Rehabilitation and discipline: contradictions and possible occupational disease among correctional officers

Introduction
Correctional officer work is marked by contradiction, tension and paradox: officers must focus alternately or at the same time on rehabilitation and discipline (Tracy, 2004). In Italian penitentiaries, contradictions are amplified by the fact that functions of “rehabilitation” and “discipline” are carried out by two separate departments (respectively treatment and policy department). These departments are radically different in structural, organizational and cultural aspects (Campostrini, 2008). Several quantitative researches seem to indicate that individuals who support custodial statement are more likely to experience elevated levels of stress compared to those who support a rehabilitation perspective (Dowden &Tellier, 2004). Aim of this study is to explore how workers belonging to these different areas go through, describe and assign meaning to their daily work experiences. In particular, to understand which relationship they have with the social mission of the penitentiary institution and which aspects of their job they identify as sources of wellbeing or disease.

Methods
30 semi-structured interviews were conducted among workers of a Italian penitentiary institution (17 of policy department and 13 of treatment department). Interviews were completely audio-recorded and data were analyzed according to Template Analysis method (King, 2010).

Results
Further analyses show very different descriptions among the two departments members’ not only concerning job disease and wellbeing but also organizational processes and social mission of Penitentiary. Radical differences between these two sub-cultures seem to be mainly linked to ideological issues, professional backgrounds and job motivation. Moreover, custodial and rehabilitation orientation subtend very different ways to conceptualize the relationship with inmates and to describe and manage own feelings and emotions at work.

Discussion
Analyses highlight how differences on representations could be interpreted non only on the basis of mere department’s affiliation but also on the basis of cultural dimensions that inform organizational processes at different levels.