Correctional Officer Onboarding Program and On-The-Job training

Research Highlights: While outcomes appear comparable between the onboarding program and on-the-job training, support and guidance from mentors was seen by new Correctional Officers from Kent Institution as integral to their success.

What we did

A total of 115 COs completed two online questionnaires, 80 from Kent Institution (September 2019 to April 2024) and 35 from the three control group sites (January 2023 to April 2024). Invitations for the initial questionnaire were sent to coincide with the Onboarding Program’s roster integration at 6 weeks for Kent Institution and at the end of the 3-week OJT for control group sites. The invitations for the follow-up questionnaire were sent at the 6-month employment mark for both groups.^{Footnote 1}

Questions focused on the nature and effectiveness of the training, transfer of skills, values and ethics, stress and safety, organizational commitment, work relationships, as well as the culture amongst COs. Descriptive analyses were conducted on quantitative data, and thematic analyses were performed on open-ended responses. 

What we found

Onboarding Program participants expressed positive views of the team of mentors and the support they provide. The vast majority found the support of their mentor to be useful (94.7%) and agreed that their mentor was approachable when they needed to discuss something (93.6%). Many COs from Kent named mentors as the most useful aspect of the Onboarding Program, describing them as friendly, professional, and informative. In general, Onboarding participants considered their work relationships more positively than OJT participants, in terms of good communication (77.5% and 58.8%, respectively) and trust (80.0% and 50.0%, respectively) amongst fellow officers.

Participants from Kent Institution and control group sites had comparable responses on values and ethics, stress and safety, and organizational commitment. For example, respondents felt like they were capable of identifying ethical dilemmas (94.3% and 96.2%, respectively). Sixty-two percent of respondents from Kent and 58.8% from control group sites found it difficult to get mental relief from their working environment. Furthermore, most respondents reported they were willing to put in a great deal of effort to help their institution be successful (92.1% and 88.2%, respectively).

Both Onboarding Program and OJT participants agreed that skills learned during training would assist in the adjustment to the correctional work environment (85.2% and 92.3%, respectively). A strong request from respondents from both groups was for more thorough training on posts and guidance with administrative duties. Both groups found that the Onboarding Program/OJT encouraged meaningful and constructive interactions between incarcerated individuals and staff (73.6% and 79.2%, respectively). 

What it means

Though limited by its sample size, the available results suggest that outcomes are comparable between the Onboarding Program and the OJT that is currently standard. While COs in both programs generally expressed a desire to receive more extensive and diverse training on posts, the strength of the Onboarding Program lies in the profound impact that mentors have on new COs.

For more information

Please e-mail the Research Branch. You can also visit the Research Publications section for a full list of reports and one-page summaries.

Prepared by: Danielle Hawthorn & Laura Hanby