Thesis

167 General discussion staff themselves, and by prison staff of all professional disciplines. Paanakker (2020, pp. 151, 158) did show a potential lack of moral awareness of staff in the Dutch prison context. She noticed how different interpretations of values – value divergence – for a large part of the prison staff did not lead to moral dilemmas. The prison context proves to create specific complex situations and restrictions (White et al., 2014). In Chapter 2 we presented a broad range of self-experienced moral dilemmas that prison staff from all disciplines – in and between all organizational levels – mentioned encountering. Dilemmas concerning security inside the prison were frequently mentioned, as well as conforming to and deviating from protocol or superiors’ decisions. The latter is not surprising since, e.g., according to Paanakker (2020, pp. 151–153), the two coping mechanisms for dealing with challenges by correctional officers were to either ‘follow superiors or protocol’ or to just do what they always did. Furthermore, based on the central aims of prison work, i.e. security and rehabilitation (Bruhn et al., 2010), we expected to find more dilemmas related to the rehabilitation of prisoners. Our analyses showed many moral challenges concerning issues between colleagues or about the work climate, which may have led to the subordination of issues involving the relationship between staff and prisoners. Other research also reports that rehabilitation receives less attention than security (Paanakker, 2020, pp. 44, 105–106) and that ‘a prioritization of security at the expense of other goals of imprisonment’ is observed (Dilulio, 1987). Evaluation of MCD Prison work has been shown to be demanding for staff (Huckabee, 1992; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). However, a recent literature review revealed that no articles are available about the need for support and supervision of prison staff (Forsyth et al., 2022), let alone on the ESS for prison staff. Our study in Chapter 3 presented insights into the experiences of prison staff with ESS based on the evaluations of MCD. Overall, prison staff evaluated MCD positively and experienced the sessions as meaningful, as seen in both quantitative and qualitative data. Most participants had a constructive attitude during MCD and stated howMCD helped create more constructive thinking and in-depth reflections. MCD facilitators were critical on the dialogue between participants during MCD and mentioned that the dialogical skills of prison staff should be improved. This research also provides new insights and recommendations regarding how to improve the practice of MCD at DCIA (see below). So far, evaluation studies on MCD have been primarily conducted in healthcare (Haan et al., 2018; Hem et al., 2015). Most MCD evaluations in healthcare were based on different conversation methods or differences in the composition of the group of participants per session (e.g., De Snoo-Trimp et al., 7

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw