Introduction and Problem Statement
The United States is the leader in incarceration rates. Petersilia (2012) reported that the United Stated houses over 2.4 million inmates. A large percentage of the individuals in jail have a problem with substance abuse (Linhorst, Dirks-Linhorst, Bernsen, & Childrey 2009). Many jails and prisons incorporate substance abuse programs in their facilities. According to Carlson (2001), substance abuse treatment reduces relapse and recidivism. Substance abuse programs combine educational and substance abuse groups to help clients recover; while clients are in substance abuse programs, they share their feelings and their substance abuse history.
Society desires safety, yet society also desires rehabilitation; some leaders of correction facilities have difficulty balancing control and rehabilitative services. The new design of correction facilities creates community type housing; direct supervision facilities help correction officers manage inmate behavior (Applegate & Paoline 2007). The research suggests that jail-based substance abuse programs reduce relapse and recidivism.
The general problem is that correctional staff may influence in unknown ways the efforts for inmates to rehabilitate. The specific problem is that not knowing the effects of the correctional officers’ leadership styles’ influence on inmates, prison leaders neglect an opportunity to maximize the substance abuse program’s positive recovery on those afflicted with addiction and so prevent recidivism.
This qualitative case study included face-to-face interviews with five former inmates who participated in a substance abuse treatment program while incarcerated at a county jail in
Southwest Florida between the years 2002-2007. To maintain ethical standards the participants of the case study were former inmates who were out of the judicial system, off probation, or parole for a period of 5-10 years. The interviews with the five former inmates who participate in a 6 month substance abuse program at a county jail in Southwest Florida took place at an outpatient substance abuse facility in Southwest Florida.
Purpose of the Study
Correction staff assists in the rehabilitation process for inmates participating in jail-based substance abuse treatment. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the effects of correction officers’ leadership styles on motivation or deterrence of recovery for the former five inmates who participated in a substance abuse treatment program in a county jail in Southwest Florida between the years 2002-2007. The leadership styles of correction officers were generally defined as transactional leadership style withholding substance abuse treatment; transformational leadership style encouraging and empowering inmates, and laissez-faire ambiguous leadership approach.
Significance of the Study to Leadership
The hierarchy of jails and prisons may use the information from the research study to promote professional development to motivate treatment for inmates participating in jail-based substance abuse programs. Analyzing former inmates’ perceptions could provide maximum benefits for the hierarchy and the direct supervision staff. The results of this study could offer a richer understanding of the central question and identifying patterns.
Full-range Leadership Theory
The full-range leadership theory includes transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership (Northouse 2007). Burns influenced the theories of transforming leadership. Bass expounded on Burns transforming theories and created the term transformational leadership (Yukl 2010). Bass asserted that transactional and transformational leadership could influence follower motivation and performance.
Transactional Leadership Style
Transactional leadership practices instill structure for the employees and the organization. Transactional leadership is task-oriented; transactional leadership bases the relationship with followers on punishment and rewards (Bodla & Nawaz 2010). A transactional leader recognizes the actions an employee needs to take to achieve the existing task. Bass (1985) asserted that a transactional leader clarifies the task for the employee; clarification of goals and tasks reassures employees. A transactional leadership is good, but has many limitations. A transactional leader provides feedback and positive reinforcement.
Transformational Leadership Style
According to Bass (1985), the best leadership practices bring about radical shifts with revolutionary ideas. . Transformational leaders inspire, encourage, and empower employees. Transformational leaders have charismatic traits (Bass, 1985). Leaders with charismatic traits motivate followers through individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Bodla and Nawaz (2010) asserted that followers wish to satisfy the expectations of a transformational leader. Bass conceptualized the traits of transformational leader.
Laissez-faire Leadership Style
According to Hargis, Watt, and Piotrowski (2011), the laissez-faire leadership is a non-leader. A laissez-faire leader avoids making decisions, lacks interest, and avoids responsibility. A laissez- faire leadership role is passive; this leader gives the follower freedom to perform tasks without guidance or intervention from the leader. Some who practice laissez-faire leadership avoid providing feedback. The laissez-faire leader does not display a vision or motivate the action of the follower.
Methodology
Research Questions
The primary research question that guided this proposed qualitative case study was: What if any leadership style or styles of correction officers motivate or deter substance abuse treatment effectiveness in jail-based programs? The research questions addressed the proposed concerns by identifying which leadership style(s) of correction officers was most effective in jail-based substance abuse programs. There were three sub-questions that guided this study.
1. What are best practices of leadership and leadership styles of correction officers working in jail-based substance abuse programs to encourage inmate participation in jail-based substance abuse programs?
2. What are the former inmates’ perceptions of the leadership styles demonstrated by correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program to motivate substance abuse treatment?
3. What actions could correction officers take to increase motivation for inmates participating in jail-based substance abuse programs?
Population and Sample
The population under investigation of this qualitative case study were former inmates who participated in a substance abuse program in a county jail in Southwest Florida between the years 2002-2007. The inmates who participate in the substance abuse treatment program at the county jail in Southwest Florida receive aftercare treatment. The sample size for this qualitative case study included five participants. The plan to identify potential participants involved two steps: (a) distributing flyers after 12-step meetings and (b) hanging flyers in outpatient facility that provided aftercare.
Data Analysis
The data collected through open-ended interviews were analyzed to identify and determine the prevalence of word patterns. The coding of words and phrases using NViov 10 software enabled the grouping of data. Five categories and 12 themes emerged from the data analysis; the patterns of words and phrases from the interviews related to the main research question. The five categories were (a) interaction with correction officers, (b) correction officers’ leadership styles, (c) motivation for treatment, (d) deterred treatment, and (e) training correction officers. Twelve themes aligned with the four categories; the themes emerged through checking the transcripts in the NVivo 10 software for frequency of unit analysis. The 12 themes included the following word groupings: (a) brief contact, (b) good contact, (c) negative contact, (d) authoritative leadership style, (e) encouraging leadership style, (f) ambiguous leadership style, (g) supportive, (h) self-awareness, (i) withholding treatment, (j) personalities, (k) insight, and (l) understanding addicts.
Interpretations of Findings
For the purpose of the qualitative case study, the leadership styles of correction officers were generally defined as transactional leadership style withholding substance abuse treatment; transformational leadership style encouraging and empowering inmates, and laissez-faire ambiguous leadership approach. The following sections are the interpretations of finding in relation to the categories and themes derived from the data.
Category 1: Interaction with Correction Officers
Theme 1: Brief contact. Participants 1, 2, and 4 reported having limited or brief contact with the correction officers while they were participating in the jail-based substance abuse program. Participant 1 revealed that interactions with correction officers was brief. Participant 4 reported that the correction officers had limited interact with the inmates.
Interpretation of findings. Participant 1 and Participant 2 reported that the correction officers who work in jail-based substance abuse programs are in charge of the facility. Participant 4 believed that remaining faceless to correction officers was better than standing out. Participant 4 wanted to “stay under the radar” to complete the program. Brief or limited interaction with correction officers could add to the successful completion of jail-based substance abuse programs.
Participant 1 reported having limited interaction with the correction officers. Participant 1 suggested the program counselors worked at specific times, and the only time corrections officers interacted with inmates during class time was to diminish disturbances. When the counselors left the program unit, the programs unit became a jail again. Correction staff who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program did not interact with the inmates during class time or after substance abuse class was over. The substance abuse program was regimented, where the schedule did not change. The correction officers’ duties in the county jail in Southwest Florida were to maintain custody and control over the inmates at all times. The evidence derived from the data supported the new goals of corrections. The new goals of correction are to maintain security, custody, and control of the inmates (Dolovich 2009). Participant 1 stated, “They were a guard and we were inmates that never changed, that line was drawn. It seemed like the guards didn’t have anything to do with the program, they were just guards.”
The data provided by the participants indicated that the correction staff had limited or brief interaction with the inmates. The data derived from the qualitative case study refuted the data from other sources. For example, the direct supervision facilities did not provide continual interaction between correction officers and inmates (Kubiak 2009; Lambert & Hogan 2009; VanderWaal, Taxman, & Gurka-Ndanyi, 2008). The results indicated that the correction staff who worked in the jail-base substance abuse program in Southwest Florida did not support rehabilitative services as suggested by Antonio and Young (2011), yet limited or brief interaction had a positive effect on completing the program for Participants 4.
Theme 2: Good contact. Participants 3, 4, and 5 reported they had good interaction with correction officers while they participated in the jail-based substance abuse program. Participant
2 suggested that the correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program were different. Participants 4 suggested that the correction officers who worked in the program were better than the correction officers who worked in the liner supervision facility.
Interpretation of findings. Participants 3, 4, and 5 reported that the interaction with some of the officers was good. The correction officers who worked in the programs unit treated the inmates better than the correction officers who worked in the liner supervision facility. For example, the inmates who participated in programs had more privileges where, inmates who participated in the substance abuse program had air-conditioning, televisions, and went outside daily for recreation. Officers working in the substance abuse program made the experience good because the correction officers who worked in the programs made sure the inmates were allowed the special privileges. The data provided by the participants indicated that privileges or positive reinforcement was more effective then punishment.
Participant 3 reported that the correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program were good. The correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program made sure the inmates were taken to wherever they needed to go that included facilities such as the medical area, court, and 12-step meetings. Participants 3 and 5 reported that some of correction officers who work in the programs interacted with the inmates, and the interaction with inmates made the experience better. The data collected in the qualitative case study supported that direct supervision facility offered a better opportunity for correction officers to create a treatment-oriented environment for jail-based substance abuse programs (Bird 2009). Theme 3: Negative contact. Five (100%) of the participants reported having negative interactions with correction officers. Participant 5 reported that the interaction with most of the correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program was not good or negative. Participant 5 suggested most of the officers did not care about the inmates.
Interpretation of findings. Participant 5 of the qualitative case study suggested that the interaction with correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program in Southwest Florida was negative. Participants 3 and 5 suggested that inmates often have difficulty adjusting to life in jail. For example Participant 5 reported getting into trouble much of the time. Participant 5 received disciplinary restrictions (DR’s) for unsuitable behavior. The correction officers were not friendly, did not interact with the inmates, and punished inmates. Correction officers incorporated punishment as a corrective measure to keep the inmates in line. The correction officers took away special privileges to ensure control over inmates. Some correction officers used 12-step meetings as a way to control inmate behavior. The inmates looked forward to attending the 12-step meetings. Participant 5 reported that 12-step meetings was the first place the participant heard about treatment. The evidence in the qualitative case study supported that correction officers working in direct supervision facilities observed behavior and provided corrective counsel when necessary (Antonio & Young 2011). The evidence also supported that correction officers maintained the inmates’ behavior through counseling or punishing (Applegate & Paoline 2007). Carson (2001) asserted that programs are a privilege and that when officers deny access to such privileges more control was exerted, yet had negative results. Many of the correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program in Southwest Florida were not nice, where the correction officers asserted power to control inmate behavior, which ultimately have a negative effect on intended rehabilitation instead of positive.
Category 2: Correction Officers’ Leadership Styles
Theme 4: Authoritative leadership style. Five (100%) of the participants reported that most of the correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse treatment program were authoritative. Participants 1 and 4 described most of the correction officers’ leadership style as demanding. Participants 1, 2, 4, and 5 reported that most of the correction’ officers leadership style were commanding. Participant 2 stated, “The correction officers had an authoritative style, demanding, and commanding.”
Interpretation of findings. Inmates have difficulty dealing with each other and the correction officers. Inmates and addicts are rebellious by nature, where the power and control of the correction officers disturbed the inmates. The correction officers used their power and control over the inmates to control inmate behavior. The correction officers who worked in the jail- based substance abuse program punished the group for the conduct of a few of the inmates. For example, correction officers placed the inmates on lockdown if they found contraband such as a rubber in the inmates’ property. As a result, all of the inmates in the program were punished for a few inmates’ actions. The inmates have impulse control issues, criminal thinking, and criminal behavior where, the correction officers provided exchange-based leadership to control the inmates. The evidence in the qualitative case study supported that a majority of the correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program practiced transactional leadership style which was ineffective. Participant 1 suggested that the authoritative style deterred recidivism. Participant 1 asserted that the correction officers’ authoritative leadership style motivated treatment because the participant did not want to have to come back to jail.
Theme 5: Encouraging leadership style. Participants 3 and 5 reported that a few of the correction officers were encouraging. Some of the correction officers inspired and encouraged the participants of the inmates who participated in the jail-based substance abuse program. A few of the correction officers spent time with the inmates.
Interpretation of findings. Participants 3 and 5 suggested that a few of the correction officers’ leadership styles were encouraging. Participant 3 stated, “There were all for it. They wanted to see you to better your life so they were all good with it.” Participant 3 reported that some correction officers’ leadership styles were encouraging. A few of the correction officers spent time with the inmates and correction officers wanted the participants to change and become successful. These correction officers took the participants aside while they were participating in the jail-based substance abuse program, where these officers talked to and encouraged the inmates. For example, Participant 5 suggested that a few of the correction officers had face-to- face meetings with the participants. The correction officers asked the participants questions about what was going on in their lives. The participants expressed that the officers taking time out to sit down with them encouraged them. Participant 5 believed that the correction officers who were encouraging were motivational factors of recovery. Participant 5 stated, “I don’t know if they knew what to say to me, but it was the fact that they had taken the time out to actually have a conversation with me.”
The data derived from the participants revealed that a few of the correction officers in the jail- based substance program in Southwest Florida displayed transformational leader styles. The study revealed that the transformational leadership of the correction officers influenced a follower’s motivation to recover. Participant 3 suggested that a few officers were sympathetic, and Participant 4 suggested that a few of the correction officers were welcoming, where these officers motivated participants to recover.
Transformational leaders motivate followers to find new solutions to old behavior patterns. The evidence indicated that some of the correction officers displayed transformational leadership traits. Some of the correction officers realized that inmates were not alike and that each inmate was motivated differently. Participants 3 and 5 reported that the encouraging leadership style motivated substance abuse treatment.
Theme 6: Ambiguous leadership style. Some of the participants suggested that the corrections officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse treatment program did not have any leadership style. Participant 5 suggested that the correction officers were just there. Participant 5 suggested that some of the correction officers were robotic.
Interpretation of findings. The correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program were not leaders. The correction officers went through the motions required by the facility hierarchy. The correction officers took the minimum action necessary while they worked in the jail-based substance abuse program. The correction officers did not interfere with the treatment, where the correction officers did not engage, or interact with the inmates either. For example, Participant 3 stated, “They were babysitters,” Participant 5 stated, “It was like, okay I’m going to run this dorm like a robot type deal.” The results in the qualitative case study showed that some of the correction officers exhibited the laissez-faire leadership style. A laissez-faire leader is a non-leader who does not interact with the followers.
Category 3: Motivation for Treatment
Two themes emerged in this category (a) supportive and (b) self-awareness. The literature supported that motivation for treatment is a strong predictor of treatment success (Prendergast, Greenwell, Farabee, & Hser, 2009).
Theme 7: Supportive. Participants 3 and 5 suggested that a few of the correction officers were supportive of the substance abuse programs. Some of the correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse programs were supportive of programs and encouraged the inmates while they were participating in the jail-based substance abuse programs. Other participants suggested that the individuals who brought in 12-step meetings supported the recovery process.
Interpretation of findings. A few of the correction officers spent time with the inmates, where Participant 3 and Participant 5 asserted that these correction officers were supportive of programs. A few of the officers wanted to see the inmates who participated in the jail-based programs change their lives. An act of kindness in jail helped support inmates who participated in the jail-based substance abuse program. The participants believed that the correction officers who supported their recovery while they participated in the substance abuse treatment program helped the recovery process. According to Participant 5, the officers who provided acts of kindness helped reduce relapse and recidivism. For example, Participant 5 stated, “Just that little extra bit was like wow, somebody actually cares about what happens to me.” Participant 3 asserted that the correction officers took extra precautions to ensure the inmates were taken to extracurricular activities to promote success. Participant 1 suggested that a few of the correction officers were sympathetic and supported the recovery needs of the inmates. Some of the correction officers contacted the movement officers to ensure the inmates were taken to 12-step meetings. According to the Participant 5, 12-step meetings add to long-term recovery.
The people who brought in 12-step meetings into the jail helped support the recovery process. Participant 5 suggested that the individuals who brought the 12-step meetings into the jail were supportive, encouraging, and uplifting. For example, Participant 5 stated, “It was really encouraging to go into an AA meeting.” The results of the study showed that external factors motivated the recovery process for Participant 5.
Theme 8: Self-awareness. Participants 1, 2, and 4 reported that self-awareness was the motivational factor in their recovery. Incarceration helped Participants 1 and 4 become aware of the situation they were in. Therefore, being in jail helped motivate their recovery. Each of the participants reported that honesty spurred their motivation for treatment.
Interpretation of findings. All five (100%) of the participants mentioned 12-step meetings and 12-step recovery aids during the interviews. Participants 1, 2, and 4 reported a self-awareness while they participated in the jail-based substance abuse program. Participant 4 suggested that being in jail brought about self-awareness. Inmates who participated in the jail-based treatment program had to take an honest look at where they were and how their life choices led to incarceration in jail. Inmates who are incarcerated lose their freedom and the power of choice. The correction officers tell the inmates when to shower, eat, and when to go to bed. Participant 4 reported that jail brought about an awakening.
The results of the current qualitative case study indicated that the factors that motivated the participants who participated in the jail-based substance abuse program were different. Participant 1 reported that a counselor encouraged an honest appraisal, Participant 2 reported the fourth step motivated change, and Participant 4 reported that being in jail forced an honest appraisal of self. The results indicated that external factors motivated the recovery for Participant 1, Participant 2, and Participant 3 because the participants asserted that they were motivated because they were in jail.
Category 4: Deterred Treatment
Two themes emerged in this category of deterrence treatment. These themes include (a) withholding treatment and (b) personalities. Five (100%) of the participants responded that correction officers could deter treatment because correction officers threatened to withhold treatment.
Theme 9: Withholding treatment. All five (100%) of the participants claimed that correction officers withheld or threatened to withhold treatment. All of the participants reported that correction officers threatened to kick inmates out of the program as well. The participants believed that the threats to withhold substance abuse treatment could deter recovery.
Interpretation of findings. The jail-based substance abuse program had several written rules and unwritten rules. An example of an unwritten rule was that one of the counselors who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program did not like inmates to scrape the chairs against the floor. Participant 1 claimed that inmates were written up for being disrespectful when they scrapped their chairs against the floor. Correction officers threatened to send inmates back to general population if inmates were disrespectful. The inmates who participated in the jail-based program were kicked out of the program if they received too many infractions. Participant 4 stated, “If you didn’t follow the rules that was the carrot that they were dangling over you, that they will send you back to the stockade.” The correction officers threatened to send the inmates back to the stockade on a daily basis. The inmates could not receive substance abuse treatment if they were moved to the stockade.
Participants 3and 4 claimed that correction officers threatened to send inmates who participated in the jail-based treatment to disciplinary confinement as well. The correction officers tried to change what the treatment staff tried to achieve by cutting classes short or interfering with the class. The correction officers diverted the inmates’ attention, while attending class time; the correction officers conducted inspection and bunk searches during class time. Participant 2 believed that the correction officers disrupted class time because the inmates could see their bunks from the dayroom where they attended class. The results of the study indicated that the inmates worried about correction officers destroying their property which refuted the study results by Applegate and Paoline (2007), who said correction officers build rapport and credibility with the inmates by displaying respect and dignity. Five (100%) of the participants asserted that the correction staff deterred treatment because they threatened to withhold substance abuse treatment. The results from the study showed that correction officers threatened to withhold treatment and support based on allegations by Carlton (2001), who said programs are a privilege and officers would often threaten or actually deny such privileges which thwarted potential progress in the programs.
Theme 10: Personalities. Participants 1 and 4 reported that some of the correction officers with a bad attitude let their power threaten the inmates’ recovery. Some corrections officers who worked in the programs made derogatory statements. Participant 1 claimed that correction officers’ personality traits made a difference for inmates who participated in the jail-based substance abuse program.
Interpretation of findings. Participant 4 claimed that the way the correction officers would speak to inmates would deter progress within substance abuse treatment. The correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program made derogatory statements. Some of the correction officers had bad attitudes. The correction officers made crude statements, were rude to inmates, and used their power to provoke inmates. Some of the correction officers made statements to the inmates while they were in the showers. Participant 4 believed that some of the officers talked down to the inmates because they knew they could do anything they wanted, and the inmates could not say anything back. Participant 4 believed that the way some of the correction officers talked to the inmates was demeaning. Participant 4 claimed “my parents did not raise me to be disrespectful like that.” Participant 4 did not like being talked to that way, and further claimed that some of the correction officers liked the control over the inmates. Some of the officers enjoyed watching the inmates struggle when they could not talk back. The correction officers kicked inmates out of the program if they talked back or acted out which refuted Bird (2009), correction officers act as role models.
Category 5: Training Correction Officers
Participants 2, 4, and 5 believed that corrections officers who work in programs need training. The participants suggested that training could help the correction officers who work in jail-based substance abuse programs and the inmates who participate in jail-based treatment. Two themes emerged in this category: (a) insight and (b) understand addicts.
Theme 11: Insight. Participants 2, 4, and 5 suggested that correction officers who work in jail- based substance abuse treatment programs additional need training. Participant 3 asserted that correction officers should have specific training to gain insight about addiction. Correction officers who work in jail-based substance abuse programs need to gain insight.
Interpretation of findings. Correction officers deal with inmates on a daily basis; correction officers who work in jail-based substance abuse programs should have specific training. Correction officers witness the self-defeating behaviors that inmates display, and some of the inmates behaviors are undesirable. The correction staff do not have a solution to offer the inmates. Participant 5 suggested that the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous offers solutions for alcoholics, addicts, families, and individuals working with alcoholics. The big book or other types of classes might help correction officers who work in the jail-based program gain insight about how to deal with addicts and alcoholics.
Theme 12: Understanding addicts. Correction officers do not understand addiction. Three of the participants believed that corrections officers working in jail-based substance abuse programs needed training. Participants 4 and 5 believed that the corrections officers should read the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Interpretation of findings. The actions and behaviors of correction officers can deter substance abuse treatment. Al-Anon or some type of training could help the correction officers gain an understanding of the feelings addicts and alcoholics experience in early recovery. Addicts and alcoholics have difficulty dealing with the results of their destructive behavior. Addicts and alcoholics experience intense feeling of guilt and shame for the behaviors they participated in while they were using drugs and alcohol. Many addicts, alcoholics, and family members experience codependence issues. If the correction officers understood that derogatory statements increase the addicts’ and alcoholics’ feelings of guilt and shame, the correction officers can change the way they talk to inmates to reduce shame and enhance treatment. Participants 2, 4, and 5 believed that the correction officers need training to understand addiction: a brief courses could help motivate substance abuse treatment. For example, Participant 4 stated, “Even a brief crash course would help them to understand better the little things about people in recovery.” Correction officers are not counselors, yet understanding addiction may change the way correction officers treat inmates.
Conclusions of Research Questions
The results from the data affirmed the primary research question for the qualitative case study. The primary research question for the qualitative case study was: What, if any, leadership style or styles of correction officers motivate or deter substance abuse treatment effectiveness in jail- based programs? The conclusion of the data derived from the participants interviews found that the correction officers who displayed (a) encouraging leadership style and (b) authoritative leadership style motivated inmates who participated in the jail-based substance abuse treatment programs. Participants 3 and 5 claimed that correction officers who motivated treatment displayed the encouraging leadership style. Participant 2 claimed that the authoritative leadership style of the correction officer motivated treatment. All of the participants claimed that the corrections officers deterred treatment because the correction officers threatened to withhold treatment. The results from the data of the qualitative case study also affirmed the three sub questions for the qualitative case study.
Research Sub question 1. What are best practices of leadership and leadership styles of correction officers working in jail-based substance abuse programs to encourage inmate participation in jail-based substance abuse programs? The evidence derived from all of the data sources in the qualitative case study indicated that the best practices and most effective leadership styles to encourage and promote inmate participation in jail-based substance abuse programs were (a) good interaction and (b) encouraging leadership style.
Research sub question 2. What are the former inmates’ perceptions of the leadership styles demonstrated by correction officers who worked in the jail-based substance abuse program to motivate substance abuse treatment? The evidence derived from all of the data sources in the qualitative case study revealed that the type of leadership styles of corrections officers that motivated treatment were (a) encouraging leadership style and (b) authoritative leadership style. Participants 3 and 5 claimed that the correction officers who displayed encouraging leadership style motivated substance abuse treatment. Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 suggested that the corrections officers displayed authoritative leadership style. Participant 1 suggested the authoritative leadership style motivated substance abuse treatment.
Research sub question 3. What actions could correction officers take to increase motivation for inmates participating in jail-based substance abuse programs? Participants 2, 4, and 5 suggested that correction officers working in jail-based substance programs need training. Participant 5 asserted that the correction officers need better insight to understand addicts. Participant 4 asserted that the corrections could use training help them to understand what people in recovery go through.
Significance to Leadership
The hierarchy of jails and prisons may use the information from this study to promote professional development to motivate treatment for inmates participating in jail-based substance abuse programs. The results of the study may offer an alternative approach to effective leadership in the prison industry concerning motivation for inmates in jail-based substance abuse treatment. The results of the current qualitative case study also indicated that correction officers who work in substance abuse programs lacked training.
References
Antonio, M., & Young, J. (2011). The effects of tenure on staff apathy and treatment orientation: A comparison of respondent characteristics and environmental factors. American Journal
of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 1-16.
Applegate, B., & Paoline, E. (2007). Jail officers’ perceptions of the work environment in
traditional versus new generation facilities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2),
64-80.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. Bird, D. (2009). A case for a 10th principle. American Jails, 23(5), 45.
Bodla, M., & Nawaz, M. (2010). Comparative study of full range leadership model among faculty members in public and private sector higher education institutes and universities. International Journal of Business & Management, 5(4), 208-214. Retrieved from https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/4319/4630
Carlson, P. M. (2001). Something to lose: A balance and reality-based rationale for institutional programming. Correction Management Quarterly, 5(4), 25.
Dolovich, S. (2009). Foreword: Incarceration American-style. Harvard Law & Policy Review,
3(2), 237-259. Retrieved from https://www.hlpronline.com/Vol3_2-Dolovich_HLPR.pdf
Hargis, M. B., Watt, J. D., & Piotrowski, C. (2011). Developing leaders: Examining the role of transactional and transformational leadership across contexts business. Organization
Development Journal, 29(3), 51-66.
Kubiak, S. (2009). Assessing the therapeutic environment in hybrid models of treatment:
prisoner perceptions of staff. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(2), 85-100.
Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2009). Exploring the predictors of treatment views of private correctional staff: A test of an integrated work model. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 48(6), 504-528.
Linhorst, D. M., Dirks-Linhorst, P., Bernsen, H. L., & Childrey, J. (2009). The development and implementation of a jail-based substance abuse treatment program. Journal of Social
Work Practice in the Addictions, 9(1), 91-112. doi:10.1080/15332560802640482
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Petersilia, J. (2012). Beyond the prison bubble. American Jails, 26(2), 59.
Prendergast, M., Greenwell, L., Farabee, D., & Hser, Y. (2009). Influence of perceived coercion and motivation on treatment completion and re-arrest among substance-abusing
offenders. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 36(2), 159-176.
VanderWaal, C. J., Taxman, F. S., & Gurka-Ndanyi, M. A. (2008). Reforming drug treatment services to offenders: Cross-system collaboration, integrated policies, and a seamless continuum of care model. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 8(1), 127-153.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
