The difference between the groups was statistically significant
(Godwin, Stone, & Hambrock, 1995).
The Vermont Department of Corrections evaluated their Cognitive Self-Change
(CSC) program which intended to show inmates how to recognize their cognitive
misrepresentations, understand their part in criminal behavior and reasoning, and adjust
or neutralize incorrect thought patterns (Henning and Frueh, 1996). The analysis
indicated that the inmates who received CSC treatment exhibited a lower rate of
recidivism than the comparison group during the two-year follow-up period (Henning
and Frueh, 1996).
A review of twenty-five CBT programs found that CBT programs decreased
recidivism by 8.2 percent. Researchers discovered that those who finished the CBT
courses improved their problem-solving skills, which greatly influenced their behavioral
changes (Golden, Gatchel, & Cahill, 2006).
2.3 Factors Shaping Success of EBI Programs
This section of the literature review reviews leadership and organizational
culture, and employee role responsibilities as a contributing factor in shaping the
success of the EBI programs. A successful educational program is not possible without
instituting methods and procedures to maintain safety and order within the prison
environment to allow the inmates and staff a safe place to focus on rehabilitation
(DiIulio, 1987; Gillespie, 2003; Miller, 1978; Roberts, 1974). The screening,
indoctrination, training, and feedback of staff jailers should be developed for an
42
organization based on the goal of providing jailers with understanding regarding their
role in support of inmate rehabilitation.
Since organizations are comprised of all the employees in the agency, each
employee is part of the overall organizational culture. Organizational culture is usually
not seen as one of the top priorities by some managers in the industry. Most
organizations may try to manage their physical and tangible resources to make the most
out of those limited resources. Understanding and managing organizational culture
requires leadership with a vested interest in the people inside of the organization as a
whole. Custody Division management and supervisors can share visions and goals
when managing the organizational culture of the jail employees.
The LASD jail organizational culture encompasses the shared, articulated,
values, beliefs, and behaviors that contribute to the unique social and psychological
environment of an organization; it is “the ‘glue’ that guides behavior and shapes
organizational decision-making” (Haberberg and Rieple, 2008). The sheriff’s jail
employees have molded the organizational culture for decades. Organizational culture
is reinforced by artefacts, stories, heroes, and rituals reminding people what the
organization represents. LASD culture is often explained as “the way we do things
around here” (Bower, 1966) and “what goes and what doesn’t” (Heskett, 2011).
In management circles, culture is often seen as something that can be used to
manipulate employees. Kaplan and Norton (2004) find that “shaping the culture” is seen
as the humanizing element of jail organizations, which helps to establish expectations
between an employee and the organization the employee works for, foster trust,
facilitate communications, and build organizational commitment. Changing LASD’s
43
organizational culture is one of the most difficult leadership challenges because it
comprises an interconnecting and mutually reinforcing system of goals, values,
processes, roles, practices, and assumptions.
An important challenge in public administration is the management of the
organizational culture. One method of managing organizational culture is to design
employee self-improvement programs and create an atmosphere for employee
engagement. Employee engagement can lead to improving the culture in custody to
better support rehabilitation. Performance of each employee in the organization can be
enhanced by knowledge and experience in a custody facility and a focus on role
identification. Sustained training within custody division helps managers promote
improved organizational culture through training as it relates to understanding
employees’ role in the custody environment. When employees in the organization
understand their role supporting rehabilitation, they understand the “big picture” view of
the organization (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008).
In a 2005 study, Bakker and Schaufeli found that good leadership can make the
difference between an engaged employee who feels empowered and necessary and an
employee who feels as though the agency is only using them as a tool. A more satisfied
employee is more likely to put forth a collaborative effort which will benefit the greater
good of the organization as a whole. A supported and engaged employee can become
absorbed into the agency with dedication and energy. Bakker and Schaufeli define
employee engagement as a “positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-
related well-being when the employee understands the organizational goals” (Bakker
and Schaufeli, 2008 pp 151). Cultural change begins with the leaders in the
44
organization who support and guide employees’ interest in the agency’s realization of its
goals, which relates to an increase in employee role performance.
Employees look for a sense of attachment to the organization and the overall
mission. Even managers and leaders need to feel their own commitment as well as
feeling a connection from their employees. Organizational vision and goals play a large
role in an employee’s commitment. Rainey explains that “public managers felt less
commitment because they did not feel as strong a sense of having a personal impact on
the organization, because the organization did not expect as much commitment, and
because their work groups were more diverse and less of a source of attachment to the
organization” (Rainey, 2009 pp. 310).
Leadership is a key to motivating employees and providing a role model to
aspiring to emulate. Effective leaders in custody facilities make the employees feel
valued. Leaders who understand the concepts of the EBI program can share their
understanding with employees, as mentors. The employees trust a leader who
appreciates them and walks the talk. Employees need to be challenged by achievable
and meaningful work, knowing they may some day advance in their career, in custody
division. In order for an employee to understand the organizational mission, the leaders
need to communicate a clear vision (Schermerhorn et al., 2010).
Leaders who provide meaningful feedback allow employees to feel that their
input matters and that they are making a significant contribution to the organization.
Leaders can help employees feel engaged by creating challenges and opportunities that
allow employees the ability to control their destiny. Leaders can create a sense of
cooperative teamwork for groups when “active employee engagement shows up as a
45
willingness to help others, to always try to do something extra to improve performance,
and to speak positively about the organization” (Schermerhorn et al., 2010 pp 72).
The training the custody jailer currently receives does not include information on
his or her role in rehabilitation efforts, which influences his professional orientation and
affects the nature of his relationship with an inmate. Once the custody jailer is placed on
the job, the way in which he is taught to relate to the inmate does not always get
translated into the need to support the rehabilitation programs.
The manner in which the custody jailer carries out his or her daily duties can vary
based upon the jailer's professional orientation. This term reflects an individual's goals,
values, and attitudes as he or she operates within a specific organization (Griffin, 2002).
Within a custody facility, custody jailers’ work-role orientations are related to their
perceptions and definitions of the inmate and his behavior, which leads jailers to have
different responses (Griffin, 2002). In general, these approaches to inmate management
are divided into three categories.
When a custody jailer models his professional identity based upon a custody-
orientation, this refers to the idea that he views himself as an agent of social control
whose first obligation to the institution is one of supervision and control (Griffin, 2002).
This position represents the belief that this obligation is the main purpose of the jailer's
duties and is seen by the Custody Division as the formal role expectation of the custody
jailer (Griffin, 2002).
A role identity that is common among custody jailers is that of a punitive-
orientation. Jailers who fall into this category represent the assumption that inmates
46
warrant a sentence in a jail environment (Griffin, 2002). These staff members tend to
rely on coercive power to enforce the rules and often view the inmates as an enemy.
A proactive category of custody orientation is known as rehabilitative, reflecting
the extent to which the jailer believes in the need for and the benefit of rehabilitation for
the inmate during his incarceration (Griffin, 2002). The rehabilitative-oriented custody
jailer supports the idea that front-line staff, which have daily contact with the inmate,
require human-service skills in addition to security and supervisory abilities in order to
improve the quality of staff-inmate interactions (Lombardo, 1981). It has been shown
that increased frequency of positive, direct contact with an inmate is correlated with the
jailer's feelings of personal accomplishment, as well as with a reduction in job-related
stress levels (Morgan et al., 2002).
There are significant results on work performance when jailers understan their
role or are encouraged by institutional support for their attempts to utilize a rehabilitative
approach to problem solving (Lambert et al, 2002). First, this scenario tends to foster
greater job satisfaction which leads to more productive, creative, and motivated
employees. Second, studies have indicated that, with improved levels of staff
satisfaction, the jailer is more likely to hold stronger rehabilitative attitudes and a more
positive view of offenders (Lambert et al., 2002). Third, in jails where the jailers actively
support rehabilitation programs, inmates have reported living in a safer environment, as
well as identified the relationship with the jailer as a source of social support that helps
to reduce feelings of anxiety, depression, and hopelessness (Biggam, 1997; Lambert et
al., 2002).
47
Research has shown that, in an active and supported rehabilitation based jail,
custody jailers attempt to forge meaningful and satisfying roles for themselves by
assuming a rehabilitative role along with their custody responsibilities (Lombardo,
1981). However, sometimes, custody jailers wrongly assume that their peers do not
trust or support the rehabilitation based jail and would ostracize them if they showed
their willingness to help inmates (Lombardo, 1981). The result is that the jailer either
puts such skills to limited use or refrains from performing these tasks altogether.
While the rehabilitative support in the custody context is shaped by cultural
factors, often overlooked is the influence of experienced custody jailer’s attitudes
about their role on the newly graduated recruits (Dowden, 2000; Ulmer, 1992).
Although, in theory, it is the basic academy training that is supposed to shape the
jailer's approach to his job, the socialization process by peers plays a significant role
in establishing the social reality by which new jailers orient themselves and guides
their actions to support or reject the rehabilitation program (Ulmer, 1992).
Social information processing theory maintains that work-related attitudes and
behaviors are constructed through social interactions with other employees in the work
setting (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000). Inside the custody environment, new jailers
undergo an informal learning process, known as occupational socialization, by jailers
who are described as a small but active group who become a point of reference for
inexperienced custody staff (Ulmer, 1992).
Change occurring in organizational culture requires communication and
information sharing in order for staff members to understand the new changes. The lack
of information exchange can cause employees to become frustrated about what they do
48
not know. This lack of information can cause an employee to struggle with their role as
a jailer, which can cause a role strain. When a jailer becomes concerned or frustrated
over the role strain that is associated with the enactment of rehabilitative versus
custodial responsibilities, this can fuel angry feelings toward jail administrators.
Frustration from not knowing enough information about what the jail administration’s
new goals and expectations are can create distrust and uncertainty.
Frequently, jailers attempt to resolve the issues of not understanding their roles
by rejecting rehabilitative goals altogether (Ulmer, 1992). These cultural attitudes
become negative and affect the rehabilitation programs. For those jailers who are able
to maintain a human-service orientation, negative attitudes have been shown to decline
as the officer gains more experience over time (Ulmer, 1992). However, jailers who
maintain a custodial or punitive position tend to show no evidence that their negative
feelings toward prison administration decrease with length of employment (Ulmer,
1992).
Thus, as a result of the influence of jailer’s pessimistic attitudes on their co-
workers, formal guidelines for staff-inmate relations become supplemented by more
informal, peer-influenced methods of maintaining custody. Suspicion of administrators
and uncertainty of new programs contribute to the jailer steering clear of human-service
approaches to inmate management and resist administrative rules and regulations
(Ulmer, 1992). Such resistance seems to parallel the inmate's relationship to authority
figures, creating an institution in which interactions are polarized, conflictive, and hostile.
When an administration fails to provide enough information or training regarding new
implementation, employees may reject the new ideas and rebel. The opposition may
49
simply come from the fact that the employees do not feel included and are expected to
take on responsibilities they may not understand. Training employees properly
regarding new concepts may have a positive impact on future support and influence
positive change to the culture.
As with the other culturally-influenced resistive factors that influence the
likelihood of the jailer adopting a rehabilitative orientation, pessimistic influences from
peers prevents the jailer from fully realizing his potential as a positive influence in the
inmate's life (Lambert et al, 2002). Without training that includes the topics of
professional orientation, role conflict, socialization processes, and organizational
design, the custody jailer remains uninformed of the variables that help to shape both
his relationship with an inmate and his attitudes about his work role.
2.4 Organizational Change
Custody division’s rehabilitation direction involves a large amount of change
within the organization. These changes affect agency policy, practice, culture, and
vision. When agencies create large changes that affect operations, staff members need
to become ready for the changes. This study is intended to help Custody Division
management prepare employees for the rehabilitative direction that affect the jail
culture.
Organizations may suffer from inexperience regarding how to properly plan and
implement organizational or cultural change initiatives. Another problem is
management’s reluctance to cede power or otherwise involve the collective workforce in
planning change. In order to overcome the resistance to change, the workforce must be
convinced that the change is needed, the problem is real, and the change will solve the
50
problem. Ultimately, the organization needs a new vision and a change in culture in order
to effectively implement change.
There is a cultural fear of the unknown, fear of failure regarding a new system or
procedure. Barriers to change can come from managers, organizational culture,
embedded conflict, or pressures for conformity (Quinn, 1996). Particularly in large and
old organizations, there is a cultural and systemic resistance to all change. The
organization is expected to make the same widgets, in the same manner, for years to
come. Employees who have been in the organization for a generation would easily say
‘we’ve always done it this way’ (Agocs, 1997).
If an organization fails to involve the whole organization in planning for and
implementing organizational and cultural change initiatives, it is the employees who will
feel the fallout because of a lack of clarity. Invariably, there would be more complaints,
more conflicts, and more resistance to the changes. Morale could be crushed and the
collaborative organizational culture could become a thing of the past.
Readiness for change comes from the organizational capacity for making a
successful change, the need for a change, and the benefits the organization and its
members can gain from a change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Holt et al., 2007).
Custody division executives did not inform the jail employees regarding the goals of
rehabilitation in the jails. This lack of information sharing failed to prepare the
organizational culture for the degree of changes implemented in the EBI rehabilitation
program. Custody staff jailers were not prepared for change in the correctional culture
toward inmate rehabilitation. Custody executives relied on unit level managers to
prepare the staff members for organization level change.
51
The difficult part of this transformation process is changing the work culture and
individual attitudes. In a changing situation, employees try to make sense of the new
environment and draw conclusions about its possible results by being actively involved
in information seeking, meaning ascription, and assumption making about the
development process (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, &
Chittipeddi, 1994). In order for new ideas and new rehabilitation programs to take root
and hold during the transformation, work culture and individual attitudes need to be
acknowledged and transformed.
Making changes in how custody staff members perform their job functions
requires the ability to not only learn new rehabilitation ideas but alter how the people in
the culture think about their work. Change comes from new concept, the new leaders,
the new staff member roles, and new policy. Transition is the mental process for people
to understand new ideas and situations.
The implementation of EBI as a new rehabilitation program needs the support
and commitment of the custody staff members. A commitment to change involves a
thought process that holds an individual to a course of action considered necessary for
the successful implementation of change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). An employee’s
commitment to new programs relates to the perceived fit of the new program to the
employees’ values as it pertains to the personal and social desirability of modes of
conduct (Klein & Sorra, 1996).
In order for employees to feel a commitment to the new changes in rehabilitation,
the staff members need to be open to the change. An employee’s openness to change
depends on the commitment of the employee to support the change and realize a
52
positive affect about the possible significance of change (Miller et al., 1994). Focusing
on openness to change, Miller et al. (1994), Wanberg and Banas (2000), and Ertürk
(2008) examined how the information environment affects employees’ attitudes toward
organizational change. When an employee is well informed about his or her role and the
goals of the organization, they are likely to be open to change (Miller et al., 1994;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Ertürk, 2008).
Openness to organizational change is similar to the process of unfreezing, or
creating motivation and readiness for change, and is reflected in attitudes of
organizational members (Lewin, 1951). Research describes the openness to
organizational change as the (a) willingness to support the change and (b) positive
affect about the possible consequences of change (Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994;
Wanberg & Banas, 2000). According to Miller et al., openness to changes that are being
proposed and implemented in an organization is a “necessary preliminary condition for
successful planned change” (p. 60).
A recurring recommendation made by organizational change gurus is for
managers to convey an atmosphere of trust and a general feeling that employees can
count on the management team to do what is best for the organization and its members
(Kotter, 1995; Zander, 1950). Research described trust as representing the degree of
confidence the members of the team have in the goodwill of its leader who is honest,
sincere, and unbiased in taking their positions into account (Folger & Konovsky, 1989;
Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974).
Several researchers have noted the importance of establishing a trusting
relationship between managers and employees as the basis for organizational change
53
initiatives (Gomez & Rosen, 2001; Schneider et al., 1996). Rousseau and Tijoriwala
(1999) claimed that trust in management leads to the acceptance of organizational
change. If employees feel that management demonstrates consideration and fairness,
the employees are more likely to support the organizational change; if the employees
have less trust in management, they will demonstrate decreased levels of readiness for
organizational change.
One study found that trust in management was the only variable that significantly
impacted the affective, cognitive, and intentional components of resistance to
organizational change (Oreg, 2006). Lack of faith in the organization’s leadership was
strongly related to increased employee anger, frustration, and anxiety with respect to
change. It also led to increased employee actions against the organizational change
and negative evaluations from employees of the need for and value of the
organizational change (Oreg, 2006).
Cultural assumptions, values, and beliefs often influence the behaviors of the jail
staff, especially in response to work-related changes. Such behaviors may be positive—
supporting the sheriff’s office vision and mission—or negative— undermining the vision
and mission. In any case, the norms and values of employees influence the operation of
the jail (Katsampes, 1998; Katsampes and Nees, 2002). Therefore, it is important for
the sheriff to establish policies, procedures, and training that contribute to a strong,
positive organizational culture in support of the EBI rehabilitation program.
Interpersonal and group-level relationships between supervisors and non-
supervisors may also affect employees’ outlook on organizational change (Lee, 1997).
Mutual trust and confidence between supervisors and non-supervisors must
54
complement trust in executive management at the organizational level (Eby et al.,
2000). Research shows that the relationships between non-supervisors and their
supervisors can play an important role in enabling employees to support organizational
change (Edmonson & Woolley, 1999; Larkin & Larkin, 1996). Employees often perceive
that changes in organizational culture and changes in the structure or design of their
organization, like inmate rehabilitation, cause feelings of uncertainty and insecurity
(Callan, Terry, & Schweitzer, 1995; Ito & Brotheridge, 2001).
The training of employees is an important tool to reduce feelings of uncertainty
and fears about how changes will affect them (Bordia et al., 2004; Sagie & Koslowsky,
1996). Training gives employees the opportunity to have an impact on the
organizational change. Through training, employees build the skills, knowledge, and
efficiency needed to cope with change. Employee training regarding the goals of
rehabilitation can create feelings of control over and psychological ownership of the
organizational change (Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, 1996).
Cultural training in the organizational change process tend to be associated with
higher commitment (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Employee involvement in decision
making through proper training tends to lead to employee acceptance or openness to
organizational change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). An employee’s perceived control over
his or her job, organization, or change process is a necessary condition for creating
readiness for organizational change (Cunningham et al. 2002). Studies have indicated
that employee training is central to developing employees’ acceptance of organizational
change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).
55
2.5 Theoretical Framework
Organization can be defined as a group of people working together to achieve
goals or common objectives. Viewed as a system, organizations are composed of a set
of integrated subsystems designed to achieve organizational efficiency and
effectiveness. Like any system, organizations use inputs that are subject to a process of
transformation to obtain outputs (Scott, 1998).
Organizations and organizational development issues are a subject of growing
interest for both practitioners and theorists. The importance of organizational
development results primarily from its role in helping organizations during transition and
change. In order to survive and to ensure success, organizations must be flexible and
able to adapt to changes in a short period.
2.5.1 Organizational Diagnosis
Organizational diagnosis is a process based on behavioral science theory for
publicly entering a human system, collecting valid data about human experiences with
that system, and feeding that information back to the system to promote increased
understanding of the system by its members. The purpose of organizational diagnosis is
to establish a widely shared understanding of the system and, based on that under
standing, to determine whether a change is desirable (Alderfer, 1976). The lack of a
good organizational diagnosis model creates a "race for success" by supporting the
incorrect assumption that the best way to meet future challenges is to rely on strategies
and tactics that have had good results in the past (Nadles and Shaw, 1995).
Organizations, like LASD, can be viewed as a system composed of interrelated
subsystems (Burke and Litwin, 1992). Therefore, the influence of any factor in an
56
organization such as structure, leadership, or culture should not be considered
independently of others. Consequently, the interdependence between these constructs
and the need for diagnostic methods have been the subject of numerous studies.
Organizational diagnostic models have proved very effective in supporting
organizational development programs (Harvey (2008).
Studies show that there have been many strategies to improve organizational
performance. One strategy is organizational diagnosis, the assessment of the current
situation of the organization in order to identify the most appropriate interventions for
development (Scott, 1998). The vast majority of managers use certain models in
conducting organizational diagnosis to identify organizational traits. Thus, the main
objective of this chapter is to present and analyze organizational diagnostic models that
were found in the literature.
Harvey (2008) identified the following three primary benefits of an effective system
for conducting organizational diagnosis:
Improving decision making: Decision making proves efficient when the
employees have an understanding of the organization's vision or goals. Using an
organizational diagnosis system enhances support for decisions at each level
(supervisors and non-supervisors).
Supporting the strategic plan: Identifying performance and progress helps the
process of evaluating and expanding strategic objectives and plans. Effective
organizational diagnosis systems should focus on the link between each
organizational level (supervisors and non-supervisors) so that the decisions and
resulting actions will be consistent with the strategy.
57
Improving communication: Involvement in the development improves the degree
of employees’ understanding regarding the organizational goals, strategies, and
decisions while providing a common language to encourage communication
between staffs and teams.
A proper assessment of performance should be based on tools such as
questionnaires, interviews, and organizational diagnostic models (Lowman, 2005).
Organizational diagnosis has two essential purposes. One is evaluating organizational
failures and the second is the evaluation of the wellness of an organization (Lowman,
1993).
A traditional approach to organizational diagnosis provides information on the
various subsystems of the organization, including processes and rules of behavior that
occur within the organization (Beckhard, 1969). Organizational diagnosis is a process
that generates valid and useful information related to an organizational system (Paul,
1996). Two benefits of using organizational diagnosis are to provide information on
activities with a reduced functionality in order to increase the efficiency and to ensure
the organization's ongoing involvement in the process of continuous improvement (Beer
and Spector, 1993). Two other benefits of using organizational diagnosis are to allow a
systematic interpretation of data, and to enable the development of appropriate change
strategies (Lok and Crawford, 2000).
With these benefits, the organization acquires the ability to find solutions to solve
problems or to optimize the development activity. Organizations must make a diagnosis
not only when they are in difficulty but even if the organization is in good health
(Thibaut, 1989). The organizational diagnosis model is composed of the core of the
58
diagnosis instrument because it directs the manager’s activities in certain directions is
composed of a number of variables that interact with each other (Leavitt, 1965;
Weisbord, 1978). The lack of a comprehensive diagnostic model could result in change
efforts that focus on symptoms rather than causes (Wyman, 2003).
An organizational diagnosis has a tendency to provoke change in the human
system. As a result, theory relevant to individuals, groups, and the organization as a
whole is crucial for diagnostic work. To complete the work of understanding the system,
the professional must know what data to obtain, how to collect it, and how to feed it
back to the system to promote cultural understanding. Organizational diagnosis
proceeds in three orderly phases: entry, data collection, and feedback. These phases
are well defined because there are a clearly observable beginning and end to each one.
The primary objectives of the entry are to determine which units of the system
(individual, group, and organization) will participate in the diagnosis and to determine
whether the client and consultant can reach agreement about their respective roles
during data collection and feedback. The investigator must establish some liaison
system to manage the relationship between the consultant and those elements of the
system where diagnosis will take place. Depending on the nature of the system, the
liaison system may be an individual, a series of individuals, or a group (Alderfer, 1977b).
The primary objectives of data collection are to systematically gather valid
information about the nature of the client system and to prepare an analysis of that data
for delivery to the client during feedback. The preferred ordering of methods during data
collection is: (a) unstructured observation, including examination of documents; (b)
individual interviews; (c) group interviews; (d) questionnaires (Alderfer & Brown, 1972).
59
The development of a questionnaire that asks about organizational issues in the
language of the organization tests more precisely any evolving hypotheses about the
system and produces more valid data than standardized instruments (Alderfer & Brown,
1972). Commitments to confidentiality that are maintained aid the development of trust
between client and consultant. The consultant should take the initiative at all relevant
data collection events to explain the nature of the confidentiality that applies and to
answer questions that arise.
The primary objective of feedback is to promote increased understanding of the
client system by its members. Feedback typically consists of a series of meetings
between the consultant and client during which the consultant presents the data
analysis and the parties discuss and interpret the data. During the feedback stage,
consultants "re enter" the system after they prepared the data analysis. Subject
reactions to the feedback and their behavior during meetings provide another source of
data that may confirm or disconfirm the analyses provided in the feedback. Feedback
also brings the diagnosis to completion and possibly prepares for the transition to
planned change.
The oldest and best known feedback design is built around the "family group" of
supervisors and non-supervisors (Bowers & Franklin, 1972; Likert, 1961).
Conventionally structured organizations can be viewed as a series of interlocking family
groups from top to bottom. When the content of the feedback pertains to issues found in
family groups, then a feedback design should be built around these groups. However,
the effectiveness of family group feedback depends heavily on the relationship between
supervisors and non-supervisors. If that relationship is not strong enough to tolerate
60
open disagreement without undermining the supervisor or punishing non-supervisors,
then an alternative design should be used. The investigator may choose to work with
the supervisor alone or to conduct a series of pairwise interventions with the supervisor
and key non-supervisors in order to establish conditions for a full family group meeting.
Through entry and data collection, the investigator primarily takes from the client
system. Entry gives permission to conduct the diagnosis, and data collection provides
information and the hope of understanding. Feedback is the time for the investigator to
be giving to the client system.
2.5.2 Organizational Diagnostic Models
According to one study (Jones and Brazzel, 2006), the most commonly used
organizational diagnosis models in practice are Weisbord's Six Box Model (25%),
McKinsey's 7S Model (19%), Galbraith’s STAR Model (10%), and Nadler and
Tushman’s Congruence Model (10%).
The models discussed in this chapter are presented in the order of their appearance
in this review:
1. Weisbord's Six Box Model (1976).
2. McKinsey's 7S model (1981-1982).
3. Galbraith's STAR Model (1977).
4. Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model (1982).
2.5.2.1 Weisbord’s Six Box Model
Weisbord (1976) proposed six broad categories in his model of organizational
life, including purposes, structures, relationships, leadership, rewards, and helpful
61
mechanisms (see Figure 2.1). The purposes of the organization are the organization’s
mission and goals. Weisbord refers to structure as the way in which the organization
is organized; this may be by function where specialists work together or by product,
program, or project where multi-skilled teams work together (Weisbord, 1978). The
ways in which people and units interact is termed relationships. Also included in the
box of relationships is the way in which people interact with technology in their
work.
Rewards are the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards people associate with their
work. The leadership box refers to typical leadership tasks, including maintaining
balance between the other boxes. Finally, the helping mechanisms are the planning,
controlling, budgeting, and information systems that serve to meet organizational
goals. The external environment is also depicted in Weisbord’s model, although it is not
represented as a box (Porras, 1981).
(Figure 2.1)
Weisbord identified as inputs the money, people, ideas, and machinery which
are used to fulfill the organization’s mission (Howard, 1994). The outputs are products
and services. Two premises that are not apparent in Weisbord’s model are crucial
62
to understanding the boxes in the model. The first premise refers to formal versus
informal systems. Formal systems are those policies and procedures the organization
claims to do. In contrast, informal systems are those behaviors that occur. The bigger
the gap between the formal and informal systems within the organization, the less
effectively the organization functions (Jones and Brazzel, 2006). The second
premise concerns the fit between the organization and the environment, that is, the
discrepancy between the existing organization and the way the organization should
function to meet external demands. Weisbord defines external demands or
pressures as customers, government, and unions (Harrison and Shirom, 1998).
Weisbord developed a survey instrument for his organizational diagnosis.
Weisbord posed diagnostic questions for each box of his model. For example, he
suggests that the OD investigators determine whether organizational members agree
with and support the organization’s mission and goals within the purposes box
(Howard, 1994). A sample of some of the questions he posed is as follows:
Purposes: Do organizational members agree with and support the
organization’s mission and goals?
Structure: Is there a fit between the purpose and the internal structure
of the organization?
Relationships: What relationships exist between individuals, between
departments, and between individuals and the nature of their jobs?
Rewards: What does the organization formally reward, and for what do
organizational members feel they are rewarded and punished?
63
Leadership: Do leaders define purposes? Do they embody purposes in
their programs?
Helpful Mechanisms: Do these mechanisms help or hinder the
accomplishment of organizational objectives?
Weisbord’s model focuses on internal issues within an organization primarily
by posing diagnostic questions which have to do with the fit between what is and
what should be (Cummings and Worley, 2005). Weisbord’s (1976) ‘Six Box’ model is
one of the most straightforward and easy to use system models in the literature. In
presenting it, Weisbord sought to distill years of consulting experience and to provide
users with six constructs to look for trouble with or without theory (Harrison and Shirom,
1998).
2.5.2.2 McKinsey's 7S Model
The McKinsey 7S model was named after a consulting company, McKinsey and
Company, which has conducted applied research in business and industry (Pascale &
Athos, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982). The authors all worked as consultants at
McKinsey and Company in the 1980s. The McKinsey 7S Framework was created as a
recognizable and easily remembered model in business. The seven variables, which
the authors term “levers,” all begin with the letter “S” (see Figure 2.2).
The shape of the model was also designed to illustrate the interdependence of
the variables; the illustration of the model has been termed the “Managerial Molecule.”
While the authors thought that other variables existed within complex organizations,
the variables represented in the model were considered to be of crucial importance to
managers and practitioners (Martin, 1992).
64
(Figure 2.2)
The seven variables include structure, strategy, systems, skills, style, staff, and
shared value. Structure is defined as the skeleton of the organization or an
organizational chart. The authors described strategy as a plan or course of action in
allocating resources to achieve identified goals over time (Martin, 1992). The systems
are the routinized processes and procedures followed within the organization. Staff are
described in terms of personnel categories within the organization (e.g., engineers),
whereas the skills variable refers to the capabilities of the staff within the organization
as a whole. The way in which key managers behave in achieving organizational goals
is considered to be the style variable; this variable is thought to encompass the cultural
style of the organization. The shared values variable, originally termed superordinate
goals, refers to the significant meanings or guiding concepts that organizational
members share (Hughes, 1996).
Peters and Waterman (1982) concluded that American companies tend to focus
on those variables which they feel they can change (e.g., structure, strategy, and
systems) while neglecting the other variables. These other variables (e.g., skills, style,
65
staff, and shared values) are considered to be “soft” variables. The authors concluded
that a company cannot merely change one or two variables to change the whole
organization. For long-term benefit, they feel that the variables should be changed to
become more congruent as a system (Hughes, 1996).
The external environment is not mentioned in the McKinsey 7S Framework,
although the authors do acknowledge that other variables exist and that they depict only
the most crucial variables in the model (Hughes, 1996). While alluded to in their
discussion of the model, the notion of performance or effectiveness is not made explicit
in the model. It has been criticized, however, as providing a one-sided perspective of
organizational culture, focusing solely on the similarities that bind the organization,
ignoring the conflict and dissension that also shape an organization’s culture (Martin,
1992; Hughes, 1996).
2.5.2.3 Galbraith's STAR Model
Galbraith’s Star Model framework for organizational diagnosis is the foundation
on which an organization bases its design choices (see Figure 2.3). The framework
consists of a series of design factors that are controllable by management and can
influence employee behavior. The policies are the tools with which management must
become skilled in order to shape the decisions and behaviors of their organizations
effectively (Mohrman, 2007).
66
(Figure 2.3)
In the Star Model, as shown above, design policies fall into five categories. The
first category is strategy, which determines direction. The second category is structure,
which determines the location of decision-making power. The third category is process,
which have to do with the flow of information; they are the means of responding to
information technologies. The fourth category is reward systems, which influence the
motivation of people to perform and to address organizational goals. The fifth category
of the model is made up of policies relating to people (human resource policies), which
influence and frequently define the employees’ mind-sets and skills (Sara, 2009).
Strategy is the company’s formula for direction. The company’s strategy
specifies the goals and objectives to be achieved as well as the values and missions to
be pursued; it sets out the basic direction of the company (Sara, 2009).
The structure of the organization determines the placement of power and authority in
the organization. Structure policies fall into four areas: specialization, shape,
distribution of power, and departmentalization (Chandler, 1962). Information and
decision processes cut across the organization’s structure; if structure is thought of as
67
the anatomy of the organization, processes are its physiology or function. Management
processes are both vertical and horizontal.
The purpose of the reward system is to align the goals of the employee with the
goals of the organization. It provides motivation and incentive for the completion of the
strategic direction. The organization’s reward system defines policies regulating
salaries, promotions, bonuses, profit sharing, stock options, and so forth (Kimberly,
1984).
The people practice area governs the human resource policies of recruiting,
selection, rotation, training, and development. Human resource policies, in the
appropriate combinations, produce the talent required by the strategy and structure of
the organization, generating the skills and mindsets necessary to implement the chosen
direction (Alan & Gregory 1984).
2.5.2.4 Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model
The Nadler-Tushman congruence model is a comprehensive model, specifying
inputs, throughputs, and outputs, which is consistent with open systems theory (Katz &
Kahn, 1978). The inputs within the Nadler-Tushman Congruence model include
such factors as the environment, resources, history (i.e., patterns of past behavior),
and organizational strategies. The system components of the organizational
transformation process are informal organizational arrangements, task, formal
organizational arrangements, and individual components (Nadler, 1997). Similarly, the
outputs of the model include individual, group, and system outputs: products and
services, performance, and effectiveness (see Figure 2.4).
68
(Figure 2.4)
Nadler and Tushman (1980) apply the concept of congruence to their model.
They describe congruence, or fit, as the degree to which the needs, demands,
goals, objectives, or structures of one component are consistent with the needs,
demands, goals, objectives, or structures of another component or how well pairs of
components fit together. The model is termed the congruence model based on the fit
between the system components (informal organization, task, formal organizational
arrangements, and individual) (Nadler, 1997). Through analysis of the congruence
between the system parts, the whole organization is diagnosed as displaying relatively
high or low total system congruence. The link between the components and the
system outputs must also be considered. A s Nadler and Tushman (1980) explain,
fits, or lack of fits, between the key components has consequences in terms of
system behavior.
2.5.3 The Weisbord Model as a Foundation for This Study
The Weisbord model involves six general categories of factors to be addressed
in an organizational diagnosis. The categories include purposes, structure,
relationships, leadership, rewards, and helpful mechanisms. This study replaced the
69
rewards section with the EBI program as requested by the custody executives. In
Weisbord’s model, the rewards section relates to a business model involving
compensation and incentives as rewards for efficiency in a business setting. Since the
jail organization does not give the same rewards as most businesses, this researcher
focused efforts on the EBI program to see what jail employees know or understood
about the program.
In order to measure the jail employees’ perceptions in the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department custody division, a revised version of the Organizational Diagnosis
Questionnaire (ODQ) serves as the measurement instrument. The purpose of the ODQ
survey is to provide survey-feedback data for thorough analytical efforts. The survey
questionnaire produces data on the employees’ perceptions of the constructs of interest
in the custody division of the organization (Preziosi, 1980).
This study’s survey was modeled after Preziosi's Organizational Diagnostic
Questionnaire (ODQ) (1980), an extension of the original version developed by
Weisbord. Weisbord’s instrument included 30 statements that were used to measure
the six variables in the model. Preziosi's questionnaire (1980) includes, in addition to the
30 original items, five more questions to address an additional factor that is "attitude to
change" inside the organization. This new seventh variable was added to Preziosi’s
study to assess the employees’ attitudes toward change regarding new organizational
goals or implementation of change (Preziosi, 1980).
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s ODQ survey was intended to gather
information regarding jailer and supervisor attitudes towards the movement to
70
rehabilitate jail inmates. The data from the Los Angeles County Jail can help clarify the
differences in perceptions between the supervisors and the non-supervisors.
Custody Division currently has no set of vision, mission, or goals statement for
the employees. Policies are in place regarding the daily procedures and rules governing
the safety and security of the jails. The LASD vision and mission statements are broad
statements designed to apply to the agency as a whole. Custody Division has only
adopted the broad version of the agency-wide set of vision and mission statements.
The quantitative method through which the variables were diagnosed was
accomplished by use of a survey questionnaire. Responses to the survey questionnaire
provide a numeric description or interpretation of attitudes or perceptions of the
participants. The employees’ perceptions indicate what they understand regarding the
Custody Division’s vision, mission, and goals. A change in perception could change the
attitudes and behavior of the staff members to support the rehabilitation program.
2.6 Summary
Employees’ ability to adapt to organizational changes can be done through
training opportunities to learn about rehabilitation, the EBI program, and other
organizational transition activities. Open communication, staff involvement in planning
and implementing adaptations to their work functions will be essential components of
the overall success of Custody Division’s internal transformation. Employee perceptions
regarding how rehabilitation programs have the potential to create positive change in
the inmates and the custody facilities remains a difficult obstacle regarding the cultural
adaptability of the employees. This chapter addressed topics related to the rehabilitation
efforts of the LASD custody division.
71
The seven constructs addressed by the research questions were chosen by this
researcher to address employee perceptions and understanding of the goals, purposes,
missions, roles, structures, assignments, leadership, and relationships necessary to
gain support from the employees regarding rehabilitation. The jail administration should
attempt to understand the employees’ perceptions of rehabilitation and find ways to help
the employees understand the positive impact the rehabilitation program has on
inmates in the jail.
When an organization’s systems, structures, technologies, and skills are in
alignment with the stated values, vision, mission, philosophy, and goals, its operating
culture tends to closely reflect its ideal culture and desired outcomes are achieved.
However, when these factors are not in alignment, the operating culture usually looks
quite different from the ideal and, as a result, leads to outcomes that are not desired by
the organization.
The analysis from the ODQ survey provides reliable and valid information on the
culture that is currently driving members’ behaviors, the factors that create and reinforce
the current culture. Based on this information, leaders and other organizational change
agents can:
Determine whether the organization’s culture is an asset or a liability.
Identify targets for change and improvement.
Pinpoint solutions for achieving internal alignment between the
organization’s mission, vision, and values, on the one hand, and its actual
day-to-day operating culture, on the other.
Quantify the impact of change initiatives and interventions.
72
Chapter Three explains the research design and how the ODQ survey was
administered to employees at the Men’s Central Jail (MCJ). Chapter Three discusses
the research sampling and population of the study, and explains the research
instrumentation and the data collection procedure. In Chapter four, the analysis of the
survey data is explained to show how the employees’ perceptions regarding the topics
in the seven constructs relate to how the rehabilitation program can be improved.
Developing or changing the culture of the jail staff is a challenging and long-term
goal. Values that have become ingrained over the years are not easily changed.
Developing the organization’s culture regarding rehabilitation requires approaches that
should result in the training of workers who become committed to the direction of the
sheriff’s office and the jail organization.
73
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to present the research design and methods that
will be employed in this study. The use of organizational models facilitates the
systematic diagnosis of organizations (Howard, 1994). Organizational diagnosis
represents the assessment of the current situation of an organization to identify the
most applicable interventions for the further development (Stegerean et al., 2010).
Although organizational development models have their own strengths and limitations,
for the purpose of this study the Weisbord six box model serves as the foundational
organizational diagnosis model. The foundation for selecting this model is that it is well-
known, easy to describe and identifies constructs related to the perceptions of the
employees (Jones and Brazzel, 2006).
Organizational diagnosis is based on behavioral science theory. The investigator
collects data about employee experiences in the organization and feeds the
information back into the organization to promote increased understanding of the
goals and values of its members. The purpose of organizational diagnosis is to
determine whether or not there is a widely shared understanding of a system to
determine whether change is necessary (Alderfer, 1976).
Organizations can be perceived as systems composed of interrelated
subsystems (Burke and Litwin, 1992). Therefore, the effect of any construct in an
organization such as structure, leadership, purpose, etc. should not be measured
independently of others. The most used design to conduct an organizational
diagnosis focuses on supervisors and immediate subordinates (Bowers & Franklin,
1972; Likert, 1961). Government agencies like jails can be viewed as a series of
74
intertwining groups from management to the line staff. When the content of the
feedback pertains to issues found in work groups, a feedback design should be built
around these specific groups (Bowers & Franklin, 1972).
The organizational diagnosis process helps agencies improve their ability to
measure and modify current challenges of the culture and identify patterns of behavior
as a basis for creating greater effectiveness and improvement (Beer and Spector,
1993). Weisbord (1978: 6) offers a simple and summarized view of organization
diagnosis by describing it as a way of looking over an organization to determine the
‘difference’ between what is and what ought to be. The seven constructs addressed in
the research questions relate to the employee perceptions and understanding of the
goals, purposes, missions, roles, structures, assignments, leadership, and relationships.
An analysis of the difference between the perceptions of the LASD Custody Division
supervisors and jailers, as well as the overall perceptions of the employees, will allow
this study to determine if there are differences in perceptions regarding these various
factors. If cultural change to produce clarity is necessary, a training program can
provide employees clarity regarding the issues as a training program relates to the
organization’s goals and the EBI rehabilitation program.
This chapter is divided into five sections related to the methods used to conduct
this study. The sections describe research design, population and sampling, research
instrumentation, data analysis, and research validity, reliability, and limitations.
Research design includes a brief statement regarding organizational diagnosis and the
diagnosis model used to create this study.
75
The second section describes the research population and provides information
regarding the sample. The research sample includes two groups of respondents,
namely supervisors and non-supervisors from the geographic location of Los Angeles,
California. This study assured the respondents confidentiality regarding their personal
data. The population and sampling section describes the data collection procedures.
The third section instrumentation includes the ODQ and the research limitations.
An explanation of the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) survey used in
this study includes the modifications made to adapt the ODQ to the needs of the LASD
Custody Division.
The fourth section is comprised of the confirmatory factor analysis, analysis of
variance, and effect size. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test whether
measures of each construct were consistent with this researcher's understanding of the
nature of each construct. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the
differences between the mean scores of the five groups of respondents.
The fifth section includes the research validity, reliability, and limitations. The
research validity is the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure
(Mason & Bramble, 1989). The reliability of a research instrument concerns the extent
to which the instrument yields the tendency toward consistency found in repeated
measurements (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). The research limitations section briefly
describes the use of organizational diagnosis to assess the employees’ perceptions of
the research questions. Limitations are potential weaknesses in this study that are out
of this researcher's control.
76
3.1 Research Design
This section explores the suitability of the quantitative research method, and
design that were used. The research was a quantitative analysis of data collected
through surveys administered to employees of the Men’s Central Jail at the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department. The survey tool created for organizational diagnosis was
adapted for LASD Custody Division to assess Weisbord’s six box model. Preziosi’s
Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) is based on Weisbord’s practitioner-
oriented theory. The ODQ generates data about each of Weisbord’s suggested six
areas (Preziosi, 1980).
Preziosi created the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) survey to
diagnose organizational employees’ perceptions as they relate to Weisbord’s six box
model for organizational diagnosis. The survey designed for this study was a modified
version of Preziosi’s original ODQ, with the rewards construct replaced by the EBI
Program construct at the request of the jail administration. The jail administration
wanted this study to evaluate employees’ perceptions of the EBI program. Preziosi also
included the extra category attitude to change in his ODQ survey. This study used the
same construct from Preziosi’s ODQ to gauge the attitudes toward change among the
employees. The validity and reliability of the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire will
be addressed later in this chapter.
A qualitative method of research allows the researcher to find a distinctive and
comprehensive perspective of the situation being studied by getting data from a small
number of participants to identify patterns and relationships of meanings (Creswell,
2003; Moustakas, 1994). Qualitative research is a means for “exploring and
77
understanding the meaning individuals or groups accredit to a social or agency-wide
situation” (Creswell, 2008, p. 4). Qualitative research is best suited for “research
problems in which the researcher does not know the variables and needs to explore
further” (Creswell, 2002, p. 45). Because the variables and issues in this study were
known, a qualitative research method was found less appropriate for this study.
The simplest non-experimental method uses a survey to take a single
observation of a sample of a larger population (Trochim, 2006). A cross-sectional survey
is effective for measuring attitudes or perceptions at a single point in time for a large
population (Creswell, 2008). This study used a cross-sectional survey method by
administering the survey during all three shifts spread over two days.
For descriptive research questions, the non-experimental survey method is a
strong design (Trochim, 2006). However, the non-experimental method is the weakest
regarding the ability to show any cause-effect relationships (Salkind, 2003; Trochim,
2006). This study used descriptive research questions and a cross-sectional survey. A
non-experimental, descriptive survey design was considered appropriate for the
research questions in this project.
3.2 Population and Sampling
One of the strengths of a survey design is that a population in an agency can be
examined to study attitudes or perceptions (Creswell, 2008). Studies that focus on
larger populations or diverse groups of persons in the agency may find it impractical to
survey the entire population. In these situations, a smaller group from within the
population should be used. The results from the smaller sample group surveyed are
analyzed and the conclusions are generalized to the larger population.
78
3.2.1 Research Population
The study population was all of the jail facilities in Los Angeles County. All
supervisors and non-supervisors of the jail facility who satisfied the stated criteria were
allowed the opportunity to participate in the survey. In order to qualify for the survey the
participants needed to have sufficient experience to provide meaningful input.
Participation was limited to those who (1) worked in a Los Angeles County jail facility for
a minimum of 2 years and (2) worked in the jail facility being studied for a minimum of
12 consecutive months. While the majority of the participants consisted of non-
supervisors, the population surveyed was non-supervisors/jailers and supervisors in a
single large correctional agency in Southern California.
3.2.2 Research Sample
The respondents were ordered to attend a general briefing and then advised by
the shift sergeants that the purpose of the briefing was to gather the employees to
administer a voluntary survey. A list of eligible participants was used to eliminate any
employees who did not meet the experience criteria. The list was provided by the MCJ
scheduling staff who keep records of employee tenure. In an attempt to collect at least
50% of the possible employees at the Men’s Central Jail, only 300 surveys were printed
and distributed. A total of 300 surveys were distributed and 300 surveys were collected.
All 300 surveys were usable and reviewed by this researcher. The employees who
attended the briefing who did not want to participate were excused from the briefing
room and returned back to their respective work assignments. The survey was
distributed evenly to each shift over a two day period by distributing the survey to 100
participants per shift.
79
The MCJ Captain assigned a sergeant to distribute and collect the surveys
during the briefing. The sergeants selected by the MCJ Captain were briefed regarding
the distribution, instructions, and collection of the surveys. The selected sergeants for
each shift started the survey process by explaining the purpose for the survey and
providing instructions for the participants to follow. The respondents completed the
survey in a briefing room after receiving instructions. All of the distributed and
completed surveys were collected by the selected sergeants and held for this
researcher.
The population of 616 for this survey was the pool of employees assigned to
MCJ and the sample was the 300 participants who voluntarily took the survey. Because
the employees have different days off from each other, the survey was distributed to
employees on each of three shifts over a two day period in order to allow additional
participants to participate. The participants were self-selected to participate in the
survey by gathering all of the possible employees from each shift and allowing those
who volunteered to remain and participate in the survey.
The survey design sample from 616 total employees assigned to MCJ were as
follows: 72 supervisors including; 8 Lieutenants, 46 Sergeants, 18 Senior Line
Supervisors. There were 544 non-supervisors including; 407 Deputy Sheriffs and 137
Custody Assistants. Due to distribution of job assignments in this jail facility, a ratio of
three non-supervisors to every one supervisor was estimated. The actual ratio in this
sample was seven non-supervisors to every supervisor. Not all of the supervisors
available to take the survey elected to participate.
80
3.2.3 Research Confidentiality and Geographic Location
This study was designed to assess perceptions of employees regarding the
organization. The anonymity of the respondents was ensured through the collection
methodology employed. Respondents were told to not place any identifying statements
on the survey including their name. The information collected on the surveys could not
be associated with the participants. This disconnect of information assured anonymity
for all respondents. The returned surveys will be secured in a sealed cabinet, in a
locked office and will be destroyed five years after completion of this research project.
Surveys did not require any personal information that could be used to identify the
subject except for job title and gender.
The geographic location was the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los
Angeles, California. Permission was granted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department to conduct a survey and collect them from the participants in the study.
While the findings from the study reflected the perceptions of a sample found within a
single jail facility setting, it is believed that the information found within this single
environment is not unique to either that environment or to the geographic region of
California. The sample came from MCJ and the population was all of the LA County
jails. The findings from the sample at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department can
be generalized to other correctional settings.
3.2.4 Data Collection Procedures
Surveys and instructions were provided to the MCJ Captain who then approved
the distribution of the surveys to the participants. This researcher requested permission
to conduct the ODQ survey from the MCJ Captain via a written memo (Appendix A).
81
The use of the MCJ Captain as the liaison between the researcher and the participants
helped separate the researcher from the data collection. The MCJ Captain approved the
use of the ODQ survey at MCJ via a written memo (Appendix B). The participants could
recognize that the administration of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was
aware of the study and agreed to support the study.
3.3 Research Instrument
Weisbord’s (1976) ‘six box’ model sought to condense years of consulting
experience and to provide users with “six constructs to locate organizational
inconsistencies with or without the use of theory” (Harrison and Shirom, 1998 pp.101).
These organizational inconsistencies identify topics for planned change as a recurring
process, in which Weisbord’s Six Box model and various quantitative diagnostic
methods and techniques can guide subsequent improvement actions (Cummings and
Worley, 2005; Van Tonder and Dietrichsen, 2008).
This study substituted the “roles in EBI” construct for the “rewards” construct to
analyze the EBI program instead of looking at rewards as a construct of this
organization, as the jail administration asked to analyze this construct. The jail
administration and this researcher agreed that the analysis of the “roles in EBI”
construct would serve to understand the employees’ roles regarding the rehabilitative
support question better than a “rewards” construct. The “roles in EBI” questions were
designed by asking the respondents questions about how much employees understand
the concepts and goals of the EBI program.
The current managers from the LASD EBI Bureau felt that the rewards construct
would not be as effective as a focus on the roles in the EBI program. I the LASD jail
82
setting, the employees do not receive any reward for helping with any rehabilitative
issues. The EBI managers wanted to focus attention on the roles in EBI to ascertain
information regarding the employees’ perceptions to the EBI program. This researcher
created five questions related to the roles in EBI and presented them to the managers
at the EBI Bureau. This researcher also created 30 questions related to the additional
six constructs and presented them to the managers at the EBI Bureau. The managers
approved the 35 questions which were submitted to and approved by the USC iSTAR
Independent Review Board (IRB).
Although this ODQ questionnaire was adopted from Preziosi’s original ODQ, the
questions were modified from first person questions to generalized questions about the
organization. The University of Southern California “Independent Review Board” (IRB)
requested that the ODQ questions originally submitted from Preziosi’s ODQ be revised
to protect the research subjects. The IRB suggested that the questions be re-written as
generalized questions more related to the organization and not about individuals.
Appendix C contains the survey instructions for the respondents. Appendix D contains
the actual survey questions.
The questionnaire uses a seven point Likert type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’
to ‘strongly disagree’. According to Struwig and Stead (2001, pp.94), “a Likert type scale
is usually linked to a number of statements to measure attitudes or perceptions using a
seven point scale.” The diagnosis compares the means of the groups, supervisors and
non-supervisors, for each of the seven construct variables in relation to a neutral score
of four. Scores in each construct above four would indicate a perception of a problem
with organizational functioning in that construct. The closer the construct score is to
83
seven the more severe problems may exist in that construct. Construct scores below
four indicate the lack of a problem in that construct, with a score of one indicating a
perception of effective operation in that construct (Preziosi, 1980). Scores reflect
people’s perceptions of problems and those perceptions may differ among groups of
people.
3.4 Data Analysis
The data analysis for the ODQ survey is based on the information gathered from
the questionnaires. The numbers circled by participants for each question in the ODQ
were transferred onto a score sheet under their respective categories (or boxes). The
score sheet was designed to be transferred to an Excel spreadsheet where the
aggregate data from all the score sheets completed by all participants were captured
(Preziosi 1980). The data from all of the questionnaire score sheets were transferred to
an SPSS analysis program.
The descriptive analysis of the item scores is explained by Preziosi (1980) as
follows: each construct column is added and a spreadsheet statistical formula is used to
determine a mathematical mean, standard deviation, and range (Preziosi, 1980). For
more precise diagnostic information, the scores of each of the thirty-five questions can
also be reviewed for more exact information about each construct.
3.4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis attempts to discover the unexplained factors that influence the
co-variation among multiple observations. These factors represent basic concepts that
cannot be adequately measured by a single indicator (Hair et al., 2010). According to
Presziosi (1980), the ODQ has a dimensional structure consisting of seven factors, with
84
five items in each factor. This structure was confirmed by this researcher by means of
factor analysis using the "dimension reduction" procedure in SPSS (Field, 2009). It was
found that the thirty five questionnaire item scores could be reduced into seven factors,
with five items in each factor, using principal components factoring. Factor analysis
requires a large sample size in order to produce a meaningful solution. According to
Hair et al. (2010, p. 102), "The sample size should be 100 or larger. As a general rule,
the minimum to have is at least five times as many observations as the number of
variables to be analyzed.” The minimum sample size to produce a meaningful factor
solution based on 35 items should, therefore, be about 35 x 5 = 175. The actual sample
size in this study was N = 300 so the sample size was more than sufficient for factor
analysis.
The factor loadings for each item were recorded in SPSS during analysis. The
factor loadings are as follows:
Construct Factor Loading
Purpose .817 to .865
Relationships .608 to .768
Structure .763 to .828
Role in EBI .716 to .881
Attitude to Change .729 to .805
Leadership .701 to .853
Helpful Mechanisms .605 to .805
Table 3.1
These factor loadings represent the correlation coefficients between the factors
and the items, so their values could potentially range from -1 to +1.
85
3.4.2 Analysis of Variance
The aim of conducting ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was to compare the mean
scores for the seven factors (the dependent variables) between the groups of
respondents (the independent variables) classified into supervisors (Senior Deputies,
Sergeants, and Lieutenants) and non-supervisors/jailers (Custody Assistants and
Deputies). The null hypothesis was that the mean scores were not significantly different
between the two groups of respondents. The alternative hypothesis was that the two
groups had significantly different mean scores. The conventional significance level was
α = .05. The decision rule was to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative
hypothesis if p ≤ .05 for the F test statistic. If p > .05 then the null hypothesis was not
rejected, and it was assumed that there was no significant difference between the mean
scores. ANOVA only compares the mean scores between the two groups.
ANOVA was also conducted to determine the differences between the mean
scores of the five groups of respondents (Lieutenant, Sergeant, Senior Deputy, Deputy,
and Custody Assistant). ANOVA is based on several theoretical assumptions; however,
years of practical use have demonstrated that F test statistics are relatively robust when
the assumptions are not met, particularly if the sample size is large (Hair et al., 2010).
The dependent variable is assumed to be normally distributed. The assumption of
normality was tested by plotting frequency distribution histograms of each factor, and
visually checking that they were approximately bell-shaped curves. Each of the seven
construct factors contained a bell shaped curve. Homogeneity or equality of variance of
the dependent variables was assumed across all the groups. This assumption was
confirmed using Levene’s test.
86
The statistical inferences obtained using ANOVA are sensitive to sample size. A
null hypothesis is more likely to be rejected when the sample size is large than when the
sample size is low. A Type II error may occur (i.e., a null hypothesis may not be
rejected, when it should, in fact, be rejected) if the sample size is too small.
Consequently, a power analysis was conducted using GPower software (Faul et al.,
2007) to compute the minimum sample size required to conduct ANOVA. Power is the
ability to correctly reject the null hypothesis. The minimum sample size depends upon
the desired power (i.e., the probability of correctly testing the null hypothesis), the
significance level, and the effect size (i.e., the proportion of the variance in the
dependent variable explained by the independent variables). To achieve the desired
power of .8 (the conventional level used in social science) and to assume a significance
level of α = .05, a low effect size (about 20% of the variance explained) and two
groups of respondents, the total sample size necessary to conduct ANOVA to avoid
Type II errors is about N = 305. Consequently, the sample size of N = 300 used in this
study was just about adequate to conduct ANOVA.
3.4.3 Effect Size
Much more information can be extracted from ANOVA if the focus is on
interpreting the effect sizes rather than the F statistics and p-values, which are more
closely related to the sample size than to the effects being measured (Ferguson, 2009;
Vacha-Haase, 2001). F statistics and p-values only identify statistical significance (i.e.,
whether the differences between the mean scores were caused by chance) but they do
not reflect the practical significance of the results (i.e., the relative magnitudes of the
87
mean differences). Accordingly, the effect sizes, specifically Eta squared, were
computed to determine the practical significance of the results of ANOVA in this study.
3.5 Research Validity, Reliability, and Limitations
Validity is described as “the important relationship between concept and data”
(Carmines & Zeller, 1988, pp 12). Determining validity within a research study requires
assessment of the internal and external validity of the research instrument and the
methods used in the study. Internal validity reflects the instrument itself and refers to the
measurement accuracy and effectiveness of the instrument (Van Der Ark, 2005).
External validity is identified by the researcher’s ability to generalize the data taken from
one source and apply it to other similar populations (Creswell, 2002).
Reliability of the ODQ survey instrument was tested by Preziosi in a study
conducted in Atlanta, Georgia. Cronbach’s alpha was used in his study to assess the
inter-item reliability coefficients of the seven constructs. The internal consistency
reliability item-total statistics indicated (i.e. Cronbach‘s alpha) from .831 to .855. The
results of the reliability analysis in his study indicated that the coefficients were high
and, therefore, the items were reliable and related to the same construct (Jones &
Preziosi, 2011). George and Mallery (2003) suggested the following guidelines for
evaluating alpha coefficients “> .9 Excellent, > .8 Good, > .7 Acceptable, > .6
Questionable, > .5 Poor, < .5 Unacceptable” (p. 14). The researchers concluded that
these seven reliabilities were good and the reliability of the ODQ helped confirm the
reliability of this current research study.
The reliability of the modified ODQ instrument used in this study was assessed
by this researcher using SPSS 21. Initial reliability statistics were calculated for the
88
seven constructs. Tests of reliability and internal consistency were conducted for the
whole sample for each of the seven constructs.
89
The constructs’ reliabilities were as follows:
Construct Reliabilities
Purpose .891
Relationships .745
Structure .855
Role in EBI .894
Attitude to Change .823
Leadership .811
Helpful Mechanisms .759
Table 3.2
Using the George and Mallery (2003) scale, the reliability for the current study was rated
as acceptable to good.
Limitations of the research appear as possible weaknesses within a study
recognized via the researcher (Creswell, 2008). This project focused on the geographic
area of Los Angeles as well as to a jail inside this area. Resource restrictions limited the
information collecting portion of this project such that a larger trial was not logistically
feasible.
Based on existing literature that certain organizational cultural aspects seem
shared by other custody facilities, the data retrieved from the ODQ survey is believed to
be related to other correctional jail populations. Furthermore, the generalized categories
within the sample of this ODQ survey appear related to other jails. These features
ensure that these study results can apply to other agency jails and rehabilitative
facilities. The findings of this project seem pertinent to cultures at other jails, such as
state prisons, due to universal parallels distinctive of the correctional and rehabilitation
process.
90
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND RESULTS
This chapter presents the findings of the study in five sections. The first section
describes the characteristics of the participants. The second section addresses the
descriptive statistics for the data, which includes the means, standard deviations, and
range (min/max) for each of the seven constructs. The third section presents the results
of the factor analysis, which justifies the formation of the seven scales, and provides the
corresponding reliability coefficients (alpha scores) for the seven scales. The last two
sections provide the results of the t-tests, which provide answers to the first research
question, and this is followed by the results of the ANOVAs, which provide answers to
the second research question.
Question #1: What are the differences in perceptions between custody
supervisors and non-supervisors toward the seven constructs
(purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program, helpful
mechanisms, and attitude to change)?
Question #2: What are the differences in perceptions between the five groups of
employees (Lieutenants, Sergeants, Senior Deputies, Deputies, and
Custody Assistants) toward the seven constructs (purpose,
structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program, helpful
mechanisms, and attitude to change)?
91
4.1 Characteristics of the Respondents
The frequency distribution of the roles of the 300 respondents employed at the
LASD jail and included in the sample are cross-tabulated with gender and role in Table
4.1.
Table 4.1 Characteristics of the Respondents
Role Group Variable Gender Total
Male Female
Non-
supervisors
Custody Assistant
Frequency 44 12 56
% of Total 16.2% 4.1% 18.6%
Deputy Frequency 187 7 194
% of Total 69.0% 2.4% 64.6%
Supervisors Senior Deputy Count 13 2 15
% of Total 4.7% 0.68% 5.0%
Sergeant Frequency 21 8 29
% of Total 7.7% 2.7% 9.6%
Lieutenant Frequency 6 0 6
% of Total 2.2% 0.0% 2.0%
Total Frequency 271 29 300
% of Total 90.3% 9.6% 100.0%
The sample was dominated by male respondents (n = 271, 90.3%). The majority
were non-supervisors/jailers (n = 250, 83.3%) of which most were Deputies (n = 194,
64.6%). The supervisors who responded to the ODQ survey included Senior Deputies
(5.0%) and Sergeants (9.6%). The least frequent respondents were Lieutenants (2.0%),
all of whom were male. Consequently, the sampling design was unbalanced in terms of
the frequency of respondents in each of the five groups. Although the sample was
unbalanced regarding gender or rank, it was representative of the population ratios.
92
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
The purpose construct descriptive statistics (M = 4.46, SD = 1.36) indicated that,
on average, the respondents were not neutral in their perceptions toward the Custody
Division’s purpose, but tended towards disagreement with the items. The mean purpose
score was 4.572 for non-supervisors and 3.672 for supervisors. Purpose scores were
approximately normally distributed with a full range of scores from 1 to 7 and a central
mode (4 = Neutral).
The structure construct descriptive statistics (M = 4.26, SD = 1.16) indicated that,
on average, the respondents tended to disagree with the items. The mean structure
score was 4.390 for non-supervisors and 3.724 for supervisors. Structure scores were
approximately normally distributed with a full range of scores from 1 to 7, and a central
mode (4 = Neutral).
The leadership construct descriptive statistics (M = 3.99, SD = 1.03) indicated
that, on average, the respondents tended toward neutrality. The mean leadership score
for non-supervisors was 4.082 and 3.644 for supervisors. Leadership scores were
approximately normally distributed with a full range of scores from 1 to 7, and a central
mode (4 = Neutral).
The relationship construct descriptive statistics (M = 3.73, SD = 0.96) indicated
that, on average, the respondents tended to slightly agree with the items. The mean
relationship score was 3.811 for non-supervisors and 3.272 for supervisors.
Relationship scores were approximately normally distributed with a full range of scores
from 1 to 7, and a central mode (4 = Neutral).
93
The EBI program construct descriptive statistics (M = 4.99, SD = 1.32) indicated
that, on average, the respondents were not neutral, but tended to disagree with the
items. The mean EBI program score was 5.082 for non-supervisors and 4.524 for
supervisors. EBI program scores were approximately normally distributed with a full
range of scores from 1 to 7, and a central mode (4 = Neutral).
The helpful mechanisms descriptive statistics (M = 3.82, SD = 0.99) indicated
that, on average, the respondents tended toward slight agreement. The mean helpful
mechanisms score was 3.919 for non-supervisors and 3.324 for supervisors. Helpful
mechanisms scores were approximately normally distributed with a full range of scores
from 1 to 7, and a central mode (4 = Neutral).
The attitude to change construct descriptive statistics (M = 3.98, SD = 1.70)
indicated that, on average, the respondents reported relatively neutral attitudes towards
change. The mean attitude to change score was 4.131 for non-supervisors and 3.252
for supervisors. Attitude to change scores were approximately normally distributed with
a full range of scores from 1 to 7, and a central mode (4 = Neutral).
4.3 Factor Analysis of the Seven Constructs
4.3.1 Construct #1: Purpose
Items 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29 in the ODQ survey measured the perceptions of the
respondents toward the Custody Division’s purpose. The factor loadings presented in
Table 4.2, ranging from .817 to .865, estimated by Confirmatory Factor Analysis,
indicated that these five items loaded very strongly onto one factor. The total variance
explained was 70.1%. The internal consistency reliability of the five items was also good
(Cronbach's alpha = .891). Consequently, it was justified to operationalize this factor as
94
a dependent variable called Purpose, by averaging the seven point scores of the five
items for each respondent.
Table 4.2
Factor Loadings for the Items constituting Purpose
Item Factor
Loading
1 The goals of Custody Division are clearly stated. .865
8 Employees are in agreement with the stated goals of their work
unit.
.863
15 Employees understand the purpose of this organization. .876
22 The priorities of Custody Division are understood by its
employees.
.817
29 Employees are able to provide input when helping decide work-
unit goals.
.863
The purpose frequency distribution has a tendency towards a negative skew,
reflected by the conspicuous mode (6 = Disagree) on the right hand side.
Figure 4.1. Frequency distribution histogram of the scores for purpose
95
4.3.2 Construct #2: Structure
Items 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30 measured the perceptions of the respondents toward
Custody Division structural process affecting the operating procedures and routines. The
factor loadings presented in Table 4.3, ranging from .763 to .828, indicated that these
five items loaded very strongly onto one factor. The total variance explained was 63.5%.
The internal consistency reliability of the five items was also good (Cronbach's alpha =
.855). Consequently, it was justified to operationalize this factor as a dependent variable
called Structure.
Table 4.3
Factor Loadings for the Items constituting Structure
Item Factor
Loading
2 The way in which Custody Division is organized is flexible. .778
9 The way in which Custody Division is organized is intended to help
it reach its goals.
.828
16 The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one. .763
23 The structures of each employee’s own work assignments are well
defined.
.775
30 The structure of Custody Division is organized actually helps the
division reach its goals.
.838
The frequency distribution histogram of the average scores of the 300 respondents
depicted in Figure 4.3 visually indicates that structure was approximately normally
distributed, with a full range of scores from 1 to 7; however, there was a slight negative
skew, reflected by the mode on the right hand side (5 = Slightly Disagree). The
descriptive statistics (M = 4.26, SD = 1.16) also indicated that, on average, the
respondents tended to disagree with the items.
96
Figure 4.2 Frequency distribution histogram of the scores for structure
4.3.3 Construct #3: Leadership
This question was addressed by analysis of the leadership construct,
operationalized as the average scores for the responses to Items 3, 10, 17, 24, and 31
in the ODQ survey. The factor loadings for these five items were strong, ranging from
.690 to .853 (Table 4.4) with 57.8% of the variance explained. The internal consistency
reliability of Leadership was also good (Cronbach's alpha = .811). Consequently, it was
justified to operationalize this factor as a dependent variable.
97
Table 4.4
Factor Loadings for Leadership
Item Factor
Loading
3 Immediate supervisors are supportive of employee efforts. .690
10 The leadership norms of Custody Division help its progress. .826
17 Custody Division’s leadership efforts result in the organization’s
fulfillment of its purposes
.853
24 Supervisors are helpful to mentor employee work efforts. .701
31 Management asks employees for their thoughts before making
decisions that will affect their jobs.
.716
The frequency distribution histogram of the average scores of the 300
respondents depicted in Figure 4.3 visually indicates that leadership was approximately
normally distributed, reflected by a symmetrical bell-shape curve, with a full range of
scores from 1 to 7, and a central mode (4 = Neutral).
Figure 4.3 Frequency distribution histogram of the scores for Leadership
98
4.3.4 Construct #4: Relationships
Items 4, 11, 18, 25, and 32 in the ODQ survey measured the perceptions of the
respondents toward the relationships affecting informal and social interconnections in
the Custody Division. The factor loadings presented in Table 4.5, ranging from .608 to
.768 (Cronbach's alpha = .745), indicating that these five items loaded very strongly onto
one factor. The total variance for the construct relationship explained was 50.1%. The
internal consistency reliability of the five items was acceptable. It was therefore justified
to operationalize this factor as a dependent variable called Relationships.
Table 4.5
Factor Loadings for the Items constituting Relationships
Item Factor
Loading
4 Relationships between employees and supervisors are
harmonious.
.768
11 Employees can always talk with someone at work if they have a
work-related problem.
.758
18 Employee relationships with other members of a work group are
friendly and professional
.729
25 Employees establish sufficient relationships necessary to do their
job properly.
.658
32 There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in Custody Division .608
The frequency distribution histogram of the mean scores of the 300 respondents
depicted in Figure 4.4 visually indicates that Relationships was approximately normally
distributed, reflected by a symmetrical bell-shape curve, with a full range of scores from
1 to 7, and a central mode (4 = Neutral).
99
Figure 4.4 Frequency distribution histogram of the scores for Relationships
4.3.5 Construct #5: EBI Program
Items 5, 12, 19, 26, and 33 in the ODQ survey measured the perceptions of the
respondents toward the Jailer’s staff role and involvement in the EBI program. The factor
loadings presented in Table 4.6, ranging from .716 to .881, indicated that these five
items loaded very strongly onto one factor. The total variance explained was 70.5%.
The internal consistency reliability of the five items was good (Cronbach's alpha = .894).
Consequently, it was justified to operationalize this factor as a dependent variable called
EBI Program.
100
Table 4.6 Factor Loadings for the Items constituting EBI Program
Item Factor
Loading
5 The goals of EBI are clearly stated. .881
12 The priorities of EBI are understood by employees. .847
19 EBI offers employees the opportunity to grow as a person. .866
26 Employees feel compelled to facilitate or teach classes for EBI .716
33 Employees respect the work they do and view it as meaningful as
it applies to the EBI.
.876
The frequency distribution histogram of the average scores of the 300
respondents depicted in Figure 4.5 visually indicates that EBI program was
approximately normally distributed, with a full range of scores from 1 to 7; however,
there was a slight negative skew, reflected by the conspicuous mode on the right hand
side (6 = Disagree). The descriptive statistics (M = 4.99, SD = 1.32) also indicated that,
on average, the respondents were not neutral, but tended to disagree with the items.
Figure 4.5. Frequency distribution histogram of the scores for EBI Program
101
4.3.6 Construct #6: Helpful Mechanisms
This question was addressed by analysis of the helpful mechanisms construct,
operationalized as the average scores for the responses to Items 6, 13, 20, 27, and 34.
The factor loadings for these five items were strong, ranging from .605 to .805 (Table
4.7) with 51.5% of the variance explained. The internal consistency reliability of Helpful
Mechanisms was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha = .759). Consequently it was justified
to operationalize this factor as a dependent variable.
Table 4.7
Factor Loadings for Helpful Mechanisms
Item Factor
Loading
6 Immediate supervisors have ideas that are helpful to employees
and their work group
.709
13 Employees receive the information they need in order to do a
good job.
.805
20 Custody Division has the ability to change the organizational
culture.
.706
27 Employees are held accountable for meeting their performance
expectations
.605
34 Custody Division’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its
growth and development.
.748
The frequency distribution histogram of the average scores of the 300
respondents depicted in Figure 4.6 visually indicates that helpful mechanisms was
approximately normally distributed, reflected by a symmetrical bell-shape curve, with a
restricted range of scores from 1 to 6 (i.e., no strong disagreement) and a central mode
(4 = Neutral). The descriptive statistics (M = 3.82, SD = 0.99) indicated that, on average,
the respondents tended toward slight agreement.
102
Figure 4.6. Frequency distribution histogram of the scores for Helpful Mechanisms
4.3.7 Construct #7: Attitude to Change
This question was addressed by analysis of the attitude to change construct,
operationalized as the average scores for the responses to Items 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35
in the ODQ survey. The factor loadings for these five items were strong, ranging from
.729 to .805 (Table 4.8) and the internal consistency reliability of attitude to change was
good (Cronbach's alpha = .823). The total variance explained was 61.4%. Consequently
it was justified to operationalize Attitude to Change as a dependent variable.
103
Table 4.8
Factor Loadings for Attitude to Change
Item Factor
Loading
7 Custody Division is not resistant to change. .729
14 Custody Division introduces enough new policies and procedures. .739
21 Custody Division favors change. .770
28 Occasionally employees like to change things about their job. .780
35 Custody Division has the ability to change. .805
The frequency distribution histogram of the average scores of the 300
respondents depicted in Figure 4.7 visually indicates that attitude to change was
approximately normally distributed, with a full range of scores from 1 to 7; however,
there was a slight negative skew, reflected by the conspicuous mode on the right hand
side (5 = Slightly Disagree) indicating the respondents reported relatively neutral
attitudes towards change.
Figure 4.7 Frequency distribution histogram of the scores for Attitude to Change
104
4.4 T-Test Analysis of Supervisors’ and Non-supervisors’ Responses
T-tests were conducted to determine whether there were differences in the mean
scores for the supervisors and the non-supervisors for each of the seven constructs. A
t-test for each of the seven variables examined the mean scores of all non-supervisors
(custody assistants and deputies, N=250) vs the mean scores of all supervisors
(lieutenants, senior deputies, and sergeants, N=50). Each of the seven t-tests looked at
the difference between two groups, all supervisors and all non-supervisors.
4.4.1 Results of the t-test for the Purpose construct.
The results for the purposes construct showed the supervisors had lower scores than
did the non-supervisors. The mean for purposes was 4.572 for non-supervisors and
3.672 for supervisors (mean difference = 0.900, p<0.001).
Table 4.9
Group Statistics
Position N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Purposes
Non-Supervisor 250 4.572 1.3775 .0871
Supervisor 50 3.672 1.1779 .1666
Table 4.10
Purposes
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for
Equality
of
Means
Independent Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
2-tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Upper Lower
Equal variances
assumed
5.678 .018 2.91 298 .000 .9000
.2086 .4894 .9516
Equal variances
not assumed
3.46 78.321 .000 .9000 .1880 .5258 .9467
105
4.4.2 Results of the t-test for the Structure construct.
The results for the structure construct showed the supervisors had lower scores than did
the non-supervisors. The mean score was 4.390 for non-supervisors and 3.724 for
supervisors (mean difference = 0.666, p<0.001).
Table 4.11
Group Statistics
Position N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Structure
Non-Supervisor 250 4.390 1.1811 .0747
Supervisor 50 3.724 .9578 .1355
Table 4.12
Structure
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for
Equality
of
Means
Independent Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
2-tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Upper Lower
Equal variances
assumed
2.458 .118 3.745 298 .000 .6656 .1777 .3158 1.0154
Equal variances
not assumed
4.303 81.847 .000 .6656 .1547 .3579 .9733
4.4.3 Results of the t-test for the Leadership construct.
The results for the leadership construct showed the supervisors had lower scores than
did the non-supervisors. The mean leadership score for non-supervisors was 4.082 and
3.644 for supervisors (mean difference = 0.438, p=0.006).
Table 4.13
Group Statistics
Position N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Leadership
Non-Supervisor 250 4.082 1.0341 .0654
Supervisor 50 3.644 .9392 .1328
106
Table 4.14
Leadership
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for
Equality
of
Means
Independent Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
2-tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Upper Lower
Equal variances
assumed
1.099 .295 2.777
298 .006 .4384 .1579 .1277 .7491
Equal variances
not assumed
2.961 74.775 .004 .4384 .1481 .1435 .7333
4.4.4 Results of the t-test for the Relationship construct.
The results for the relationship construct showed the supervisors had lower scores than
did the non-supervisors. The mean relationship score was 3.811 for non-supervisors and
3.272 for supervisors (mean difference = 0.539, p<0.001).
Table 4.15
Group Statistics
Position N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Relationship
Non-Supervisor 249 3.811 .9423 .0597
Supervisor 50 3.272 1.0488 .1483
Table 4.16
Relationship
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for
Equality
of
Means
Independent Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
2-tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Upper Lower
Equal variances
assumed
.087 .768 3.622 297 .000 .5392 .1489 .2463 .8322
Equal variances
not assumed
3.372 65.830 .001 .5392 .1599 .2200 .8585
107
4.4.5 Results of the t-test for the EBI Program construct.
The results for the EBI program construct showed the supervisors had lower scores than
did the non-supervisors. The mean EBI Program score was 5.082 for non-supervisors
and 4.524 for supervisors (mean difference = 0.558, p=0.006).
Table 4.17
Group Statistics
Position N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
EBI Program
Non-Supervisor 250 5.082 1.3544 .0857
Supervisor 50 4.524 .9492 .1342
Table 4.18
EBI
Program
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for
Equality
of
Means
Independent Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
2-tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Upper Lower
Equal
variances
assumed
11.865 .001 2.780 298 .006 .5584 .2008 .1631 .9537
Equal
variances
not assumed
3.507 93.959 .001 .5584 .1592 .2422 .9537
4.4.6 Results of the t-test for the Helpful Mechanisms construct.
The results for the helpful mechanisms construct showed the supervisors had lower
scores than did the non-supervisors. Helpful mechanisms means were 3.919 for non-
supervisors and 3.324 for supervisors (mean difference = 0.595, p<0.001).
Table 4.19
Group Statistics
Position N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Helpful Mechanisms
Non-Supervisor 250 3.919 .9878 .0625
Supervisor 50 3.324 1.0189 .1441
108
Table 4.20
Helpful
Mechanisms
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for
Equality
of
Means
Independent Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
2-tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Upper Lower
Equal variances
assumed
.005 .942 3.869 298 .000 .5952 .1538 .2925 .8979
Equal variances
not assumed
3.790 68.676 .000 .5952 .1571 .2819 .9085
4.4.7 Results of the t-test for the Attitude to Change construct.
The results for the attitude to change construct showed the supervisors had lower
scores than did the non-supervisors. The mean Attitude to Change was 4.131 for non-
supervisors and 3.252 for supervisors (mean difference = 0.879, p<0.001).
The mean value for each of the seven constructs was significantly higher for non-
supervisors than for supervisors.
Table 4.21
Group Statistics
Position N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Attitude to Change
Non-Supervisor 250 4.131 1.1361 .0719
Supervisor 50 3.252 1.0574 .1495
Table 4.22
Attitude
to
Change
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for
Equality
of
Means
Independent Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
F Sig. t df Sig.
2-tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Upper Lower
Equal
variances
assumed
1.010 .316 5.051
298 .000 .8792 .1741 .5367 1.2217
Equal
variances
not assumed
5.299 73.467 .000 .8792 .1659 .5486 1.2098
109
4.5 ANOVA
4.5.1 Purpose
Regarding the purpose construct, Figure 4.8 is an error bar chart, depicting the
mean scores for each group of respondents as bars, and the 95% confidence intervals
(CI) as lines. This chart visually indicates that the mean scores for the Custody
Assistants (M = 4.04, SD = 1.26) and Deputies (M = 4.79, SD = 1.31) were consistently
higher than for the Senior Deputies (M = 3.62, SD = 1.19), Sergeants (M = 3.87, SD =
1.25) and Lieutenants (M = 3.03, SD = 0 80).
Figure 4.8 Mean scores ± 95% CI for Purpose
The mean scores varied significantly with respect to the five groups (F (4, 295) =
9.86, p < .001); however the effect size (Eta Squared = .12) indicated that the magnitude
of this difference was relatively low (i.e., only 12% of the variance in the dependent
variable was explained by the differences between the five groups of respondents). The
results of ANOVA to explore the differences between the mean scores of the five groups
of respondents are presented in Table 4.23.
110
Table 4.23
ANOVA to Determine the Effects of Five Groups of Respondents on Purpose
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
Degrees
of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F p Effect Size
Group 65.09 4 16.27 9.86 <.001 .12
Error 486.67 295 1.65
Total 551.77 299
Scheffé's post hoc test indicated a significant difference between the purpose
scores of the five groups of respondents. The results of this test for the pair-wise
comparison of the mean scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in
Table 4.24. The Custody Assistants scored significantly lower than the Deputies (p =
.006). The supervisors also scored significantly lower than the Deputies, indicated by
Deputies vs. Senior Deputies (p = .017); Deputies vs. Sergeants (p = .010) and
Deputies vs. Lieutenants (p = .029). There were no significant differences between the
mean scores of the three groups of supervisors, indicated by p > .05 for Lieutenants vs.
Senior Deputies (p = .921), Lieutenants vs. Sergeants (p = .717), and Sergeants vs.
Senior Deputies (p = .985).
111
Table 4.24 Scheffe's Post-Hoc test to Compare Pairs of Mean scores for Purpose
Group vs. Group Mean
Difference
p 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Custody
Assistant
Deputy -.753 .006 -1.358 -.149
Senior Deputy .414 .862 -.714 1.543
Sergeant .173 .986 -.728 1.073
Lieutenant 1.006 .506 -.704 2.716
Deputy Custody Assistant .753 .006 .149 1.358
Senior Deputy 1.168 .017 .132 2.204
Sergeant .926 .010 .144 1.708
Lieutenant 1.759 .029 .109 3.410
Senior Deputy Custody Assistant -.414 .862 -1.543 .714
Deputy -1.168 .017 -2.204 -.132
Sergeant -.242 .985 -1.474 .991
Lieutenant .592 .921 -1.314 2.498
Sergeant Custody Assistant -.173 .986 -1.073 .728
Deputy -.926 .010 -1.708 -.144
Senior Deputy .242 .985 -.991 1.474
Lieutenant .833 .717 -.947 2.614
Lieutenant Custody Assistant -1.006 .506 -2.716 .704
Deputy -1.759 .029 -3.410 -.109
Senior Deputy -.592 .921 -2.498 1.314
Sergeant -.833 .717 -2.614 .947
4.5.2 Structure
Regarding the structure construct, the error bar chart (Figure 4.9) visually
indicates that the mean scores for the Custody Assistants (M = 4.01, SD = 1.18)
Deputies (M = 4.48, SD = 1.13) Senior Deputies (M = 3.7, SD = 1.07) and Sergeants (M
= 3.91, SD = 0.93) were relatively similar, but the Lieutenants (M = 2.87, SD = 0.79)
provided the lowest mean scores.
112
Lieutenant Sergeant Senior Deputy Deputy Custody Assistant
5
4
3
2
1
0
S TR UCTUR E
Figure 4.9 Mean scores ± 95% CI for Structure
The results of One-way ANOVA to determine the differences between the mean
scores of five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.25. The mean scores
varied significantly with respect to the groups (F (4, 295) = 6.69, p < .001); however the
effect size (Eta Squared = .08) indicated that the magnitude of this difference was
relatively low (i.e., only 8% of the variance was explained).
Table 4.25
ANOVA to Determine the Effects of Five Groups of Respondents on Structure
Source Type III
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F p Effect Size
Group 33.39 4 8.35 6.69 <.001 .08
Error 367.96 295 1.25
Total 401.35 299
The results of Scheffé's post-hoc test for the pair-wise comparison of the mean
structure scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.26. The
113
Lieutenants scored significantly lower than the Deputies (p = .018). There were no
other significant differences (p < .05) between the mean scores.
Table 4.26 Scheffe's Post-Hoc Test to Compare Pairs of Mean Scores for Structure
Group vs, Group Mean
Difference
p 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Custody
Assistant
Deputy -.474 .102 -1.000 .052
Senior Deputy .307 .918 -.674 1.289
Sergeant .100 .997 -.683 .884
Lieutenant 1.140 .230 -.347 2.628
Deputy Custody Assistant .474 .102 -.052 1.000
Senior Deputy .781 .127 -.120 1.682
Sergeant .575 .146 -.105 1.254
Lieutenant 1.615 .018 .179 3.050
Senior Deputy Custody Assistant -.307 .918 -1.289 .674
Deputy -.781 .127 -1.682 .120
Sergeant -.207 .986 -1.278 .865
Lieutenant .833 .658 -.824 2.491
Sergeant Custody Assistant -.100 .997 -.884 .683
Deputy -.575 .146 -1.254 .105
Senior Deputy .207 .986 -.865 1.278
Lieutenant 1.040 .365 -.508 2.588
Lieutenant Custody Assistant -1.140 .230 -2.628 .347
Deputy -1.615 .018 -3.050 -.179
Senior Deputy -.833 .658 -2.491 .824
Sergeant -1.040 .365 -2.588 .508
4.5.3 Leadership
Regarding the leadership construct, the error bar chart (Figure 4.10) visually
indicates that the mean score for the Custody Assistants (M = 3.54, SD = 0.99) was
lower than for the Deputies (M = 4.22, SD = 0.98). The mean scores for the Senior
Deputies (M = 3.51, SD = 0.76) Sergeants (M = 3.87, SD = 1.07) and Lieutenants (M =
2.90, SD = 0.79) were also lower than for the Deputies.
114
Lieutenant Sergeant Senior Deputy Deputy Custody Assistant
5
4
3
2
1
0
L EADER S HIP
Figure 4.10. Mean scores ± 95% CI for Leadership
The results of One-way ANOVA to determine the differences between the mean
scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.27. The mean scores
varied significantly with respect to the groups (F (4, 295) = 8.48, p < .001); however the
effect size (Eta Squared = .10) indicated that the magnitude of this difference was
relatively low (i.e., only 10 % of the variance was explained).
Table 4.27
ANOVA to Determine the Effects of Five Groups of Respondents on Leadership
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F p Effect Size
Group 32.51 4 8.13 8.48 <.001 .10
Error 282.79 295 0.96
Total 315.30 299
115
The results of Scheffé's post-hoc test for the pair-wise comparison of the mean
leadership scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.28.
Significant differences were found between the mean scores of the Deputies and the
Custody Assistants (p <.001) and also between the Lieutenants and the Deputies (p =
.034). There were no other significant differences (p < .05) between the mean scores of
the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers.
Table 4.28 Scheffe's Post-Hoc Test to Compare Pairs of Mean Scores for Leadership
Group vs. Group Mean
Difference
p 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Custody
Assistant
Deputy -.678 .001 -1.139 -.217
Senior Deputy .027 1.000 -.834 .887
Sergeant -.334 .686 -1.021 .353
Lieutenant .639 .679 -.664 1.943
Deputy Custody Assistant .678 .001 .217 1.139
Senior Deputy .705 .108 -.085 1.495
Sergeant .344 .524 -.251 .940
Lieutenant 1.318 .034 .059 2.576
Senior Deputy Custody Assistant -.027 1.000 -.887 .834
Deputy -.705 .108 -1.495 .085
Sergeant -.361 .841 -1.300 .579
Lieutenant .612 .789 -.840 2.065
Sergeant Custody Assistant .334 .686 -.353 1.021
Deputy -.344 .524 -.940 .251
Senior Deputy .361 .841 -.579 1.300
Lieutenant .973 .296 -.384 2.331
Lieutenant Custody Assistant -.639 .679 -1.943 .664
Deputy -1.318 .034 -2.576 -.059
Senior Deputy -.612 .789 -2.065 .840
Sergeant -.973 .296 -2.331 .384
116
4.5.4 Relationships
Regarding the relationships construct, the error bar chart (Figure 4.11) visually
indicates that the mean scores for the Custody Assistants (M = 3.43, SD = 0.86) were
different than for the Deputies (M = 3.94, SD = 0.91). The scores for the Senior
Deputies (M = 3.57, SD = 1.14) were similar to those of the Custody Assistants. The
Sergeants (M = 3.24, SD = 0.92) and Lieutenants (M = 2.83, SD = 0.61) provided the
lowest scores.
Figure 4.11 Mean scores ± 95% CI for Relationships
The results of One-way ANOVA to determine the differences between the mean
scores of five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.29. The mean scores
varied significantly with respect to the groups (F (4, 295) = 7.84, p < .001); however the
effect size (Eta Squared = .10) indicated that the magnitude of this difference was
relatively low (i.e., only 10% of the variance was explained).
117
Table 4.29
ANOVA to Determine the Effects of Five Groups of Respondents on Relationships
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
Degrees
of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F p Effect Size
Group 26.22 4 6.56 7.84 <.001 .10
Error 246.61 295 0.84
Total 272.83 299
The results of Scheffé's post-hoc test are presented in Table 4.30. A significant
difference was found between the relationships scores of the two groups of non-
supervisor/jailers, with the Custody Assistants scoring significantly lower than Deputies
(p = .009). The Sergeants also scored significantly lower than the Deputies, indicated by
Deputies vs. Sergeants (p = .005). There were no significant differences (p < .05)
between the mean scores for the supervisors (Senior Deputies, Sergeants, and
Lieutenants).
Table 4.30 Scheffe's Post-Hoc test to Compare Pairs of Mean scores for Relationships
Group vs. Group Mean
Difference
p 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Custody
Assistant
Deputy -.517 .009 -.947 -.086
Senior Deputy -.150 .987 -.953 .653
Sergeant .185 .938 -.456 .826
Lieutenant .592 .687 -.626 1.809
Deputy Custody Assistant .517 .009 .086 .947
Senior Deputy .367 .667 -.371 1.104
Sergeant .702 .005 .145 1.258
Lieutenant 1.108 .076 -.067 2.283
Senior Deputy Custody Assistant .150 .987 -.653 .953
Deputy -.367 .667 -1.104 .371
Sergeant .335 .844 -.542 1.212
Lieutenant .742 .580 -.615 2.098
Sergeant Custody Assistant -.185 .938 -.826 .456
118
Deputy -.702 .005 -1.258 -.145
Senior Deputy -.335 .844 -1.212 .542
Lieutenant .407 .911 -.861 1.674
Lieutenant Custody Assistant -.592 .687 -1.809 .626
Deputy -1.108 .076 -2.283 .067
Senior Deputy -.742 .580 -2.098 .615
Sergeant -.407 .911 -1.674 .861
4.5.5 EBI Program
Regarding the EBI program construct, the error bar chart (Figure 4.12) visually
indicates that the mean scores for the Deputies (M = 5.23, SD = 1.29) tended to be
different than the mean scores for the Custody Assistants (M = 4.61, SD = 1.48) Senior
Deputies (M = 4.31, SD = 1.22) Sergeants (M = 4.71, SD = 0.82) and Lieutenants (M =
4.13, SD = 0.97).
Lieutenant Sergeant Senior Deputy Deputy Custody Assistant
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
EBI PR O GR AM
Figure 4.12. Mean scores ± 95% CI for EBI Program
119
The results of One-way ANOVA to determine the differences between the mean
scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.31. The mean scores
varied significantly with respect to the groups (F (4, 295) = 5.13, p = .001); however the
effect size (Eta Squared = .07) indicated that the magnitude of this difference was
relatively low (i.e., only 7% of the variance was explained).
Table 4.31
ANOVA to Determine the Effects of Five Groups of Respondents on EBI Program
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F p Effect Size
Group 33.81 4 8.45 5.13 .001 .07
Error 486.47 295 1.65
Total 520.28 299
The results of Scheffé's post-hoc test for the pair-wise comparison of the mean
EBI Program scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.32. The
Custody Assistants scored significantly lower than the Deputies (p = .039).
120
Table 4.32 Scheffe's Post-Hoc Test to Compare Pairs of Mean Scores for EBI Program
Group vs. Group Mean
Difference
p 95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Custody
Assistant
Deputy -.623 .039 -1.228 -.019
Senior Deputy .302 .953 -.827 1.430
Sergeant -.092 .999 -.993 .808
Lieutenant .481 .943 -1.229 2.191
Deputy Custody Assistant .623 .039 .019 1.228
Senior Deputy .925 .108 -.111 1.961
Sergeant .531 .353 -.251 1.312
Lieutenant 1.104 .369 -.546 2.754
Senior Deputy Custody Assistant -.302 .953 -1.430 .827
Deputy -.925 .108 -1.961 .111
Sergeant -.394 .912 -1.626 .838
Lieutenant .179 .999 -1.726 2.085
Sergeant Custody Assistant .092 .999 -.808 .993
Deputy -.531 .353 -1.312 .251
Senior Deputy .394 .912 -.838 1.626
Lieutenant .573 .910 -1.207 2.354
Lieutenant Custody Assistant -.481 .943 -2.191 1.229
Deputy -1.104 .369 -2.754 .546
Senior Deputy -.179 .999 -2.085 1.726
Sergeant -.573 .910 -2.354 1.207
4.5.6 Helpful Mechanisms
Regarding the helpful mechanisms construct, the error bar chart (Figure 4.13)
visually indicates that the mean score for the Custody Assistants (M = 3.49, SD = 0.91)
was lower than for the Deputies (M = 4.07, SD = 0.93). The mean scores for the Senior
Deputies (M = 3.26, SD = 1.18) Sergeants (M = 3.46, SD = 0.90) and Lieutenants (M =
2.43, SD = 0.73) were consistently lower than for the non-supervisors/jailers.
121
Lieutenant Sergeant Senior Deputy Deputy Custody Assistant
4
3
2
1
0
HELPFUL MECHAN IS MS
Figure 4.13 Mean scores ± 95% CI for Helpful Mechanisms
The results of One-way ANOVA to determine the differences between the mean
scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.33. The mean scores
varied significantly with respect to the groups (F (4, 295) = 11.07, p < .001); however the
effect size (Eta Squared = .13) indicated that the magnitude of this difference was
relatively low (i.e., only 13 % of the variance was explained).
Table 4.33
ANOVA to Determine the Effects of Five Groups of Respondents on Helpful
Mechanisms
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F p Effect Size
Group 38.62 4 9.66 11.07 .001 .13
Error 257.33 295 0.86
Total 295.95 299
122
The results of Scheffé's test are presented in Table 4.34. Significant differences
were found between the helpful mechanisms mean scores of the Deputies and the
Custody Assistants (p = .003); Senior Deputies (p = .027); Sergeants (p = .026); and
Lieutenants (p = .002). No significant differences (p <. 05) were found between the
mean scores of the Custody Assistants, Senior Deputies, Sergeants, and Lieutenants.
Table 4.34 Scheffe's Post-Hoc Test to Compare Pairs of Mean Scores for Helpful
Mechanisms
Group vs. Group Mean
Difference
p 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Custody
Assistant
Deputy -.578 .003 -1.017 -.138
Senior Deputy .234 .941 -.587 1.055
Sergeant .036 1.000 -.619 .691
Lieutenant 1.063 .138 -.181 2.307
Deputy Custody Assistant .578 .003 .138 1.017
Senior Deputy .811 .027 .058 1.565
Sergeant .614 .026 .046 1.182
Lieutenant 1.641 .002 .440 2.841
Senior Deputy Custody Assistant -.234 .941 -1.055 .587
Deputy -.811 .027 -1.565 -.058
Sergeant -.198 .977 -1.094 .699
Lieutenant .829 .488 -.557 2.215
Sergeant Custody Assistant -.036 1.000 -.691 .619
Deputy -.614 .026 -1.182 -.046
Senior Deputy .198 .977 -.699 1.094
Lieutenant 1.027 .199 -.268 2.321
Lieutenant Custody Assistant -1.063 .138 -2.307 .181
Deputy -1.641 .002 -2.841 -.440
Senior Deputy -.829 .488 -2.215 .557
Sergeant -1.027 .199 -2.321 .268
4.5.7 Attitude to Change
Regarding the attitude to change construct, the error bar chart (Figure 4.14)
visually indicates that the mean scores for the Deputies (M = 4.26, SD = 1.17) tended to
123
be higher than the mean scores for the Custody Assistants (M = 3.68, SD = 0.93)
Senior Deputies (M = 3.31, SD = 1.06) Sergeants (M = 3.40, SD = 1.06) and
Lieutenants (M = 2.57, SD = .0.76).
Figure 4.14. Mean scores ± 95% CI for Attitude to Change
Regarding the attitude to change construct, the results of One-way ANOVA to
determine the differences between the mean scores of the five groups of respondents
are presented in Table 4.35. The mean scores varied significantly with respect to the
groups (F (4, 295) = 9.99, p < .001); however the effect size (Eta Squared = .12)
indicated that the magnitude of this difference was relatively low (i.e., only 12 % of the
variance was explained).
Table 4.35
ANOVA to Determine the Effects of Five Groups of Respondents on Attitude to Change
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F p Effect Size
Group 49.95 4 12.24 9.99 <.001 .12
Error 360.99 295 1.22
Total 409.94 299
124
The results of Scheffé's post-hoc test for the pair-wise comparison of the mean
scores of the five groups of respondents are presented in Table 4.36. Significant
differences were found between the attitude to change scores of the Deputies and the
Custody Assistants (p = .009) and also between the Sergeants and the Deputies (p =
.005). There were no other significant differences (p < .05) between the mean scores of
the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers.
Table 4.36 Scheffe's Post-Hoc Test to Compare Pairs of Mean Scores for Attitude to
Change
Group vs. Group Mean
Difference
p 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower Upper
Custody
Assistant
Deputy -.517 .009 -.947 -.086
Senior Deputy -.150 .987 -.953 .653
Sergeant .185 .938 -.456 .826
Lieutenant .592 .687 -.626 1.809
Deputy Custody Assistant .517 .009 .086 .947
Senior Deputy .367 .667 -.371 1.104
Sergeant .702 .005 .145 1.258
Lieutenant 1.108 .076 -.067 2.283
Senior Deputy Custody Assistant .150 .987 -.653 .953
Deputy -.367 .667 -1.104 .371
Sergeant .335 .844 -.542 1.212
Lieutenant .742 .580 -.615 2.098
Sergeant Custody Assistant -.185 .938 -.826 .456
Deputy -.702 .005 -1.258 -.145
Senior Deputy -.335 .844 -1.212 .542
Lieutenant .407 .911 -.861 1.674
Lieutenant Custody Assistant -.592 .687 -1.809 .626
Deputy -1.108 .076 -2.283 .067
Senior Deputy -.742 .580 -2.098 .615
Sergeant -.407 .911 -1.674 .861
125
4.6 Summary
The ODQ survey was administered to N = 300 employees at the LASD jail. The
majority (83%) of the respondents were non-supervisors/jailers of which most (64.6%)
were Deputies. The supervisors included Senior Deputies (5.0%) Sergeants (9.6%) and
Lieutenants (2.0%). Seven reliably measured (Cronbach's alpha > .7) factors were
extracted from the data, with five items in each factor. Each factor was operationalized
by averaging the scores for the five items, and analyzed using ANOVA. Findings for
these seven constructs are summarized as follows.
4.6.1 Construct #1: Purpose
Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the Custody Division’s
purpose. The mean for purposes was 4.572 for non-supervisors and 3.672 for
supervisors. The results for the purposes construct showed the supervisors had lower
scores than did the non-supervisors.
The supervisors tended to agree with the items used to measure purposes
(indicated by mean scores < 4). In contrast, the non-supervisors, on average, tended to
disagree with these items (mean scores > 4). The Custody Assistants scored
significantly lower than the Deputies. The supervisors also scored significantly lower
than the Deputies. There were no significant differences between the mean scores of
the three groups of supervisors.
4.6.2 Construct #2: Structure
Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the Custody Division’s
126
structure. The mean score was 4.390 for non-supervisors and 3.724 for supervisors
(mean difference = 0.666, p<0.001). The results for the structure construct showed the
supervisors had lower scores than did the non-supervisors.
Significant differences were found between the Lieutenants and Deputies with
respect to their perceptions toward the Custody Division structural process affecting the
operating procedures and routines. The Lieutenants tended to agree with the items
(mean score < 4) whereas the Deputies showed a high level of disagreement (mean
score > 4). The Custody Assistants scored significantly lower than the Deputies (p =
.102). The supervisors also scored significantly lower than the Deputies. There were no
significant differences between the mean scores of the three groups of supervisors.
4.6.3 Construct #3: Leadership
Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the Custody Division’s
leadership. The mean leadership score for non-supervisors was 4.082 and 3.644 for
supervisors (mean difference = 0.438, p=0.006). The results for the leadership construct
showed the supervisors had lower scores than did the non-supervisors.
A statistically significant difference was found between the perceptions of the
Lieutenants and the Deputies toward leadership. The Deputies showed a higher level of
disagreement with the items (mean score > 4) than the Lieutenants (mean score < 4).
The Custody Assistants scored significantly lower than the Deputies (p = .001). The
supervisors also scored significantly lower than the Deputies. There were no significant
differences between the mean scores of the three groups of supervisors.
127
4.6.4 Construct #4: Relationships
Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the relationships effecting
informal and social interconnections in the Custody Division. The mean relationship
score was 3.811 for non-supervisors and 3.272 for supervisors (mean difference =
0.539, p<0.001). The results for the relationships construct showed the supervisors had
lower scores than did the non-supervisors. All groups tended to disagree with the items
(mean scores < 4).
The Custody Assistants scored significantly lower than the Deputies (p = .009).
The supervisors also scored significantly lower than the Deputies. There were no
significant differences between the mean scores of the three groups of supervisors.
4.6.5 Construct #5: EBI Program
Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the Custody Division’s EBI
Program. The mean EBI Program score was 5.082 for non-supervisors and 4.524 for
supervisors (mean difference = 0.558, p=0.006). The results for the EBI program
construct showed the supervisors had lower scores than did the non-supervisors.
A statistically significant difference was found between the perceptions of the
Sergeants and the Deputies toward the EBI program. On average, both groups tended
to disagree with the items (mean score > 4). The Custody Assistants scored significantly
lower than the Deputies (p = .039). The supervisors also scored significantly lower than
the Deputies. There were no significant differences between the mean scores of the
three groups of supervisors.
128
4.6.6 Construct #6: Helpful Mechanisms
Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the helpful mechanisms.
Helpful mechanisms means were 3.919 for non-supervisors and 3.324 for supervisors
(mean difference = 0.595, p<0.001). The results for the helpful mechanisms construct
showed the supervisors had lower scores than did the non-supervisors.
A statistically significant difference was found between the perceptions of the
Deputies and all other groups toward helpful mechanisms. The Deputies showed a
higher level of disagreement with the items (mean score > 4) than all other groups
(mean score < 4). The Custody Assistants scored significantly lower than the Deputies
(p = .003). The supervisors also scored significantly lower than the Deputies. There
were no significant differences between the mean scores of the three groups of
supervisors.
4.6.7 Construct #7: Attitude to Change
Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of the
custody supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the helpful mechanisms. The
mean Attitude to Change was 4.131 for non-supervisors and 3.252 for supervisors
(mean difference = 0.879, p<0.001). The results for the attitude to change construct
showed the supervisors had lower scores than did the non-supervisors.
A statistically significant difference was found between the perceptions of the
Sergeants and the Deputies toward attitude to change. The Deputies showed a higher
level of disagreement with the items (mean score > 4) than the Sergeants (mean score <
4). The Custody Assistants scored significantly lower than the Deputies (p = .009). The
129
supervisors also scored significantly lower than the Deputies. There were no significant
differences between the mean scores of the three groups of supervisors.
130
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A total of 300 supervisors and non-supervisors employed currently at the Los
Angeles County Men’s Central Jail participated in this study. A total of 300 usable
surveys were collected, with 50 from supervisors and 250 from non-supervisors. A
modified version of Preziosi’s Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) was used.
The instrument was supplemented with an additional construct that addressed the EBI
program. The instrument required participants to respond using a seven point Likert-
type scale.
The results of the t-tests addressed the first question: What are the differences in
perceptions between custody supervisors and non-supervisors toward the seven
constructs (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, EBI program, helpful
mechanisms, and attitude to change)? The results showed that there was a significant
difference between custody supervisors and non-supervisors in their perceptions of all
seven constructs. The results showed the supervisors had lower scores than did the
non-supervisors on all seven constructs.
The results of the ANOVA addressed the second question: What are the
differences in perceptions between the five groups of employees (lieutenants,
sergeants, senior deputies, deputies, and custody assistants) toward the seven
constructs? The results showed that there were some significant differences among the
five groups of employees in their perceptions of all seven constructs.
Each of the seven constructs represents a part of the organization that affects
other constructs. The organizational diagnosis model used in this study was particularly
useful because this study did not offer the time necessary for a more in depth and time
131
demanding diagnosis. This model provides a relatively uncomplicated organizational
map that can be used to explain the diagnosis to executives who may be unaccustomed
to thinking in systems terms.
5.1 Conclusions
Figure 5.1 shows the seven constructs and their relationships with other
constructs in the diagnosis. Each construct shows the main points of the construct closer
to the center of the diagram. Leadership is found at the center of the diagram to illustrate
the importance of leadership in monitoring “blips on the radar” of the other constructs to
maintain balance and harmony. The results of each of the seven constructs are
discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
132
Figure 5.1 Illustration of the Organizational Diagnosis (Carlson, 2014)
5.1.1 Purpose Construct
According to Weisbord (1976), organizations should examine and explain their
purpose or their reason for their existence. Absent a clear purpose, it is virtually
impossible to establish or accomplish organizational objectives. As illustrated in Figure
5.1, the purpose construct examines the vision, mission, and goals of the Custody
Services Division. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Custody Division
133
appears to be at a cross roads. There is currently a debate as to the purpose and
objectives of incarcerating individuals in county jails. One side of the debate believes
that the purpose of custody is to “warehouse’ inmates. The other side of the debate
maintains that this time is best served by offering education and rehabilitation programs
to inmates designed to prepare them for their release back in to society.
The goals factor represents goal clarity and goal agreement. Goal clarity and
goal agreement relate to how well the goals are explained, and to what degree
employees understand and support the goals. Absent goal clarity and agreement, is it
difficult to secure the funding, personnel, and resources necessary to move forward with
EBI in any meaningful way. Thus, the first step in successfully implementing any EBI
effort is to articulate clearly the organization’s commitment to EBI, including a clear
definition of EBI, as well as both long and short-term goals.
This analysis found a statistically significant difference between the perceptions
of the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward purpose. The 250 non-
supervisors showed a mean average purpose score of 4.57, while the 50 supervisors
showed a mean score of 3.67 for a mean difference of 0.9 (significant at p<0.0001).
This suggests that supervisors have a significantly better understanding of the purpose
and goals of custody division than do non-supervisors.
This analysis also examined differences between the perceptions of the five
groups of respondents regarding purpose. According to Weisbord (1976), the purpose
construct was designed so the analysis could ask the question, what business are we
in, and what are the organizations goals? The lower scores showed more agreement
with the statements in the survey.
134
Purpose Construct Question: What business are we in and what are the organizations
goals?
Custody Assistants
Deputies
Senior Deputies
Sergeants
Lieutenants
Figure 5.2
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Slightly Agree
4
Neutral
5
Slightly
Disagree
6
Disagree
7
Strongly
Disagree
The custody assistants showed a mean average purpose score of 4.04 indicating
that they were more neutral with the statements with the overall organizational purpose
including the vision and goals of the EBI program than the other groups other than the
deputies. The custody assistants tended to disagree more than the collective supervisor
groups regarding the statements that the employees are able to provide input when
helping decide work-unit goals and that the priorities of Custody Division are understood
by its employees.
The deputies showed a mean average purpose score of 4.79 indicating that they
agreed less with the overall organizational purpose including the vision and goals of the
EBI program than the other groups. The deputies tended to disagree more than the
other groups regarding the statements that the goals of Custody Division are clearly
stated and the employees clearly understand the goals.
The supervisors showed a mean average purpose score of 3.62 for senior
deputies, 3.87 for sergeants, and 3.03 for lieutenants, indicating that the senior deputies
and sergeants agreed more with the statements with the overall organizational purpose
4.04
4.79
3.62
3.87
3.03
135
including the vision and goals of the EBI program than the non-supervisors. The
lieutenants tended to agree more with the statements with the purpose than any other
group. Although the supervisors collectively tended to slightly agree with the statements
that the goals of Custody Division are clearly stated and the employees clearly
understand the goals more than did the non-supervisor groups, none of the groups
clearly agreed with the purpose statements.
As indicated in this analysis, none of the line employees, supervisors or non-
supervisors, clearly agreed with the statements with the purpose of the Custody Division
regarding its vision, mission, or goals. Although most of the supervisors indicated that
they agreed with the statements in the purpose construct more than the non-
supervisors, none of the groups appeared to agree with the statements regarding the
purpose of the jail.
5.1.2 Structure Construct
According to Weisbord (1976), structure focuses on how organizational tasks are
accomplished or not accomplished. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is
structured as a traditional bureaucratic organization, with a clearly delineated top down
chain of command. The organization relies on policy, organizational hierarchy, and
supervision to accomplish its organizational purpose. Top level management is
responsible for creating organizational goals and objectives, while supervisors and non-
supervisors carry out those objectives. Figure 5.1 illustrates that the structure of custody
services division is comprised of organizational policy.
This analysis found a statistically significant difference between the
perceptions of the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward structure. The 250
136
non-supervisors showed a mean average structure score of 4.39, while the 50
supervisors showed a mean score of 3.72 for a mean difference of 0.66 (significant at
p<0.0001). This suggests that supervisors agree more with the statements with the
structure of custody division than do non-supervisors.
This analysis also examined differences between the perceptions of the five
groups of respondents regarding structure. According to Weisbord (1976), the structure
construct was designed so the analysis could ask the question, is the agency organized
to effectively reach its goals?
Structure Construct Question: Is the agency organized to effectively reach its goals?
Custody Assistants
Deputies
Senior Deputies
Sergeants
Lieutenants
Figure 5.3
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Slightly Agree
4
Neutral
5
Slightly
Disagree
6
Disagree
7
Strongly
Disagree
The custody assistants showed a mean average structure score of 4.01
indicating that they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall organizational
structure including the policies than the other groups other than the deputies. The
custody assistants tended to disagree more than the collective supervisor groups
regarding the statements that the manner in which work tasks are divided is logical and
the way in which Custody Division is organized is intended to help it reach its goals.
4.01
4.48
3.70
3.91
2.87
137
The deputies showed a mean average structure score of 4.48 indicating that they
agreed less with the statements regarding the overall organizational structure including
the policies than the other groups. The deputies tended to disagree more than the other
groups regarding the statements that the way in which Custody Division is organized is
flexible and is intended to help it reach its goals. The deputies also slightly disagreed
that the structure of each employee’s own work assignments are well defined and the
structure of Custody Division is organized to actually help the division reach its goals.
The supervisors showed a mean average structure score of 3.70 for senior
deputies, 3.91 for sergeants, and 2.87 for lieutenants, indicating that the senior deputies
and sergeants agreed more with the statements with regarding the overall
organizational structure including the policies than the non-supervisors. The lieutenants
tended to agree more with the statements with the purpose than any other group.
Although the supervisors collectively tended to slightly agree with the statements
regarding the way in which Custody Division is organized, flexible, and intended to help
it reach its goals more than the non-supervisor groups, none of the groups clearly
agreed with the structure statements.
The structure of the organization is critical to the success of any educational or
rehabilitative efforts by Custody Division. For example, organizational structure
influences how personnel and resources are allocated to meet the organization’s
purpose. The current state of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department lacks the
divisional policy and man power to support successful education or rehabilitation efforts.
The agency’s structure is designed currently to support the warehousing of inmates.
This is evidenced by the structure of personnel assignment and resources. Of the
138
approximately 5,000 custody division personnel, less than 65 are assigned to promote
the education and rehabilitation of inmates.
As indicated in this analysis, none of the line employees, supervisors or non-
supervisors clearly agrees with the statements regarding the structure of the Custody
Division, i.e., the way in which Custody Division is organized to reach its goals.
Although most of the supervisors indicated that they slightly understood the structure
more than the non-supervisors, none of the groups appeared to have a clear
understanding of the structure of the jail as it pertains to inmate rehabilitation. Absent
sufficient resources and personnel sufficient to support the EBI program, educational or
rehabilitative efforts are doomed.
5.1.3 Leadership Construct
Figure 5.1 illustrates how the leadership construct is at the center of the
diagnosis matrix. Leadership is intentionally positioned in the center of the model
because it takes strong leaders to continually assess and balance the other constructs
(Burke, 1992). Leadership's main tasks are to scan the environment, set goals, and
align the internal organization to fulfil the defined objectives. The attitudes and actions
of those at the top of the organization are critical to the success of any education or
rehabilitative efforts.
This analysis found a statistically significant difference between the perceptions
of the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward leadership. The 250 non-
supervisors showed a mean average leadership score of 4.08, while the 50 supervisors
showed a mean score of 3.64 for a mean difference of 0.44 (significant at p<0.006).
139
This indicates that supervisors agree more with the statements regarding leadership
than did the non-supervisors.
This analysis also examined differences between the perceptions of the five
groups of respondents regarding leadership. According to Weisbord (1976), the
leadership construct was designed so the analysis could ask the question, how do
leaders manage systems, structure, and organizational change?
Leadership Construct Question: How do leaders manage systems, structure, and
organizational change?
Custody Assistants
Deputies
Senior Deputies
Sergeants
Lieutenants
Figure 5.4
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Slightly Agree
4
Neutral
5
Slightly
Disagree
6
Disagree
7
Strongly
Disagree
The custody assistants showed a mean average leadership score of 3.54,
indicating that they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall leadership
than the other groups other than the deputies. The custody assistants tended to
disagree more than the collective supervisor groups regarding the statements that
supervisors are helpful to mentor employee work efforts.
The deputies showed a mean average leadership score of 4.22, indicating that
they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall organizational leadership.
The deputies tended to disagree more than the other groups regarding the statements
that Custody Division’s leadership efforts result in the organization’s fulfillment of its
3.54
4.22
3.51
3.87
2.90
140
purposes and immediate supervisors are supportive of employee efforts. The deputies
also disagreed more than the other groups that management asks employees for their
thoughts before making decisions that will affect their jobs.
The supervisors showed a mean average leadership score of 3.51 for senior
deputies, 3.87 for sergeants, and 2.90 for lieutenants, indicating that the senior deputies
and sergeants agreed more with the statements with regarding the overall
organizational leadership than the non-supervisors. The lieutenants tended to agree
more with the statements regarding the overall leadership than any other group.
Although the supervisors collectively tended to slightly agree, more than the non-
supervisor groups with the statements that Custody Division’s leadership efforts result in
the organization’s fulfillment of its purposes, none of the groups clearly agreed with the
leadership statements.
As stated previously, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s is structured
as a traditional organizational bureaucracy. The leadership at the top of the organization
dictates the policies to support the organization’s purpose and structure. The policies
formulated at the top of the organization are communicated in writing to the custody
employees and enforced by the first line supervisors to ensure that the line employees
behave in ways that are consistent with the organization’s purpose. Currently, the
custody division leadership has been ambiguous in its support for EBI and other
rehabilitative efforts. On one hand, organizational leadership created the EBI Bureau
while on the other hand, the bureau is understaffed and under-funded. This sends a
mixed message to the line staff about the department’s commitment to EBI and, in turn,
how much of the line staff’s efforts should be committed to the EBI efforts.
141
This analysis indicated that none of the line employees, supervisors or non-
supervisors, were confident that Custody Division’s leadership efforts result in the
organization’s fulfillment of its purposes. Although most of the supervisors indicated that
they slightly agreed with the statements regarding leadership more than the non-
supervisors, none of the groups appeared content with the leadership of the jail as it
pertains to inmate education and rehabilitation.
5.1.4 Relationships Construct
Burke (1992) stated that the relationships construct addresses the questions:
what type of relations exists between individuals, between departments, and between
individuals and the nature of their jobs? Is there interdependence? What is the quality of
relations? What are the modes of conflict? Relationships are the ways in which people
and units interact. Figure 5.1 shows that the relationships construct focuses on the
relationships between the executives, managers, and jailers of the custody services
division.
This analysis found a statistically significant difference between the perceptions
of the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward relationships. The 250 non-
supervisors showed a mean average relationships score of 3.81, while the 50
supervisors showed a mean score of 3.27 for a mean difference of 0.54 (significant at
p<0.001). This indicates that supervisors agree more with the statements regarding
relationships than did non-supervisors. More specifically, both groups believe that the
relationships between each of the groups are important in fulfilling the organization’s
purpose and changing the culture.
142
This analysis also examined differences between the perceptions of the five
groups of respondents regarding relationship. According to Weisbord (1976), the
relationship construct was designed so the analysis could ask the question, how are
decisions made and communicated? How do supervisory and non-supervisory
relationships work?
Relationships Construct Question: How are decisions made and communicated and
how do supervisory and non-supervisory relationships work?
Custody Assistants
Deputies
Senior Deputies
Sergeants
Lieutenants
Figure 5.5
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Slightly Agree
4
Neutral
5
Slightly
Disagree
6
Disagree
7
Strongly
Disagree
The custody assistants showed a mean average relationships score of 3.43,
indicating that they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall organizational
relationships than the supervisor groups. The custody assistants tended to agree less
than the collective supervisor groups with the statements that employee relationships
with other members of a work group are friendly and professional.
The deputies showed a mean average relationships score of 3.94, indicating that
they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall organizational relationships
than the other four groups. The deputies tended to agree less than the other groups
regarding the statements that relationships between employees and supervisors are
3.43
3.94
3.57
3.24
2.83
143
harmonious. The deputies also agreed less than the other groups that employees
establish sufficient relationships necessary to do their job properly.
The supervisors showed a mean average relationships score of 3.57 for senior
deputies, 3.24 for sergeants, and 2.83 for lieutenants, indicating that the senior deputies
and sergeants agreed more with the statements with regarding the overall
organizational relationships than non-supervisors. The lieutenants tended to agree more
with the statements regarding the overall relationships than any other group. Although
the supervisors collectively tended to agree with the statements that employees can
always talk with someone at work if they have a work-related problem, none of the
groups clearly agreed with all of the relationship statements.
The relationship between the employees at each level should operate without
much conflict. The analysis shows that most of the employees feel comfortable with the
relationships between each other.
5.1.5 EBI Program Construct
The diagnosis of the EBI program was added to this study at the request of the
custody services division executives. The purpose of the EBI program construct was to
examine the perceptions of the employees regarding the goals and purpose of the EBI
program. Figure 5.1 shows how the EBI program construct included the employees’
understanding of inmate rehabilitation programs.
This analysis found a statistically significant difference between the perceptions
of the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward the EBI program. The 250
non-supervisors showed a mean average EBI program score of 5.08, while the 50
supervisors showed a mean score of 4.52 for a mean difference of 0.56 (significant at
144
p<0.006). This suggests that supervisors significantly agreed more with the statements
regarding the EBI program of custody division than did non-supervisors.
This analysis also examined differences between the perceptions of the five
groups of respondents regarding the EBI program. This analysis asked the question,
are the priorities of EBI understood by employees?
EBI Program Construct Question: Are the priorities of EBI understood by employees?
Custody Assistants
Deputies
Senior Deputies
Sergeants
Lieutenants
Figure 5.6
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Slightly Agree
4
Neutral
5
Slightly
Disagree
6
Disagree
7
Strongly
Disagree
The custody assistants showed a mean average EBI program score of 4.61,
indicating that they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall EBI program
than the supervisor groups. The custody assistants tended to agree less than the
collective supervisor groups regarding the statements that EBI offers employees the
opportunity to grow as a person and that the goals and priorities of EBI are clearly
stated and understood by the employees.
The deputies showed a mean average EBI program score of 5.23, indicating that
they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall EBI program than the other
four groups. The deputies tended to disagree more than the other groups regarding the
statements that the goals and priorities of EBI are clearly stated and understood by the
4.61
5.23
4.31
4.71
4.13
145
employees. The deputies also disagreed more with the statement that employees
respect the work they do as it applies to the EBI than did the other four groups.
The supervisors showed a mean average EBI program score of 4.31 for senior
deputies, 4.71 for sergeants, and 4.13 for lieutenants, indicating that the supervisors
collectively agreed more with the statements regarding the overall EBI program than the
non-supervisors. Although the supervisors collectively tended to agree with the
statements that the priorities of EBI are understood by employees, none of the groups
clearly agreed with the EBI program statements.
The EBI program was designed to provide inmates with education and
rehabilitation in order to help them transition back into the community. This analysis
suggested that none of the line employees, supervisors or non-supervisors, clearly
understood the EBI program of the Custody Division or the purpose of providing
inmates a rehabilitation program. Although most of the supervisors indicated that they
slightly understood the EBI program, none of the groups appeared to have a clear
understanding of the EBI program of the jail as it pertains to inmate education and
rehabilitation.
5.1.6 Helpful Mechanisms Construct
According to Burke (1992), helpful mechanisms are the planning, controlling,
budgeting, and information systems that serve to meet organizational goals. Helpful
mechanisms are the processes that every organization must attend to in order to survive
and grow. Figure 5.1 illustrates that the helpful mechanisms construct addresses
planning and development of the custody services division.
146
This analysis found a statistically significant difference between the perceptions
of the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers toward helpful mechanisms. The 250
non-supervisors showed a mean average helpful mechanisms score of 3.92, while the
50 supervisors showed a mean score of 3.32 for a mean difference of 0.60 (significant
at p<0.001). This suggests that supervisors agreed more with the statements regarding
the helpful mechanisms of custody division than did non-supervisors.
This analysis also examined differences between the perceptions of the five
groups of respondents regarding helpful mechanisms. This analysis asked the question,
does Custody Division have the ability to change the organizational culture?
Helpful Mechanisms Question: Does Custody Division have the ability to change the
organizational culture?
Custody Assistants
Deputies
Senior Deputies
Sergeants
Lieutenants
Figure 5.7
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Slightly Agree
4
Neutral
5
Slightly
Disagree
6
Disagree
7
Strongly
Disagree
The custody assistants showed a mean average helpful mechanisms score of
3.49, indicating that they agreed less with the statements regarding the helpful
mechanisms than the supervisor groups. The custody assistants tended to disagree
more than the collective supervisor groups regarding the statements that Custody
Division’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development.
3.49
4.07
3.26
3.46
2.43
147
The deputies showed a mean average helpful mechanisms score of 4.07,
indicating that they agreed less regarding the statements with the helpful mechanisms
than the other four groups. The deputies tended to disagree more than the other groups
regarding the statements that employees receive the information they need in order to
do a good job. The deputies also disagreed with the statement that Custody Division
has the ability to change the organizational culture.
The supervisors showed a mean average helpful mechanisms score of 3.26 for
senior deputies, 3.46 for sergeants, and 2.43 for lieutenants, indicating that the senior
deputies and sergeants agreed more with the statements with regarding the helpful
mechanisms than non-supervisors. The lieutenants tended to agree more with the
statements regarding the helpful mechanisms than any other group. Although the
supervisors collectively tended to slightly agree with the statements that Custody
Division has the ability to change the organizational culture, none of the groups clearly
agreed with the statements regarding the helpful mechanisms.
Custody Division designed the EBI program as a pilot program without creating a
steering committee consisting of executives, managers, supervisors, and non-
supervisors. The planning portion of the helpful mechanisms relates to the concerted
efforts to meet goals. The analysis indicated that none of the employees clearly agreed
with the statements regarding the planning process of the EBI program.
5.1.7 Attitude to Change Construct
Figure 5.1 illustrates that the attitude to change construct deals with issues
regarding the employees’ commitment to the custody services division’s EBI program.
148
The purpose of the attitude to change construct was to examine the perceptions of the
employees’ attitude to the changes in Custody Division regarding the EBI program.
This analysis found a statistically significant difference between the perceptions
of the supervisors and the non-supervisors/jailers regarding attitude to change. The 250
non-supervisors showed a mean average attitude to change score of 4.13, while the 50
supervisors showed a mean score of 3.25 for a mean difference of 0.88 (significant at
p<0.001). This suggests that supervisors significantly agreed more with the statements
regarding the attitude to change within custody division than do non-supervisors.
This analysis also examined differences between the perceptions of the five
groups of respondents regarding attitude to change. This analysis asked the question,
Is the EBI program understood by employees?
Attitude to Change Construct Question: Is the EBI program understood by employees?
Custody Assistants
Deputies
Senior Deputies
Sergeants
Lieutenants
Figure 5.8
1
Strongly Agree
2
Agree
3
Slightly Agree
4
Neutral
5
Slightly
Disagree
6
Disagree
7
Strongly
Disagree
The custody assistants showed a mean average attitude to change score of 3.68,
indicating that they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall attitude to
change than the supervisor groups. The custody assistants tended to agree less than
3.31
4.26
3.68
2.57
3.40
149
the collective supervisor groups regarding the statements that Custody Division is not
resistant to change.
The deputies showed a mean average attitude to change score of 4.26,
indicating that they agreed less with the statements regarding the overall attitude to
change than the other four groups. The deputies tended to disagree more than the other
groups regarding the statements that Custody Division has the ability to change. The
deputies also disagreed with the statement that employees occasionally like to change
things about their job more than the other groups.
The supervisors showed a mean average attitude to change score of 3.31 for
senior deputies, 3.40 for sergeants, and 2.57 for lieutenants, indicating that the senior
deputies and sergeants agreed more with the statements with attitude to change than
did non-supervisors. The lieutenants tended to agree more with the statements
regarding the attitude to change than any other group than non-supervisors. Although
the supervisors collectively tended to agree more with the statements that Custody
Division has the ability to change than the non-supervisor groups, none of the groups
clearly agreed with the statements regarding the attitude to change.
Wanberg and Banas (2000) found that when employees are well informed about
their role and the goings-on within the organization in the initial stage of change and
when they feel included in the task and the information network, they are likely to be
open to change. This analysis indicated that the employees do not feel well informed
regarding the inmate rehabilitation. Based on the results of this analysis, it appears that
the Custody Division executives did not disseminate the information regarding the EBI
program to the employees in an effort to gain support from them.
150
5.1.8 Holistic Conclusion
Weisbord’s model focuses on internal issues within an organization primarily
by posing diagnostic questions which have to do with the fit between what is and
what should be (Cummings and Worley, 2005). The constructs are interrelated and
changes to any construct can affect another construct. This study revealed patterns
between each of the groups surveyed. Some of the patterns were simple, while others
revealed information which suggests necessary change.
In this study, the lieutenants tended to agree with the statements measuring all of
the constructs more than any other group. The lieutenants longevity, experience, and
training may have influenced their feelings about the organization and their role as a
supervisor. Lieutenants are frequently involved in management briefings regarding the
direction of the Custody Division executives; however, they do not always have time to
shrare the information with their subordinates. Perhaps since the lieutenants have less
contact with the inmates and more contact with their subordinates, they are more
disconnected from the role of the line staff. The hierarchical design of the agency tends
to create a distance between the supervisors and the non-supervisors. Based on the
difference between the lieutenants and the non-supervisors regarding most all of the
constructs, it appears that the lieutenants have a significant disconnect with the floor
operations and the line staff roles.
The senior deputies and the sergeants tended to agree similarly with most of the
statements in the surveys. These two supervisor positions are closely linked. In some
circumstances, the roles have similar sets of daily duties. In other situations, senior
deputies are called upon to perform the temporary roles of the sergeant. The senior
151
deputies’ and sergeants’ patterns of response were similar because of the similarity of
the job functions. Both roles are disconnected from the executives enough to feel out of
the loop, however, they tend to understand the roles of their subordinates.
The deputy and custody assistant roles are also similar. They tended to disagree
with the statements measuring most of the constructs more than did the supervisors with
the deputies clearly disagreeing with these statements more than did the custody
assistants. The turnover rate for deputies is higher than for the custody assistants
because the deputies eventually transfer to a patrol assignment. The custody assistants,
however, remain in the Custody Division regardless of which jail they are assigned.
The longer term experience that the custody assistants have while working in the
jail possibly has an effect on their view of the organization. Some of the custody
assistants’ responses bordered on neutral, which may indicate that, their experience and
longevity influences how they view the organization. Although the deputies and custody
assistants interact with the inmates more than the supervisors, the custody assistants
may feel more aware of the programs available to the inmates than do the deputies.
In each of the constructs, the staff displayed different perceptions of what they
each agreed on. In the purpose construct, the deputies clearly disagree with the
statements while the custody assistants were more neutral. The deputies may feel more
cynical toward the organization regarding the purpose than the other groups. The senior
deputies and sergeants agree with the statement, however, the lieutenants agreed more
than any other group. The lieutenants’ tenure may have caused them to feel loyalty
regardless of the current conditions.
152
In the structure construct, the deputies clearly disagree with the statements while
the custody assistants were more neutral. The deputies may feel more anxiety regarding
their role as a custody deputy because most of them will eventually transition to a patrol
assignment. The custody assistants may feel more comfortable in their role because
they interact longer with the inmates. The supervisors may feel comfortable in their role
as a supervisor and not feel any need to disagree with the statements.
In the leadership construct, the deputies only slightly disagreed with the
statements because they feel they can rely on the supervisors as leader, however, they
may feel the supervisors do not support the rehabilitation efforts. The custody assistants,
senior deputies, and sergeants tended to slightly agree with the statements regarding
leadership because they serve in the Custody Division longer and realize the role that
the leadership serves to influence the activities in the jail.
In the relationships construct, the custody assistants, senior deputies, and
sergeants tended to slightly agree with the statements regarding relationships. Since all
three tend to spend more time working in the jail, they develop trusted relationships
across the ranks. The lieutenants agreed more than did the other groups because they
must rely on their subordinates to do the work on the line, so they establish good
relationships with all rank levels. The deputies were more neutral to the statements
indicating that they only felt comfortable and not satisfied with the relationships; however,
they may have reservations that kept them from agreeing more with the statements.
In the EBI program construct, the deputies clearly disagreed with the statements
regarding the EBI program. The deputies may not understand the concepts of the EBI
program and that could cause them to feel apprehensive about inmates receiving an
153
education while in jail. The custody assistants and supervisors all agreed with the
statements regarding the EBI program which could indicate that they feel more accepting
of the inmate education and rehabilitation program than the deputies.
In the helpful mechanisms construct, the deputies slightly disagreed with the
statements because they may feel that the jails are already understaffed and staffing the
EBI program could take staff away from the line function. The custody assistants and the
supervisors all tended to agree with the statements more than the deputies, which
implies that they feel the agency has the ability to get support for inmate rehabilitation.
In the attitude to change construct, the deputies’ responses indicate that they may
be more reluctant to change. The custody assistants’ responses were more neutral
indicating that they may be somewhat apprehensive to change but not dismissive to
change. The supervisors all tended to agree with the statements more that the non-
supervisors indicating that they may invite change. The supervisors are briefed by the
executives regarding changes within the agency, so they may feel more comfortable
about the information related to changes.
All of the seven constructs interrelate with each other. The largest function of the
jail is security. The deputies’ and custody assistants’ roles for decades have been to
provide security for the jail. The introduction of the EBI program needs to fit into the
current security culture without disrupting the organizational culture of security. The
previous sections made it clear that the supervisors were not completely supportive of
the EBI program.
Management needs to clarify the vision, mission, and goals of the Custody
Division as a whole so the employees will understand their roles and support the
154
direction of the jail. Management is blocking the progress of inmate rehabilitation by not
clearly communicating with the line staff (supervisors and non-supervisors) that the
direction of the jail is moving toward inmate rehabilitation to diminish jail violence and
reduce recidivism.
The results showed that all of the groups view Custody Division differently. The
results of the study revealed that the supervisors and non-supervisors as a whole clearly
do not support the idea of inmate rehabilitation. The custody assistants tended to support
the inmate rehabilitation efforts more because they have been exposed to the EBI
program more than the other groups. Because the initial EBI pilot program was staffed
by 65 custody assistants, they invited additional custody assistants to help facilitate
inmate rehabilitation classes. This exposure had a ripple effect that caused more custody
assistants to understand the role of rehabilitation. These custody assistants were able to
fit the concept of inmate rehabilitation into their role as security providers.
Because the deputies, senior deputies, sergeants, and lieutenants were more
removed from the daily operation of the EBI programs, they were not as supportive of
inmate rehabilitation as the custody assistants. This group has not identified inmate
rehabilitation as part of their role in the security of the jail. The jail administrators need to
find ways to incorporate the EBI inmate rehabilitation program into the jail culture of
security.
5.2 Recommendations
Based on the results and conclusions of this study, it is recommended that the
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Custody Division executives should start an
155
internal action plan by 1) eliciting opinions and input about ways the organization could
be more effective in meeting its goal of rehabilitation, 2) developing a steering
committee, 3) developing the Custody Division vision, mission, and goal statement
related to the new world view of rehabilitation of inmates, and 4) develop a culture
intervention that can occur at different levels. The cultural intervention can occur at any
level: at the leader level (executive, administrator, or supervisor), the group level
(department, division, or housing unit), or the organizational level. Engaging people at
multiple levels in the organization is one way to ensure that everyone is working to
support the desired cultural change to support rehabilitation.
The Custody Division executives should initiate an external action plan with the
executives at the courts regarding split sentencing. The judges at the courts could offer
inmates who are in the sentencing phase of their court procedure a split sentence to try
to reduce their jail time. The courts could design sanctions that include graduating from
specified EBI programs to qualify for a reduction in sentence time. This would give the
courts an incentive to move from more punitive sanctions to more rehabilitative
sanctions.
Each of the following subsections represents recommendations in each of the
individual constructs. Any change or improvement to the elements of one construct will
impact an effect the other constructs. The key to making changes is to balance the
individual changes that make an overall organizational change to the culture.
5.2.1 Custody Division Purpose
Although Custody Division has volumes of written policies dictating how
employees are expected to perform the tasks necessary to keep the jail functional, it
156
has not created a written vision or mission statement. Custody Division has not yet
made it clear to the employees that the jail purpose is to both safely warehouse inmates
and provide education and rehabilitation to the inmates.
Because none of the employees felt completely comfortable with the purpose of
the Custody Division, the executives need to clarify the purpose to the employees. One
of the first tasks in creating a Custody Division vision, mission, and goal statement is to
include staff members form all ranks of the agency. Instead of having only people at the
higher levels develop the statement without including the managers and the line staff,
the executives should chose people who actually operate the jails to have input into
reviewing and developing the statement. The committee should have capable people
who listen to ideas and make necessary changes based on collaborative input.
LASD Custody Division should embrace a mission and values that support the
kind of organizational culture that it wants to create. The leader’s job is to engage the
staff in developing a mission and identifying values that support the organization and its
new rehabilitation culture. Determining the organization’s mission and values is key in
creating goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and performance measures that are
based on strategies that reflect evidence-based principles.
Currently, LASD Custody Division staff members have little or no input in
developing a strategic plan that clearly defines objectives, and there is no
implementation strategy developed to meet the goals of rehabilitation. In order to drive
the organization forward, a steering committee would need to (1) address strategic
challenges, (2) develop a comprehensive plan to meet its strategic objectives, (3) create
action plans to achieve the objectives, (4) define performance measures to gauge how
157
successful the action plans were, and (5) implement plans for deployment and
sustainability.
The Custody Division executives should (1) identify key influential staff members
who are committed to the organization and to participating in the planning process, (2)
bring in a trained professional to facilitate the process, and (3) encourage open and free
discussions. In preparation for the strategic planning, this newly formed strategic
planning committee will need to clarify the agency’s mission, vision, and values. The
committee should write a purpose statement for the process so that everyone who
participates in the process would be clear about what they were doing. During the
planning process, the participants (1) review the agency’s current performance
practices, (2) agree on priorities, (3) develop a picture of the desired future state of the
agency, and (4) develop clear, measurable goals, action steps, responsibilities,
accountabilities, and specific deadlines to achieve the goals. In addition, the committee
should develop a communication strategy to disseminate the plan.
The plan should be presented to all staff members and stakeholders. These
presentations give the planning committee a chance to vet the plan and get valuable
feedback from staff members and stakeholders. The planning committee should include
the feedback in the final version of the plan. Doing so could help the committee
members implement the changes in the processes and practices because the
committee could interact with those who understand the best ways to make changes,
helping them understand where the committee is going and feel engaged and invested
in the success of the strategic plan.
158
Since the EBI program was initiated as a pilot program, it is recommended that
custody division create a planning committee comprised of executives, managers,
supervisors, and non-supervisors designed to create new policies for the EBI program.
This committee should create a new vision and mission statement for custody division
that articulates the inclusion of inmate rehabilitation. To begin eroding silos, a good
strategy would be to mix members from each group so there is collaboration in dialogue
and approach to the issues systemically (Ross & Fabiano, 1985).
Employees need to be made aware of the purpose of the EBI program so they
can understand their role regarding inmate rehabilitation. Since professional orientation
and role conflicts can affect the manner in which the jailer relates to inmates, there is a
need to include these topics as part of a more comprehensive training program on
rehabilitation and staff-inmate relations. Employees need to understand the role of
inmate rehabilitation in a secure jail. Further, this training information needs to be
provided in a format that can be utilized and applied by the jail administrators
responsible for the development of the jailer's training. The jailer should feel capable of
positively influencing inmate behaviors through his daily interactions with the inmate.
Knowledgeable employees with credible experience will be critical for this
committee to have validity. The basic overview of a new vision and mission, while not
making managers and executives evidence-based program experts, will provide support
for the Education Based Incarceration program and its effect on rehabilitation. By
sharing vision and mission, executive staff, managers, supervisors, and non-supervisors
will understand the ideas necessary to communicate and succeed effectively in a
changing correctional environment and culture as it relates to inmate rehabilitation.
159
Moreover, the steering committee will oversee and review the statement development
involving the Custody Division and Education Based Incarceration programs. The
steering committee can measure the success of the policy changes and make decisions
regarding future policy aspects.
On a semi-annual basis, the committee should review the performance results
and modify strategic plans as needed. The strategic plan should become accessible to
all staff members on the agency website. Performance appraisals of staff members
should be directly correlated to the achievement of the strategic plan’s goals. Staff
members should be empowered and encouraged to suggest ideas to reinforce and to
enhance the strategic plan’s goals and objectives.
5.2.2 Custody Division Structure
Structure describes the organizational form through which tasks and processes
are organized and accomplished. This study revealed that most of the employees did
not fully understand their role regarding inmate rehabilitation. Part of the Los Angeles
County Jailer’s position is the role of an authority figure who exerts a significant amount
of influence over staff-inmate interactions. Considering the broad contact the jailer has
with the inmates, the jailer is an important part of the inmate's day-to-day experiences
and can play a substantial role in the inmate's adjustment, as well as promoting pro-
social inmate behaviors.
The literature found that the jailer's professional acceptance of a rehabilitation
program, which reflects his or her understanding of the program values, goals, and
attitudes, influences how he or she interacts with inmates (Griffin, 2002). The attitudes
which form the jailer's professional orientation can be categorized as punitive, custodial,
160
or rehabilitative and can significantly affect the nature of the officer-inmate relationship
(Griffin, 2002; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002; Pogrebin, 1978; Ulmer, 1992).
Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the role of today's county jailer helps
provide information regarding the larger context of the jail system within which the jailer
works. In addition to maintaining physical security measures such as locks, steel doors,
security glass, and alarm systems remain an essential part of a jailer’s role, a jailer must
actively manage inmate behavior to achieve a safe, clean, and secure environment
(Martin & Kaledas, 2010). An inmate can gain new skills and pro-social attitudes
through positive dealings with staff (Gray, 1991). A staff member's ability to positively
affect the day-to-day interactions that occur inside of the jail helps to promote an
environment that is beneficial to changing the way inmates think and correcting problem
inmate behaviors.
Organizational structure is a system used to define a hierarchy within an
organization. Organizational policy identifies each job, its function and where it reports
to within the organization. It is recommended that policy should be developed to
establish how an organization operates and assists an organization in obtaining its
goals to allow for future growth. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department uses
policy manuals to define the hierarchy and employees roles within the organization.
Policy changes regarding inmate rehabilitation involving the line managers and
staff are necessary to clarify the employees’ roles regarding Education based
Incarceration program. Changes in policy should outline the division’s plans, and gain
staff support for the EBI program. Prior to the full EBI program implementation, all staff
within the custody facilities conducting EBI courses should receive a half-day of
161
program awareness training. The objective should be to provide all staff with sufficient
information to enhance their awareness of their roles of the EBI program. The role
awareness would help create more support, reinforcement, and consistent staff
supervision of the inmates which could assist inmates in continuing with their "newly
learned skills" they developed while in the program.
The staff training challenge is formidable, in large part because of the size and
geographical dispersion of the workforce in Los Angeles County to be trained and
insufficient resources for training. The current EBI program staff members were trained
regarding the overall program concepts and purpose, however, no other members of
Custody Division received any EBI training. Custody Division has a total of more than
5,000 employees, representing 36% of the Sheriff’s Department’s employees. By
partnering with the Custody Division Training Bureau, which operates unit level and
department wide training throughout the county, the EBI Bureau could develop and
deliver a set of standardized and customized training courses.
It is recommended that the Custody Division executives should empower the
custody assistants more regarding their role in the EBI program. Because the custody
assistants started and have supported the EBI program, the custody assistants should
be allowed to focus more time on inmate rehabilitation issues. By allowing the custody
assistants to actively support the EBI program, the deputies and supervisors can
concentrate more on the security issues of the jail. This change in structure will allow
each of the groups to support the Custody Division goals separately.
5.2.3 Custody Division Leadership
162
Leadership requires the leader to continually assess and balance the other
aspects of the organization. Most of the employees in this study appeared to agree with
the statements that supervisors are supportive of employee efforts. Leadership
development should always continue in spite of how well employees perceive the
leadership of the agency.
Custody rehabilitation programs can easily fail during implementation. There are
multitudes of examples of programs that have been properly conceptualized but
eventually were poorly implemented (Gendreau, 1996). The agencies failed to observe
key principles of effective correctional leadership. In an attempt to focus on leadership
as a tool for success, this study recommends the leadership review the inmate
rehabilitation program and organizational culture change. The training, quality control
and assurance, and evaluation associated with leadership are crucial to the larger effort
to engage in effective rehabilitation in custody facilities. Leaders need to know how to
gain “buy-in” from the employees regarding the rehabilitation efforts of custody.
Regarding leadership, training should start at the top of the Custody Division and
cascade down so that each subsequent level is aware of the new inmate rehabilitation
based direction of the Education Based Incarceration program and what the changes
mean for everyone in the organization. The Chief of Custody Division should command
that everyone is designated to take the EBI training on a regular basis until the
understanding and awareness regarding inmate rehabilitation through the Education
Based Incarceration program has been established throughout the department. This
overview should be required of all Custody Division personnel at all ranks in the
division. It is recommended that the Custody Division executives regularly meet with the
163
agency managers to discuss the agency expectation of the inmate rehabilitation
program.
It is incumbent upon the Custody Division executive management to continually
reinforce this organizational culture change focus by repeating EBI training and
emphasizing the importance of the EBI program rehabilitation direction. Custody
management should provide in-service briefings showing their support for inmate
rehabilitation in addition to the training needed to change the custody culture. The Chief
should order everyone to read the EBI handbook from front to back in order to
internalize the concepts.
Management should ensure that the EBI handbook is disseminated and
understood. Custody leaders, executives, and managers at every level and location
need to demonstrate their leadership and support of Custody Division’s new
rehabilitation mission by providing town hall style meetings with custody staff at every
custody facility. For the current Custody Division leadership to be successful, the
organization’s leaders must be proactive regarding the efforts to gain support from the
custody line staff by showing their own understanding and support for the program.
5.2.4 Custody Division Relationships
Although the employees in this study appeared comfortable with the relationships
in the agency, proper full implementation of an inmate rehabilitation program involves
that the employees to work in teams. The EBI Program pilot period used a small group
of employees who worked as individuals facilitating rehabilitation courses for the
inmates. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department custody division implemented the EBI
rehabilitation program without a plan for a training team to establish employee support
164
for inmate rehabilitation. Training teams composed of EBI Bureau staff, custody facility
training unit staff, and Custody Headquarters training bureau staff should be
established. The relationships developed during these training sessions will help
develop support for the rehabilitation program. Specific training teams should be
charged with major projects including the planning, development, and delivery of new
and modified training to support the rehabilitation programming.
Training teams should be charged with full responsibility to ensure training efforts
unfold in an expeditious, thoughtful, and ultimately successful manner. Given the
importance of their success, senior deputy team leaders (i.e., project managers) and
other key implementation personnel should meet regularly to discuss the following:
issues to be addressed to maintain the training schedule; plans to solve identified
problems before they hinder progress; and issues that may require future executive
action to resolve.
Team building efforts during the planning stages of a project reinforce the
relationships between the employees. In order for the training teams to be fully prepared
for their new assignment, they should first be trained on the Education Based
Incarceration program as a group in a “train the trainer” setting. The EBI “train-the-
trainer” course should be designed and implemented by the Custody Headquarters
Training Unit regarding specific EBI courses and then provide the training to others
working on the “line.” This initial training will formally operationalize the concept of the
Education Based Incarceration program for the department and provide participants
with basic knowledge and skills that will be needed to train these concepts to the line
staff and help build staff support. The training process can also function as “team-
165
building,” which is a very important additional benefit towards improving the staff
awareness of rehabilitation at the beginning of this complex and important project (Ross
& Fabiano, 1985).
Obviously, all staff cohorts need to receive all of the subject matter training. The
training teams will become a valuable source of feedback to the Education Based
Incarceration program, allowing continuous improvement to be applied from the very
beginning of the training phase of the Education Based Incarceration program.
This study recommends that the EBI Bureau immediately establish well-staffed
training teams. Training teams are needed because of the complexity of the tasks and
to overcome the history of structural “silos” or organizational boxes hindering successful
implementation strategies (Ross & Fabiano, 1985).
5.2.5 Custody Division EBI Program
This study revealed that most of the employees surveyed did not agree with the
statements regarding the concepts, purpose, or goals of the EBI program as it relates to
inmate rehabilitation. It is recommended that custody executives concentrate efforts on
involving more employees in the EBI program.
It is imperative that rehabilitation training be seen as an essential part of
implementing reform to install rehabilitation as a “cultural value” within Custody Division
culture. The value of rehabilitation through EBI should become a part of the Custody
Division. Over the past few decades, the custody culture functioned such that jailers
typically warehoused inmates as objects and did not give much thought to inmate
rehabilitation.
166
If the custody culture does not embrace inmate rehabilitation, training ranging
from new employee orientation to in-service updates, as well as through supervisory,
management, and leadership programs, will continue to reproduce the current culture
(Ross & Fabiano, 1985). In turn, the current culture will continue to foster the same
knowledge, skills, and abilities that were important when the departmental mission did
not include rehabilitation through the Education Based Incarceration program.
Because of the size of the organization, LASD uses training to disseminate new
information to employees. The anticipated result of employees attending inmate
rehabilitation awareness training is that they would align with a new rehabilitative
custody culture. The new custody culture should embrace inmate rehabilitation
programs that improve the working environment and help diminish jail violence.
5.2.6 Custody Division Helpful Mechanisms
This study showed that employees did not agree with the statements regarding
the planning process of the EBI program. The helpful mechanisms include the policies,
programs, meetings, systems, and committees that facilitate rigorous efforts to meet the
agency goals. The helpful mechanisms affect both purpose and structure.
Helpful mechanisms are methods which help the staff coordinate their activities.
Examples of helpful mechanisms are namely; description of organizational approaches,
seminars, notes, reports or positions which are created with the purpose of making
appropriate relations between sections of the organization. Managers use human
resources, materials and other equipment for helping the purposes of organization
come true (Weisbord, 1976).
167
Helpful mechanisms involve staffing resources. The LASD Custody Division
started the EBI program as a pilot program to evaluate its progress over a two year
period. It is recommended that Custody Division executives increase the number of
employees directly involved with the EBI program. The additional staffing will ensure
that the EBI program can expand and become available to more inmates.
5.2.7 Custody Division Attitude to Change
The attitude to change involves an organizational cultural change. In order for
newly hired employees to embrace and support the changes regarding inmate
rehabilitation, it is recommended that some form of training needs to start when the
custody employees attend the training academy. Once the new recruit training is fully
implemented and evaluated for its impact, selected curricula to train new employees
regarding the rehabilitation vision of Custody Division and the EBI Bureau can be
incorporated into the Academy and expanded county wide.
This new training effort should be managed centrally, with standardized
curriculum and instructor qualifications. There should be standardized training for
custody line staff and custody supervisors, and a very substantial management training
program as well to assure that the Custody Division leadership is fully educated on the
principles of effective EBI Program for rehabilitation. All ranks and job classifications in
custody should receive the same indoctrination and awareness training designed to
align the custody culture with the rehabilitation vision.
A short-term solution to the role issue would be to empower the custody
assistants more regarding the role of inmate rehabilitation. This will allow more staff
members to interact with the inmates while the deputies continue providing basic jail
168
security. A long-term solution would be to show the deputies how the inmate
rehabilitation program reduces jail violence and allows them to focus on other aspects
of jail security.
It is recommended that the Sheriff's Training Academy and Regional Services
(STARS) Center administrators and staff instructors safeguard a key gateway to the
culture of the Custody Division as they teach and coach newly hired and newly
promoted custody staff and supervisors. All academy staff play a critical and important
role and should be expected to be full-time advocates and role models for the
department’s new direction in support of the EBI program principles. It is recommended
that academy staff should be in the first wave of those trained regarding the EBI
program concepts. Academy staff should be trained even though these programs may
not be implemented department-wide until sometime later. Academy staff should be
included in the training of the EBI training team and/or the jail training staff who will be
working in the individual custody units.
By training newly hired custody employees regarding the inmate rehabilitation
EBI program, the new employees will be exposed to a new cultural way of working
inside a custody facility. Exposing new employees at a training academy allows the
employees to have a new perspective on rehabilitation before they arrive at a custody
facility and become exposed to a custody culture that does not currently practice inmate
rehabilitation principles countywide. The newly hired employees will have a smoother
transition to work custody and may develop an improved attitude to the new changes in
Custody Division.
169
5.3 Summary
By making some simple changes to each of the construct areas; the agency can
improve the fit of the EBI program and inmate rehabilitation into the role of jail security.
When inmates finish an EBI course on improvement, they are less likely to commit jail
violence. This decrease in jail violence will help the overall jail security. The deputies will
be able to focus on other aspects of the jail security more when they do not need to
spend as much time with jail violence incidents.
One of the steps to improvement should be to increase the level of inter-personal
trust among employees. Another step would be to increase employees' level of
satisfaction and commitment. An objective of Custody Division should be to make
individuals in the organization aware of the vision of the organization. Employee buy-in
should come from encouraging every individual to participate in the process of planning,
thus making them feel responsible for the implementation of a plan. Custody Division
should create an environment of trust so that employees willingly accept change.
The hierarchical decision-making of the LASD usually comes from the top of the
chain of command. When creating change in an organization, the responsibilities of
decision-making should shift from being a task designated to managers to one that all
the employees share. In this organization, managers need to understand that decision-
making should occur where the sources of information are, which is not always toward
the top of the chain of command.
Because teams make up organizations, not just individuals, change must
primarily occur in groups in order to make a difference in the culture. According to
Weisbord (1976), groups within an organization must have a clear understanding about
170
its purpose, mission and goals, as well as the purpose and organization of the
company's structure. For change in an organization to be effective, employees and their
respective departments should have a good understanding regarding the various
departments within an organization and their relationships. Leadership in an
organization must have a balance, not act as if it is "above the law" and provide support
to employees.
Successful organizations build trust with its employees. In order to create change
and promote open communication, Custody Division must develop a culture of mutual
trust. Managers cannot expect employees to trust them automatically. Instead, in order
to breed trust, managers must first show employees that they are trusted. The
management should show the employees that they support the EBI inmate rehabilitation
program.
When an organization invests in its employees, employees will invest their time
and talents back into the organization. In addition to monitoring goals, providing
feedback and reinforcing positive employee activities, Custody Division should also
work toward developing the skills of their employees and enhancing their sense of well-
being. Such investments can include educational opportunities that provide employees
the support and tools needed to accomplish work efficiently.
When working toward a goal, it is important for an organization to understand
that the responsibility of achieving goals falls on all levels of the organization, not just
managerial strategies. Therefore, Custody Division as a whole, individual departments
and employees must evaluate their activities against set goals.
171
Employees will support what they help build. In order to create change, all
employees should have opportunities to participate actively in the decisions and
achievements of the EBI program. Doing so will help create a sense of ownership and
loyalty in employees and help them to embrace the inmate rehabilitation change.
Training is a principle means to reinforce necessary cultural change at all levels
in the organization. Custody Division’s executive leadership should use training to the
maximum degree possible to reinforce the cultural change message within the jails to
improve the implementation of the Education Based Incarceration program as a
rehabilitative plan.
172
REFERENCES
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial,
inaction, and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917-931.
Alan, R. & Gregory G. (1984). “The Congruence Perspective of Organization Design:
A Conceptual Model and Multivariate Research Approach.” Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9, No. I, 114-127.
Alderfer, C. (1968). Comparison of questionnaire responses with and without
preceding interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 335-340.
Alderfer, C. (1968). Organizational diagnosis from initial client reactions to a
researcher. Human Organizations, 27, 260-265.
Alderfer, C. & Brown, L. (1972). Designing an empathic questionnaire for organizational
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 456-460.
Alderfer, C. & Holbrook, J. (1973). A new design for survey feedback. Education
and Urban Society, 5, 437-464.
Alderfer, C. (1976). Boundary relations and organizational diagnosis. Humanizing
organizational behavior, 142,175.
Alderfer, C. (1977). Groups and intergroups. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.),
Improving life at work. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear.
Alderfer, C. (1977). Improving organizational communication through long-term
intergroup intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13, 193-210.
173
Anderson, D., & Ackerman-Anderson, L. (2001). Beyond change management:
Advanced strategies for today’s transformational leaders. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010a). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New
Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender.
Andrews, D., & Wormith, J. (1989). Personality and Crime: Knowledge destruction and
construction of criminology. Justice Quarterly, Vol 6 (3).
Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does
Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically-Relevant and Psychologically
Informed Meta-Analysis. Criminology 28:369-404.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce
future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia:
Washington Institute for Public Policy.
Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs:
What works and what does not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for
Public Policy.
Argyris, C. (1977). Intervention theory and method. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1970. Berg, D. Failure at entry. In P. Mirvis & D. Berg (Eds.), Failures in
organization development. New York: Wiley.
Armenakis, A., & Bedeian, A. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and
research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
174
Armenakis, A., & Harris, S. (2002). Crafting a change message to create
transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15,
169–183.
Armstrong, T. (2003). The effect of moral reconation therapy on the recidivism of
youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(6), 668-687.
Austin, J. (2010). Reducing America's correctional populations: A strategic plan.
Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), 9-40.
Axelrod, R. (2002). Terms of engagement: Changing the way we change
organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged
employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,
147-154.
Barrett F., Thomas G, & Hocevar S. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale
change: a social construction perspective. J. Applied Behavior. Sci. 31:352.72
Beckhard, R. (1969) Organization Development: Strategies and Models, Addison-
Wesley.
Beer, M. & Spector, B. (1993). Organizational diagnosis: Its role in organizational
learning. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 642-650.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Berk, R., Ladd, H., Graziano, H., & Baek, J. (2003). Randomized Experiment Testing
Inmate Classification Systems. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(2), 215-242.
175
Biggam, F. (1997). Social support and psychological distress in a group of incarcerated
young offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative
Criminology, 41, 3, 213-230.
Bleich, J. (1989). The politics of prison crowding. California Law Review, 1125-1180.
Bloom, D. (2006). Employment focused programs for ex-prisoners: What we have
learned, what we are learning, and where we should go from here? New York:
National Poverty Center.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. (1988a). Criminal career research: Its value
for criminology. Criminology, 26(1), 1-35.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. (1988b). Longitudinal and criminal career
research: Further clarifications. Criminology, 26(1), 57-74.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., & Visher, C. (1986). Introduction: Studying Criminal
Careers. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. Roth & C. Visher (Eds.), Criminal Careers
and Career Criminals (Vol. 1, pp. 13-20). Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Bogason, P. (2001). Postmodernism and American public administration in the 1990s.
Administration & Society, 33, 165-193.
Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Bourgon, G. & Yessine, A. (2008) ‘Exploring the black
box of community supervision’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47: 248-270.
Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T. L., Yessine, A., Gutierrez, L., & Public
Safety Canada. (2010). The Strategic Training Initiative in Community
Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World 2010-01. Ottawa: Public
Safety Canada.
176
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2004). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Types, consequences and management strategies.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 507–532.
Bourgon, G, Bonta, J., Rugge, T. & Gutierrez, T. (2010) ‘Technology transfer: The
importance of on-going clinical supervision in translating ‘what works’ to everyday
community supervision’, In F. McNeil, P. Raynor & C. Trotter, (Eds.), Offender
supervision. New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice, pp. 88-106.
Willan Publishing
Bowers, D., & Franklin, J. (2006). Survey-guided development: Using human
resources measurement in organizational change. Org Dev & Trng, 6E (Iae),
203.
Brazzell, D., Crayton, A., Mukamal, S., Solomon, A., & Lindahl, N. (2009). From the
classroom to the community: Exploring the role of education during incarceration
and reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change
cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management,
47(4), 667–686.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008) Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007. Bulletin June 2008,
p. 4. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). National prisoner statistics program: Census of state
and federal correctional facilities, 2005. (NCJ Publication No. 222182).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
177
Burke, W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of management, 18(3), 523-545.
Bush, J., Glick, B. & Taymans, J. (1997). Thinking for a change: Integrated cognitive
behavior change program. The National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department
of Justice.
Bushway, S., Piquero, A., Broidy, L., Cauffman, E., & Mazerolle, P. (2001). An Empirical
Framework for Studying Desistance as a Process. Criminology, 39, 491-515.
California Performance Review (2007). Ethics and culture. CPR Report, State of
California.
Callan, V., Terry, D., & Schweitzer, R. (1995). Coping resources, coping strategies and
adjustment to organizational change: Direct or buffering effects? Work and
Stress, 8, 372–383.
Camp, S., Gaes, G., Langan, N., & Saylor, W. (2003). The influence of prisons on
inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20, 501-533.
Camp, S., & Gaes, G. (2005). Criminogenic effects of the prison environment on
inmate behavior: Some experimental evidence. Crime & Delinquency, 51(3),
425-442.
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1988), Reliability and validity assessment, Series
Quantitative Applications in the social Sciences.
CDCR (2007). “California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Expert Panel on
Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming Report to the California
178
State Legislature: A Roadmap for Effective Offender Programming in California,”:
CDCR Expert Panel on Adult Offender Reentry and Recidivism Reduction
Programs.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Chapters in the history of the American
industrial enterprise. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press.
Child, J. (1972). “Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of
strategic choice.” Sociology, 6, 2-22.
Christensen, G., & Clawson, E. (2008). Our System of Corrections: Do Jails Play a Role
in Improving Offender Outcomes? US Department of Justice, National Institute of
Corrections.
Cohen E, & Tichy N. (1997). How leaders develop leaders. Train Dev. 51:58.74
Committee of Ministers (2006). Recommendations, prisoner education and European
prison rules.
Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and Mixed-methods
approaches. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cullen, F., Fisher, B., & Applegate, B. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and
corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 14,
pp. 1-79). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (1993). Organization development and change. Fifth
Edition. New York, NY: West Publishing.
179
Cunningham, C., Woodward, C., Shannon, H., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum B., Rosenbloom,
D., et al. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of
workplace, psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75, 377–392.
Cummings, T., & Worley, C., (2005). Organization development and change. (8e.).
Mason: Thomson South Western.
Decisier, M. (2006). Les conditions de la réinsertion socioprofessionelle des détenus en
France, Paris: Conseil Economique et Social.
Defina, R., & Arvanites, T. (2002). The weak effect of imprisonment on crime: 1971-
1998. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 635-653.
Devos, G., Buelens, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2007). Contribution of content, context,
and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two
experimental simulation studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 607–630.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
DiIulio, J. (1987). Governing prisons. New York: The Free Press.
Dirks, K., Cummings, L., & Pierce, J. (1996). Psychological ownership in organizations:
Conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 9, 1–23.
Dixon N. (1997). The hallways of learning. Organizational Dynamics. 25:23.34
Dowden, C. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-
analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 4, 449-467.
180
Eby, L., Adams, D., Russell, J, & Gaby, S. (2000). Perceptions of organizational
readiness for change: Factor related to employees’ reactions to the
implementation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53, 419–442.
Edmondson, A., & Woolley, A. (1999). It’s not the seed, it’s the soil: Social psychological
influences on outcomes of organizational change programs. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Ertürk, A. (2008). A trust-based approach to promote employees’ openness to
organizational change in Turkey. International Journal of Manpower, 29(5), 462–
483.
Fagan, J., West, V., & Holland, J. (2003). The reciprocal effects of crime and
incarceration in New York City neighborhoods. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30,
1551-1602.
Faletta, S. (2008). Organizational Diagnostic Models: A Review & Synthesis.
Sacrameto, CA
Farmer, R. (1977). Cynicism: A factor in corrections work. Journal of Criminal Justice,
5(3), 237-246.
Farrington, D. (1986). Age and Crime. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice
(Vol. 7, pp. 189-250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Ferguson, C. (2009). An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532-538.
181
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (3
rd
ed.). London: Sage.
Fisher-Giorlando, M. & Jiang, S. (2000). Race and disciplinary reports: An empirical
study of correctional officers.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.
Ford, J., Ford, L., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story.
Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362–377
Friendship, C., Blud, L., Erikson, M., & Travers, R., (2002). An evaluation of cognitive
behavioral treatment for prisoners, London: HMSO (UK Home Office).
Frolander-Ulf, M., & Yates, M. (2001). Teaching in prisons. Monthly Review, Jul/Aug,
114-127.
Fuqua, D. & Kurpius, D. (1993). Conceptual models in organizational consultation.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 607-618.
Geller, E. S. (2002). Leadership to overcome resistance to change: It takes more than
consequence control. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3),
29-49.
Gendreau, P. (1996a). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be
done. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23 (March): 144–161.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Law, M. (1997). Predicting Prison Misconduct. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414-431.
George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
182
Gillespie, N. (2003). Prisonization: Individual and institutional factors affecting inmate
conduct. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Gioia, D., Thomas, J., Clark, S., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic
change in academia: The dynamics of sense making and influence. Organization
Science, 5(3), 363–383.
Godwin, G., Stone, S., and Hambrock, K. (1995). “Recidivism Study: Lake County,
Florida Detention Center.” Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review 4(3):12.
Golden, L., Gatchel, R. & Cahill, M. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of the National
Institute of Corrections’. Thinking For a Change. Program among probationers.
Journal of Offenders Rehabilitation, 43(2), 55-73.
Gomez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-membership exchange as a link between
managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group and Organization
Management, 26, 53–69.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1986). The true value of Lambda would appear to be
zero: An essay on career criminals, criminal careers, selective incapacitation,
cohort studies, and related topics. Criminology, 24(213-234).
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1987). The Methodological Adequacy of Longitudinal
Research on Crime. Criminology, 25, 581-614.
Gotsill, G., & Natchez, M. (2007). From resistance to acceptance: How to implement
change management. T+D, 61(11), 24-27.
Gray, R. (1991). Wilson v. Seiter: Defining the Components of and Proposing a
Direction for Eighth Amendment Prison Condition Law. Am. UL Rev., 41, 1339.
183
Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., & Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy behind bars: Results from
the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Surveys. U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Series, National Center for
Education Statistics.
Griffin, M. (2002). The influence of professional orientation on detention officer’s
attitudes toward the use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 3, 250-277.
Guevara, M., & Solomon, E., (2009) Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and
Practice in Community Corrections, Washington, DC: National Institute of
Corrections.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Babin, B., Tatman, R., & Black, W. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harrison. M., and Shirom. A. (1999). Organizational Diagnosis and assessment:
Bridging Theory and Practice. California. Sage Publications Inc.
Hawley, J. (2010). Pathways to inclusion: Strengthening European cooperation in prison
education and training, European Commission, Directorate General for Education
and Culture.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership:
Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Henning, K., & Frueh B. (1996). "Cognitive-behavioral Treatment of Incarcerated
Offenders: An Evaluation of the Vermont Department of Corrections' Cognitive
Self-Change Program." Criminal Justice and Behavior 23(4):523-541.
184
Heppner, P., Kivlighan, D., & Wampold, B. (1999). Research design in counseling (2nd
Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of
a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487.
Holt, D., Armenakis, A., Feild, H., & Harris, S. (2007). Readiness for organizational
change: The systematic development of a scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43(2), 232–255.
Howard, A. (1994). Diagnosis for organizational change: Methods and models. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hughes, D. (1996). NHS managers as rhetoricians: a case of culture management?
Sociology of Health and Illness 18(3): 291-314
Illescas, S., Meca, J., & Genovés, V. (2001). Treatment of offenders and recidivism:
assessment of the effectiveness of programs applied in Europe, Psychology in
Spain, 5 (1), 47-62.
Ito, J., & Brotheridge, C. (2001). An examination of the roles of career uncertainty,
flexibility, and control in predicting emotional exhaustion. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59, 406–424.
Jehle, J. (2009). Strafrechtspflege in Deutschland, fakten und zahlen, 5th edition. Berlin:
Bundesministerium für Justiz. Criminal justice in Germany, statistics. German
Federal Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.bund.de.
Jenkins, H., Steurer, S., & Pendry, J. (1995). A post-release follow-up of correctional
education program completers released in 1990-1991. Journal of Correctional
Education, 46(1), 20-24.
185
Jiang, S., & Fisher-Giorlando, M. (2002). Inmate misconduct: A test of the deprivation,
importation, and situational models. The Prison Journal, 82, 335-358.
John Howard Society of Alberta, author (2002). Inmate education.
Jones. B., & Brazzel. M., (2006). The NTL handbook of organizational development
and change: Principles, practices and perspectives. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Jones, J., & Preziosi, R. (2011). The Impact of Demographic Variables on the
Perceptions of a Behavioral Safety Process in Manufacturing. Journal of
Business & Economics Research (JBER), 7(12).
Kifer, M., Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. (2003). The goals of corrections: Perspectives from
the line. Criminal Justice Review, 28 (47), 47-6.
Kimberly, J. (1984). “The Anatomy of Organizational Design.” Journal of Management,
Vol. 10, No I. 109-126.
Klein, L. (2010) Prävention durch haftinterne Bildungsmassnahmen, Hannover:
Internetdokumentation des Deutschen Präventionstag.
Klein, K., & Sorra, J. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080.
Kohlberg, L., Kauffman, K., Scharf, P., & Hickey, J. (1975). The just community
approach to corrections: A theory. Journal of Moral Education, 4(3), 243-260.
Korsgaard, M., Schweiger, D., & Sapienza, H. (1995). Building commitment,
attachment, and trust in strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 60–85.
Kotter, J., & Schlesinger, L. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business
Review, 57, 106–112.
186
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73, 59–67.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J., & Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people
change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Krueger, S. (1997). “Five-Year Recidivism Study of MRT-Treated Offenders in a County
Jail.” Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review 6(3/4):3
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the
literature on the correlates of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 29, 2, 115-143.
Langan, N., Camp, S., & Saylor, W. (2004). Is Prison Misconduct Analogous to Crime?
Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Larkin, T., & Larkin, S. (1996). Reaching and changing front-line employees. Harvard
Business Review, 74, 95–105.
Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2001). Understanding Desistance from Crime. In M. Tonry
(Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (pp. 1-69). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Leadersphere.com, 2008. Organizational Diagnostic Models. A Review & Synthesis.
Leavitt, H. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry. In J. G. March (Ed.),
Handbook of Organizations (pp. 1144-1170). New York, NY: Rand McNally.
Lee, F. (1997). When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and
power motivation in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 72, 336–363.
187
Levinson, H. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Lewicki, R. & Alderfer, C. (1973). The tensions between research and intervention in
intergroup conflict. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9, 424-449.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Little, G., Robinson, K., Burnette, K., and Swan, E. (1998). “Nine-Year Reincarceration
Study on MRT-Treated Felony Offenders: Treated Offenders Show Significantly
Lower Reincarceration,” Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review 6(1):2-3.
Lipsey, M. & Cullen, F. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review
of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3. 297-320.
Retrieved February 12, 2011from http://lawsocsci.annualreviews.org.
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from
prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. The American Economic Review, 94(1),
155-189.
Lombardo, L. (1981). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work (pp. 162-63).
New York: Elsevier.
Luthan, F., Avey, J., & Patera, J. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based training
intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 7(2), 209-221.
MacKenzie, D. (2006). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of
Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
188
MacKenzie, D. (2008). Structure and components of successful educational programs.
Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, New York. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice. University Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Mahler, W. (1974). Diagnostic studies. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). Company of citizens: What the world’s first democracy
teaches about creating great organizations? Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford
University Press
McGarry, P. (2009) “Reducing Jail Overcrowding in Los Angeles.” A project of the Vera
Institute of Justice. New York, N.Y., and Washington, D.C. 2009. Online.
Michelman, P. (2007). Overcoming resistance to change. Harvard Management
Update, 12(7), 3-4.
Miller, E. (1978). Jail management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Miller, V., Johnson, J., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a
planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
22(1), 59–80.
Mobrman, S. (2007). “Designing Organizations for Growth: The Human Resource
Contribution.” Human Resource Planning, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p34-45.
Morgan, R., Van Haveren, R., & Pearson, C. (2002). Correctional officer burnout:
Further analyses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 2, 144-160.
189
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Msweli-Mbanga, P., & Potwana, N. (2006). Modelling participation, resistance to
change, and organizational citizenship behavior: A South African case. South
African Journal of Business Management, 37, 21–29.
Nadler, D. (1977). Feedback and organization development. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley.
Nadler, D.A. (1997). Champions of Change: How CEOs and Their Companies Are
Mastering the Skills of Radical Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1997). Competing by Design: The Power of
Organizational Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neck, C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: A self-regulatory approach towards
overcoming resistance to organizational change. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 4(2), 202-216.
Nelson, L., & Burns, F. (1984). High-performance programming: A framework for
transforming organizations. In J. Adams (Ed.), Transforming work (pp. 225–
242). Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–101.
Osborne, R. (1990) “Los Angeles County Answering Service Solves Telephone Delays
and Trains Inmates.” National Institute of Corrections. Washington, D.C. 1990.
Parker, M. (2001) “Los Angeles County Strengthens Partnerships through its
Community Transition Unit.” Large Jail Network Bulletin. 2001: 22-24.
190
Pearson, F., Lipton, D., Cleland, C., & Yee, D. (2002). The effects of
behavioral/cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency,
48, 476– 496.
Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Fain, T., & Rand Corporation. (2000). Profiling inmates in the
Los Angeles County jails: Risks, recidivism, and release options. Rand
Corporation.
Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry-Reviewing and questioning the
evidence. Fed. Probation, 68, 4.
Petersilia, J. (2008). California’s correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. Crime
and justice, 37(1), 207-278.
Pew Center on the States. (2011). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America's
prisons.
Phipps, P., Korinek, K., Aos, S. & Lieb, R. (1999). Research findings on adult
corrections’ programs: A review. (Doc. No: 99-01-1203). Olympia, WA:
Washington State Institute on Public Policy.
Porras. J. (1981). Diagnosing Organizations: Identifying and Interpreting Internal
Environment Cues. Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation. 3:47-52.
Porras J., & Robertson P. (1992). Organizational development: theory, practice,
research. Handbook of Organizational Psychology, ed. MD Dunnette, LM Hough,
3:719.822. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press. 2nd ed.
Preziosi, R. (1980). Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ). The 1980 annual
handbook for group facilitators, 112-120.
191
Pogrebin, M. (1978). Role conflict among correctional Officers in treatment oriented
correctional institutions. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative
Criminology, 22, 2, 149-155.
Przybylski, R. (2008). What works? Effective recidivism reduction and risk-focused
prevention programs: A compendium of evidence-based options for preventing
new and persistent criminal behavior. Denver, CO: Bureau of Justice Assistance
through DCJ‘s Office of Adult and Juvenile Assistance, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile, Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Quinn J. (1996). The role of “good conversation in strategic control”. Journal of
Management Studies.33:381.94
Rainey, H. (2009) Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rice, A. (1969). Individual, group and intergroup processes. Human Relations, 22, 562-
584.
Roberts, A. (1974). Alternative strategies to offender rehabilitation: A prison option
system. In A. Roberts (Ed.), Correctional Treatment of the Offender (pp. 5-44).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Roberts, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326.
Robbins, L. (1978). Sturdy Childhood Predictors of Adult Antisocial Behavior:
Replications from Longitudinal Studies. Psychological Medicine, 8, 611-622.
192
Rojas. R. (2000). A Review of Models for Measuring Organizational Effectiveness
among For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations. Non-Profit Management &
Leadership 11: 97-104.
Rose, D., & Clear, T. (1998). Incarceration, social capital and crime: Examining the
unintended consequences of incarceration. Criminology, 36(3), 441-445.
Ross, R., Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to Think: A Cognitive Model of Delinquency
Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation. Johnson City, Tennessee: Institute of
Social Sciences and Arts, Inc.
Ross, R., Fabiano, E. & Ewles, C. (1988). "Reasoning and Rehabilitation," International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 32:29-36.
Ross, R., & Ross, R. (Eds.). (1995). Thinking straight: The reasoning and rehabilitation
program for delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Air Training &
Publications.
Rousseau, D., & Tijoriwala, S. (1999). What’s a good reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 514–528
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1990). Effect of participation in strategic and
tactical decisions on acceptance of planned change. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 130, 459–465.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1995). Decision type, participative decision
making (PDM), and organizational behavior: An experimental simulation. Human
Performance, 8, 81–94.
193
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision type, organizational control, and
acceptance of change: An integrative approach to participative decision making.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 85–92..
Salkind, N. (2003). Exploring research (5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points
through Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (2003). Life-Course Disasters? Trajectories of Crime among
Delinquent Boys Followed to Age 70. Criminology, 41(3), 555-592.
Sandwick, T., Tamis, K., Parsons, J., & Arauz-Cuadra, C. (2013). Making the
transition. The Vera Institute.
Sara, L. (2009). “Introduction to a symposium on organizational design.” California
Management Review, Vol.51 No 4
Schein, E. (1996). Kurt Lewin.s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes
toward a model of managed learning. Syst. Pract. 9:27.47
Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J., Osborn, R., & Uhi-Bien, M. (2010) Organizational behavior
11e. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for
sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–19.
Schwabe, W., Davis, L., & Jackson, B. (2001). Challenges and choices for crime-
fighting technology: Federal support of state and local law enforcement. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand.
Second Chance Act of 2007, HR 1593, 110th Congress (April 9, 2008).
194
Seiter, R., & Kadela, K. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what
is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 360-388.
Sherman, L. (1999). Evidence-Based Policing. In Ideas in American Policing.
Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Skeem, J., Eno Louden, J., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007) ‘Assessing relationship
quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control’,
Psychological Assessment 19: 397-410.
Stegerean, R., Gavrea, C., & Marin, A. (2010). Application of diagnostic Model: An
Empirical Study. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration; Babes-
Bolyai University; Romania.
Struwig, F., & Stead, G. (2001). Planning, Designing and Reporting Research. Cape
Town: Pearson Education.
Sullivan, H. (1954). The psychiatric interview. New York: Norton.
Thompson, B. (2003). Score reliability: contemporary thinking on reliability issues.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toch, Hans. (1997). Corrections: A Humanistic Approach. Guilderland, New York:
Harrow and Heston.
Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Trochim, W. (2006). Research methods knowledge base. 2nd Edition.
Trochim, W. & Donnelly, J. (2001). Research methods knowledge base. Mason, OH:
Atomic Dog Publishing.
195
Trotter, C. (1996) ‘The impact of different supervision practices in community
corrections: Cause for optimism’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology 29: 1-18.
Ulmer, J. (1992). Occupational socialization and cynicism toward prison administration
[Electronic version] Social Science Journal, 29, 4, 423-444.
Vacca, J. (2004). Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55(4), 297-305.
Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). Statistical significance should not be considered as one of
life's guarantees. Effect sizes are needed. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61, 219-224.
Van Der Ark, A. (2005). New developments in categorical data analysis for the social
and behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; New York.
Van Tonder. C., Dietrichsen. P. (2008). The art of diagnosis. In C.L. van Tonder and G.
Roodt (Eds.), Organization development: Theory and practice (pp.133–166).
Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Wanberg, C., & Banas, J. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132–142.
Wanberg, K. & Milkman, H. (1998). Criminal conduct and substance abuse treatment:
Strategies for self-improvement and change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Health & Human Service: 1-
176.
Warren, J. (2009) 1 in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections.
196
Weick, K. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American
Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.
Weisbord, M. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or
without a theory. Group & Organization Studies, 1(4), 430-447.
Weisbord. M. (1978). Organizational Diagnosis: A workbook of Theory and Practice.
New York. Basic Books.
Wyman, M. (2003). Correlates and course of diagnosed and sub-threshold depression
in older adults. Indiana University.
Yang, Y., Knight, K., Joe, G., Rowan-Szal, G., Lehman, W., & Flynn, P. (2013). The
Influence of Client Risks and Treatment Engagement on Recidivism. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 52(8), 544-564.
Young, J., & Antonio, M. (2009). Correctional staff attitudes after one year of
employment: perceptions of leniency and support for inmate rehabilitation.
Correct Compend, 34, 9-17.
Zander, A. (1950). Resistance to change: Its analysis and prevention. Advanced
Management Journal, 15, 9–11.
Zhoa, J. & Hassell, K. (2005). Policing styles and organizational priorities: Retesting
Wilson’s theory of local political culture. Police Quarterly, 8(4). 411 – 430.
17
Appendices
Appendix A
761551N25A - SH-AD (11/90)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
“A Tradition of Service Since 1850”
DATE: April 16, 2013
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
FILE:
FROM: DAVID CARLSON, SERGEANT
INMATE RECEPTION CENTER
TO: RALPH ORNELAS, CAPTAIN
MEN’S CENTRAL JAIL
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CONDUCT A STAFF SURVEY FOR THE EDUCATION
BASED INCARCERATION BUREAU EMPLOYEE STUDY
The LASD Education Based Incarceration Bureau (EBI) in conjunction with the
University Of Southern California Price School Of Public Policy is conducting an
organizational development survey to the line staff and line supervisors at MCJ.
This survey has been sanctioned and approved by the governing bodies of the
Chief’s offices of LASD Custody Division and the Independent Review Board at
the University Of Southern California.
This study will help create a training needs analysis taken from the data of the
employee survey in order to analyze the outcome to create a summary report
that aids in the design phase of the employees training and development. The
study will ask questions designed to see if the employees understand the
organizational goals and the goals for Education Based Incarceration. The
Education based Incarceration Bureau needs to know if the employees
understand the Bureau objectives, the training program objectives, and the
benefits of the program.
I am requesting your permission to conduct these surveys at Men’s Central Jail.
The surveys will be confidential and the raw data will be only kept by me for the
purpose of data analysis.
DCC:dcc
18
Appendix B
761551N25A - SH-AD (11/90)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
“A Tradition of Service Since 1850”
DATE: April 16, 2013
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
FILE:
FROM: RALPH ORNELAS, CAPTAIN
MEN’S CENTRAL JAIL
TO: DAVID CARLSON, SERGEANT
INMATE RECEPTION CENTER
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT A STAFF SURVEY FOR THE
EDUCATION BASED INCARCERATION BUREAU EMPLOYEE STUDY
I authorize you to conduct these surveys at Men’s Central Jail. I understand and
appreciate that the surveys will be confidential and the raw data will be only kept
by you for the purpose of data analysis.
RGA:rga:jas
19
Appendix C
Education Based Incarceration Bureau Organizational Survey
Questionnaire
The LASD Education Based Incarceration Bureau (EBI) in conjunction with the
University Of Southern California Price School Of Public Policy is conducting an
organizational development survey to the line staff and line supervisors at MCJ.
This survey has been sanctioned and approved by the governing bodies of the
Chief’s offices of LASD Custody Division and the Independent Review Board at
the University Of Southern California.
This survey is completely confidential and you are instructed NOT to place your
name on any of the survey sheets.
Instructions:
The survey consists of 35 questions requiring a response between Agree
Strongly and Disagree Strongly. The survey responses range from Agree
Strongly, Agree, Agree Slightly, Neutral, Disagree Slightly, Disagree, and
Disagree Strongly.
Please read each question as it relates to the department, custody division,
and the Education Based Incarceration Bureau as a whole. Make a
selection from the right that most accurately describes how you feel about
the question by circling the number associated with your response. Please
be open and honest.
Example:
Statement
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
1 LASD is the largest county sheriff’s
department in the U.S.
1
2
3 4 5 6 7
2
20
Appendix D Page One
EBI Survey Questions Survey questions for the employee: Page one
Statement
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
1 The goals of Custody Division are clearly
stated.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 The way in which Custody Division is
organized is flexible.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 Immediate supervisors are supportive of
employee efforts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 Relationships between employees and
supervisors are harmonious.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 The goals of Education Based Incarceration
Bureau are clearly stated.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 Immediate supervisors have ideas that are
helpful to employees and their work group.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 Custody Division is not resistant to change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 Employees are in agreement with the stated
goals of their work unit.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 The way in which Custody Division is
organized is intended to help it reach its goals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 The leadership norms of Custody Division help
its progress.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 Employees can always talk with someone at
work if they have a work-related problem.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 The priorities of Education Based
Incarceration Bureau are understood by
employees.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13 Employees receive the information they need
in order to do a good job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 Custody Division introduces enough new
policies and procedures.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 Employees understand the purpose of this
organization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16 The manner in which work tasks are divided is
a logical one.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17 Custody Division’s leadership efforts result in
the organization’s fulfillment of its purposes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18 Employee relationships with other members of
a work group are friendly and professional.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 Education Based Incarceration Bureau
offers employees the opportunity to grow as a
person.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20 Custody Division has the ability to change the
organizational culture.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21
Appendix D Page Two
Page 2
Statement
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Slightly
Neutral
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
21 Custody Division favors change.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22 The priorities of Custody Division are
understood by its employees.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23 The structures of each employee’s own
work assignments are well defined.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24 Supervisors are helpful to mentor employee
work efforts.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25 Employees establish sufficient relationships
necessary to do their job properly.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26 Employees feel compelled to facilitate or
teach classes for the Education Based
Incarceration Bureau.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27 Employees are held accountable for
meeting their performance expectations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28 Occasionally employees like to change
things about their job.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29 Employees are able to provide input when
helping decide work-unit goals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30 The structure of Custody Division is
organized actually helps the division reach
its goals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
31 Management asks employees for their
thoughts before making decisions that will
affect their jobs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32 There is no evidence of unresolved conflict
in Custody Division.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33 Employees respect the work they do and
view it as meaningful as it applies to the
Education Based Incarceration Bureau.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34 Custody Division’s planning and control
efforts are helpful to its growth and
development.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35 Custody Division has the ability to change.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please circle each category that applies:
Male Female
Custody
Assistant
Deputy Senior Deputy Sergeant Lieutenant
22
Appendix E
ODQ Scoring Sheet
Purposes
Structure
Leadership
Relationship
EBI
Program
Helpful
Mechanisms
Attitudes
Towards
Change
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5 Q6 Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12 Q13 Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19 Q20 Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26 Q27 Q28
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33 Q34 Q35
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In a time when the jail systems were guided by a philosophy that aims to punish criminal behavior through the methods of deterrence and incapacitation, traditional rehabilitative practices developed to change inmates thinking. This current style, whose primary objective is to reduce the rates of re-arrest and recidivism, has been generally successful in achieving these goals. Therefore, Sheriff Baca focused on short-term gains made by implementing the Education based Incarceration program at the Los Angeles County Jails. From this perspective, attention is given to decreasing an offender's behavioral problems and emotional crises, while at the same time improving levels of adjustment and coping skills. ❧ One of the key figures with significant influence over inmate behavior is the jailer, who is charged with supervising the inmate in order to maintain a safe and secure environment. However, the nature of the jailer's interactions with the inmate is shaped by the jailer's professional orientation, which can be based upon custody, punitive, or rehabilitative attitudes. The jailer’s perception and cultural attitude affects the type of role that the jailer assumes in the inmate's adjustment and adoption of rehabilitation services and pro-social behaviors. Unfortunately, this information is not adequately included in the jailer's training. ❧ This dissertation examines the current situation regarding inmate rehabilitation and provides a thorough review of the literature on explains the three elements of Recidivism Reduction, Comparative Current Practices, and Staff Development. A survey of employees from Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail provided data which was analyzed to evaluate the differences in perceptions between the supervisors and the non-supervisors regarding cultural constructs within the organization. This information is then synthesized into the format of guidelines and discussion points intended for use by custody division administrators as a reference source for enhancing rehabilitation through Education Based Incarceration training. These suggestions are made in an effort to promote a rehabilitation approach to maintaining the care, custody, and control of the inmates.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Jobs, not jail: Homeboy Industries, a radical approach to redirecting adolescents away from the criminal justice system
PDF
Does organizational culture play a role in aviation safety? A qualitative case study analysis
PDF
China-Africa cooperation: an assessment through the lens of China’s development experience
PDF
Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education
PDF
County governance reform in California: introduction of the council‐executive model and the elected county‐executive
PDF
Making an impact with high-net-worth philanthropists: understanding their attributes and engagement preferences at nonprofit organizations
PDF
The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance
PDF
Homegrown violent extremism: designing a community-based model to reduce the risk of recruitment and radicalization
PDF
Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...
PDF
Older adult community service worker program for Riverside County: community-based solutions for social service delivery
PDF
The nature of gang spawning communities: African American gangs in Compton, CA: 1960-2013
PDF
A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning
PDF
The institutionalization of nonprofit management: emergence, development, and legitimization
PDF
The use of mobile technology and mobile applications as the next paradigm in development: can it be a game-changer in development for women in rural Afghanistan?
PDF
Latina elected officials in California: a call to action to prepare and pipeline Latinas into the political process
PDF
The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps
PDF
The perceived effects of clean water infrastructure in Nasarawa State, Nigeria
PDF
The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters
PDF
Looking to the stars: perceptions of celebrity influence in the nonprofit sector
PDF
A strategic talent management retention model: an effective way to shape the United States Space Force
Asset Metadata
Creator
Carlson, David Cory
(author)
Core Title
Education based incarceration: educate to change the organizational culture of corrections in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
09/15/2014
Defense Date
09/12/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education based incarceration,inmate rehabilitation,jail culture,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Robertson, Peter John (
committee chair
), Natoli, Deborah (
committee member
), Ong, Tomson T. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
dccarlso@usc.edu,mail4bigdave@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-479227
Unique identifier
UC11286676
Identifier
etd-CarlsonDav-2942.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-479227 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CarlsonDav-2942.pdf
Dmrecord
479227
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Carlson, David Cory
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
education based incarceration
inmate rehabilitation
jail culture