Correctional Ideology of Prison Chaplains: A National Survey

• NCJ Number: 197169
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 30 Issue: 5 Dated: September/October 2002 Pages: 369-385
• Author(s): Jody L. Sundt; Francis T. Cullen
• Date Published: September 2002
• Length: 17 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article examines the correctional orientation of prison chaplains.

Abstract

Although prison chaplains have traditionally been identified as having treatment goals and a religious perspective to forgive and reform, it is unclear whether they endorse rehabilitation or punishment. In 1997, a random sample of 500 chaplains was surveyed on their correctional philosophies. The chaplains surveyed were predominately white males in their fifties and sixties with an average of 10 years of experience at the institution where they were employed. Chaplains’ correctional orientation was measured with two scales, one assessing the extent to which respondents held a rehabilitative orientation and the second indicating support for a custody or punishment orientation. Two aspects of religious orientation were also examined. The first was referred to as a “hellfire” orientation; the second assessed “beliefs in and fear of supernatural sanctions.” A sense of calling to the chaplaincy was also measured. Results of the survey show that chaplains reported high levels of support for the treatment of offenders. Over 80 percent felt that treatment was as important as punishment and rehabilitation programs should be expanded. Chaplains overwhelmingly rejected the idea that treatment did not work. Besides expressing high levels of support for rehabilitation, most chaplains believed that changing an offender’s values through religion was the best method of rehabilitation. Like other correctional employees, chaplains hold complex views about the purpose of prisons. When presented with a forced-choice question asking them about the main purpose of imprisonment, the majority endorsed incapacitation. There are several explanations for this. The level of support for incapacitation may mirror general trends among the public, or be indicative of being socialized to a work-role. Future research should conceptualize the individual experiences/importation model more broadly. 6 tables, 5 notes, 85 references