Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research has begun to explore the role of procedural justice in prison contexts. One potential benefit of procedural justice in prisons is an uplift in the well-being of people in prison. The well-being of people in prison matters because it is associated with reduced recidivism upon release. This study draws on survey data collected from incarcerated individuals in Australia to examine the associations between their perceptions of procedural justice, staff relationships, prison safety, and their self-reported mental well-being over time. Using cross-sectional data, we find procedural justice perceptions are positively associated with respondents’ well-being, and that staff relationships and perceived prison safety mediate this pathway. However, when examined longitudinally, only staff relationships mediate the procedural justice and well-being relationship. These results highlight the utility of procedural justice training in prison environments, and the need for future research to consider how prison officers can foster relationships that are procedurally just and appropriate.

Keywords

procedural justice prison prison safety staff relationships mental well-being longitudinal survey

Prison is an inherently stressful environment. Toch (1975) argues “almost no inmate’s institutional career [is] free of serious (and potentially disabling) stress” (p. 284). Moreover, people who enter prison are often already facing challenges to their well-being and mental health. In Australian prisons, for example, more than half (51%) of those people housed in prison had been diagnosed with a mental health condition on prison entry; these rates were higher for women (63%) and First Nations prison entrants (60%) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2023). In an ideal world, prison would reform individuals and deter future offending. However, we know that those in prison experience poor mental health and reduced mental well-being, and this is linked to an increased likelihood of recidivism when they reenter society (Wallace & Wang, 2020). To reduce recidivism rates, therefore, prisons should aim to improve rather than damage the mental well-being of those in prison.

The current study examines whether experiencing procedural justice in prison can improve the mental well-being of those living in prison. We examine if procedural justice increases their well-being via the mediating mechanisms of perceived positive “staff-inmate relationships” and enhanced “prison safety.” Drawing on the Group Engagement Model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), we outline why these two mediators explain the procedural justice–well-being relationship. In short, the Model predicts that when people feel they are treated with procedural justice by authorities, this strengthens their social identity and engagement with the authority, which subsequently encourages cooperation, compliance, and prosocial behavior toward that authority. We suggest that such positive engagement may also enhance people’s mental well-being. Mental well-being is defined here as “more than the absence of mental illness or psychiatric pathology. It implies ‘feeling good’ and ‘functioning well’ and includes aspects such as optimism, happiness, self-esteem, resilience, agency, autonomy, and good relationships with others” (Stranges et al., 2014, p. 1). We adopt this definition because low mental well-being is predictive of a range of negative physical and mental health outcomes (Stranges et al., 2014). Before we outline our hypotheses, methods, and results, we first review current literature on the topic of procedural justice in prisons.

Procedural Justice in Prisons

Liebling (2007) suggests that prison culture can buffer against some of the negative psychological and physical effects of the prison environment. One mechanism proposed to improve prison culture is procedural justice (e.g., Sargeant et al., 2020). Procedural justice entails fair treatment and fair decision-making processes, and is generally agreed to contain four key elements: (a) voice, (b) neutrality, (c) dignity/respect, and (d) trustworthy motives (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Research suggests that if authorities make decisions in neutral ways, convey trustworthy motives, are respectful and treat people with dignity, and provide people with the opportunity to voice concerns or air grievances before decisions are made, then authorities will be deemed to be displaying procedurally just conduct (Sargeant et al., 2020).

In the correctional context, research finds that when prison officers utilize procedural justice in interactions with incarcerated individuals, a range of positive benefits ensue. This includes reduced aggression and misconduct, enhanced commitment to institutional rules and compliance with prison officers (e.g., Baker et al., 2019; Barkworth & Murphy, 2021; Beijersbergen et al., 2015; Maguire et al., 2021; Reisig & Meško, 2009). Procedural justice in prisons is also linked to reductions in reoffending on release (e.g., Beijersbergen et al., 2016).

In addition to compliance-related outcomes, research finds that procedural justice can have positive effects on the well-being and mental health of those who are incarcerated. For example, Gover et al. (2000, p. 460) measured the relationship between perceived “justice,” defined as “the perceived appropriateness and fairness of discipline procedures for misbehavior,” and anxiety in a sample of 3,986 juveniles housed in American correctional facilities. They found that higher perceived justice was associated with youths’ reduced anxiety. Similarly, Liebling et al. (2005) found that respect and dignity as well as fairness, were among key factors associated with reduced distress over time among 1,000 people living in prisons in the United Kingdom. Slotboom et al. (2011) surveyed 251 incarcerated women in the Netherlands and found that feeling disrespected by staff was associated with depressive symptoms, self-harm, and irritability among incarcerated women, even when controlling for previous treatment for mental health conditions. These studies imply that procedural justice might enhance the well-being of those in prison, but those studies did not tap into all procedural justice elements.

Only a few empirical studies in prisons have explicitly examined the relationship between procedural justice and well-being and/or mental health. Beijersbergen et al. (2014), for example, drew on a longitudinal sample of 824 adult incarcerated men in the Netherlands and found that perceptions of procedural justice experienced 3 weeks after prison entry predicted reduced mental health problems after 3 months in custody. They found that this relationship held regardless of the coping style of individuals. In Australia, Barkworth (2018) surveyed 177 incarcerated men and found that perceptions of procedural justice were positively associated with their well-being; those individuals who perceived staff as more procedurally just reported having higher levels of psychological well-being and reduced levels of psychological distress. Recently, Abderhalden and Alward (2024) examined the relationship between procedural justice and suicidal ideation in a cross-sectional study of 397 adults in jails in America. They found that, while in jail, people who had higher perceptions of procedural justice had a lower frequency of suicidal ideation.

Why Might Procedural Justice Promote Well-Being?

While empirical studies have connected perceptions of procedural justice to the well-being of those living in prison, research has not yet unpacked the psychological mechanisms that explain why procedural justice has this effect. We suggest that the procedural justice and well-being relationship is mediated (i.e., explained) by perceptions of relationships between staff and people living in prison and prison safety; that is, procedural justice enhances well-being because it promotes positive relationships between staff and those living in prison, and promotes perceptions of prison safety.

We draw on the Group Engagement Model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) to help us explain these relationships. The Group Engagement Model’s objective is to identify and examine the antecedents of people’s attitudes, values, and cooperative behavior in groups. It rationalizes the efficacy of procedural justice on a range of positive outcomes using a social identity perspective. The Model suggests that when individuals perceive that they are treated with procedural justice, they feel valued. This feeling of value and sense of belonging it instills strengthens people’s emotional connection to those who treat them fairly—a process known as social identification. The Model argues that when people identify more strongly with a group, authority, or institution, they are more likely to cooperate, follow rules, and engage in behaviors that support that group’s, authority’s, or institution’s goals (Tyler & Blader, 2003).

With respect to understanding why procedural justice might enhance the well-being of incarcerated individuals via staff-inmate relationships, the Group Engagement Model suggests that procedurally just practice increases people’s positive connections to criminal justice institutions and their authorities. This is because procedural justice—when utilized by authorities—helps an individual to decide whether they should invest their social identity in the group norms and values that the authority represents (Bradford et al., 2014; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Social identity leads to psychological engagement, which is the “process of merger of self and group” (Tyler & Blader, 2003, p. 356).

In the prison context, prison officers are charged with maintaining order in prisons. They are important representatives of the approved norms and values espoused by the prison. The way they treat people in prison thus communicates to those people the extent of their inclusion, value. and status within the prison (Barkworth & Murphy, 2021). Just treatment promotes identification by generating a positive sense of individuals’ place in the prison. In turn, identification with the norms and values of the prison means that an individual is more likely to act in ways that benefit the best interests of others in the prison, as well as with prison staff. In other words, theorizing suggests that when an authority represents the norms and values of a group to which an individual feels a stronger attachment, attitudes, perceptions, and behavior will be driven by group allegiances (e.g., Bradford et al., 2014; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Recently, Murphy et al. (2022) drew on this social identity perspective to suggest that procedural justice not only promotes identification with the group norms that an authority is said to represent, but it can also promote strong identification with an authority figure specifically. Murphy et al. suggested this can occur because procedural justice reduces the social distance between an individual and an authority, fostering closer interpersonal relationships, psychological connection, and identification.

As the Group Engagement Model suggests that procedural justice can convey a stronger sense of connection, belonging, and inclusion, we suggest procedural justice may also promote psychological well-being. Evidence of this comes from a study by Kyprianides et al. (2019). Kyprianides et al. undertook a series of experiments to examine the effect of group membership on well-being. Participants were primed to think about either interpersonal relationships or group membership. Those who were primed to think about group memberships had their psychological needs satisfied and experienced enhanced well-being.

The tenets underlying the Group Engagement Model would predict that if prison officers treat those in their charge with procedural justice, this information will encourage those living in prison to identify with the norms and values of the prison as well as the prison officers who work within its walls. This will, in turn, positively influence individuals’ attitudes about their psychological connection and interpersonal relationships with prison officers, thereby promoting their well-being. Procedural justice might even encourage their cooperative and prosocial behaviors in the prison more broadly. In support of this model, Trammell et al. (2018) found that using procedural justice—and particularly respectful language—was important for prison employees to build relationships with people in prison. Similarly, Meško and Hacin (2019) found that procedural justice reduced the social distance between incarcerated individuals and prison staff.

In addition to encouraging more positive relationships with staff, procedural justice might also work to improve the well-being of those housed in prison via their experiences and perceptions of prison safety. The Group Engagement Model suggests that procedural justice encourages cooperative and prosocial behavior by, again, enhancing social identity (Tyler & Blader, 2003). So, we would anticipate that when staff use procedural justice in their day-to-day interactions with individuals in prison, those individuals will be more likely to comply with prison staff and prison rules, and prisons will be safer environments for all. Indeed, research shows that when prison staff use procedural justice, those living in prison are more likely to be compliant, they show less disrespect, aggression, and defiance, and they engage in fewer incidents of misconduct (e.g., Barkworth & Murphy, 2021; Beijersbergen et al., 2015; Maguire et al., 2021; Reisig & Meško, 2009). If there is a generally positive, procedurally just climate within a prison, it follows that people housed in prison will be more likely to perceive their prison as a safe place to live and may experience enhanced well-being as a result.

Linking Staff Relationships and Prison Safety With Well-Being

Several studies examine the association between prison climate and the well-being or mental health of those living in prison, and support the connections between these variables. Climate is defined as “a set of properties or conditions relating to the internal environment of an organization, as they are perceived by its members” (Ajdukovic, 1990, p. 422). Numerous measures of prison climate have been developed (see Tonkin, 2015), but two common features of prison climate are “staff-inmate relationships” and “prison safety” (i.e., the two mediator variables that we argue are important in the procedural justice–mental well-being relationship). Research shows that prison climate in general, and these two aspects of prison climate in particular, are positively associated with well-being and mental health of incarcerated people.

Goncalves et al. (2016), for example, surveyed young people housed in Portuguese correctional facilities and found that negative perceptions of correctional climate (measured using the Prison Environment Inventory) were associated with the youth’s reduced mental health. In another study, Van Ginneken and Nieuwbeerta (2020) examined the relationship between prison climate and psychological and subjective well-being in a sample of incarcerated individuals in the Netherlands. They utilized the Prison Climate Questionnaire to capture five prison climate variables, including: “autonomy,” “peer-relationships,” “staff-inmate relationships,” “prison safety,” “availability of meaningful activities,” as well as “overall institutional rating” (p. 11). They found that all these variables were positively associated with higher psychological and subjective well-being. Finally, Favril and Van Ginneken (2023) surveyed incarcerated adults in Belgium and measured the relationship between what they termed “quality of life” and mental health; quality of life measures included perceptions of staff relationships with people living in prison and perceived physical safety. Both perceptions of staff relationships with people living in prison and safety were associated with reduced psychological distress.

The Current Study

Despite research findings that procedural justice is linked to the well-being of people who live in prison, prior research is limited in several important ways. First, few existing empirical studies conducted with prison populations explore why procedural justice might be linked to well-being; studies generally link procedural justice perceptions to well-being, but more work is needed to understand why procedural justice and well-being are connected. Second, and importantly, few empirical studies that have examined the effects of procedural justice on subsequent attitudes and behaviors in the criminal justice context (e.g., policing, corrections, and courts) utilize longitudinal survey data to test the causal relationships between key variables of interest. Most studies rely only on cross-sectional survey datasets. As such, the causal mechanisms linking procedural justice to subsequent attitudes, perceptions, or behavior remain obscured. Several of the cross-sectional studies cited above call for more robust designs to test for causal mechanisms between variables. Our study addresses these limitations and gaps in knowledge. Specifically, it examines the association between procedural justice and mental well-being in people who are incarcerated in Australia. It explores some of the mediating mechanisms (i.e., staff relationships and prison safety) that are expected to explain why procedural justice might be associated with heightened well-being. Finally, it examines whether our model holds across cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets. We test three hypotheses: H1: Procedural justice will be associated with more positive staff relationships, heightened perceptions of prison safety, and greater feelings of well-being; H2: Staff relationships will mediate the positive association between procedural justice and well-being; and H3: Prison safety will mediate the positive association between procedural justice and well-being.

While the Group Engagement Model has informed our hypotheses, it is important to note that a comprehensive test of the Group Engagement Model would not be complete without understanding the roles of social identity and psychological engagement (which are not examined in our study) in predicting well-being. We suggest that staff relationships are likely connected to social identity; however, the limitations of the data used mean we are unable to specifically examine social identity and psychological engagement. While our study does not explicitly test the Group Engagement Model in this way, our study advances prior research by examining the mediating mechanisms of staff relationships and prison safety. We return to this point in the discussion section below.

Method

Study Context: NSW Correctional Facilities in Australia

Each of Australia’s six states and two territories has its own department or agency responsible for managing correctional services. This study was conducted in the state of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia. At the time of the study, NSW had 32 prisons, of which 30 were run by Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) and two were privately operated. In NSW, females in custody are housed in six of the correctional facilities: three designated women’s centers (Silverwater, Dillwynia, and Emu Plains), and female-only units at Broken Hill, Wellington, and Mid North Coast facilities (CSNSW, 2024). In December 2024, the adult custody population in NSW facilities was 12,736, 11,871 men (~93%) and 865 women (~7%), up from 12,091 in December 2023. Of those in custody, 5,055 were on remand (i.e., 39.7%). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (i.e., Indigenous) individuals made up more than one third of the adult custody population in these facilities (34.7% of all males; 34.1% of all females) (New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2025). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples constitute only 3.8% of the total Australian population, making this group an over-represented population in custody. The adult imprisonment rate in NSW was 190.7 per 100,000 adults in December 2024 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024).

Participants and Procedure

Survey data was collected by CSNSW over three time points via an online survey on the Alchemer survey platform. This occurred in July 2023 (Time 1 survey), February/March 2024 (Time 2 survey), and September/October 2024 (Time 3 survey). Approval to use the data for research purposes was provided by the CSNSW Research Committee and the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (GUHREC Ref: 2024/823). Access to each of the three surveys was provided on digital tablets available to people housed in adult NSW correctional centers. Each survey was open for responses for approximately 3 weeks, with information about the purpose of the survey and how to access it provided via a Facility Message sent directly to all tablets. Participation in the surveys was voluntary, and participants had the choice to participate in one or all surveys. Nineteen NSW correctional centers were involved in the Time 1 survey; 26 in the Time 2 survey, and 25 in the Time 3 survey. Note that not all people housed in those facilities may have completed all survey rounds because they either were not in prison during earlier rounds or had been released after the first or second round. They may have also been moved to or from a center that did or did not have tablets. Given the progressive rollout of tablets in facilities across NSW, individuals may not have received earlier round surveys as their center had yet to receive tablets.

When completing a survey, participants were asked to enter their Master Index Number (MIN–a unique identifier). This enabled their responses to be linked with individual and contextual data from the CSNSW Offender Integrated Management System (OIMS) and linked to their responses in the other two surveys. The OIMS database collects and manages information about individuals in custody and under community supervision. A total of 6,351 individuals participated in at least one of the three surveys: 1,936 out of a possible 6,150 individuals with access to tablets completed the Time 1 survey; 2,522 out of a possible 9,089 individuals completed the Time 2 survey; and 3,776 out of a possible 9,818 individuals completed the Time 3 survey, representing a response rate of 31.5%, 27.7%, and 38.5%, respectively. Table 1 provides an overview of participant demographics and contextual variables for each of the three cross-sectional surveys separately, and provides details for the participants who completed all three surveys (i.e., the panel group).

Table 1:

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample for All Three Survey Time Points, and for the Longitudinal Survey Group (i.e., Those Who Completed Time 1, 2, and 3 Surveys) Compared Against Population Figures for NSW Correctional Facilities

Variable	Time 1 survey(N = 1,936)		Time 2 survey(N = 2,522)		Time 3 survey (N = 3,776)		Longitudinal survey group (N = 373)		Population data (December 2024)
Variable	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	M (SD)	%	%
Age	38.10 (11.74) Median: 36.0 Range: 18-82	-	38.76 (12.15) Median: 37.0 Range: 18-88	-	39.23 (12.19) Median: 38.0 Range: 18-89	-	44.28 (13.31) Median: 43.0 Range: 20-82	-	- Median: 33.6 -
Lifetime days in custody	1,734.86 (1,824.51) Median: 1,112.50 Range: 13-14,038	-	1,648.92 (1,801.34) Median: 1,044.0 Range: 6-14,264	-	1,614.77 (1,873.13) Median: 949.5 Range: 6-28,449	-	2,464.79 (2,050.97) Median: 1,780.0 Range: 408-14,473	-	-
Sex
Female	-	8.9	-	10.8	-	9.7	-	9.4	6.8
Male		91.1		89.2		90.3		90.6	93.2
Indigenous status
Indigenous	-	27.8	-	29.5	-	32.7	-	20.9	31.8
Non-Indigenous		72.2		70.5		67.3		79.1	68.2
Relationship status
Married/de facto	-	34.5	-	32.8	-	34.3	-	32.1	-
Nonpartnered		65.5		67.2		65.7		67.9
Sentence status
Remand	-	27.1	-	36.0	-	38.1	-	11.3	39.7
Sentenced		72.9		64.0		61.9		88.7	60.3

Measures

Our key independent and dependent variables were captured using four key scales: procedural justice, staff relationships, prison safety, and well-being. The procedural justice staff relationships scales were found to be highly correlated (see Table 2). Hence, the Time 1 survey items for both scales were subjected to a Principal Axis Factor analysis to test for discriminant validity, with the results showing these two scales were conceptually distinct, with no cross-loading between items. The factor structures were replicated in the Time 2 and 3 survey data. Results are available upon request.

Table 2:

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Between Key Measures for All Four Datasets

Variable	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Time 1 dataset ( N = 1,936)
1. Procedural justice	2.57 (1.16)^a,b	1
2. Staff relationships	2.44 (1.12)^a,b	.85*	1
3. Prison safety	3.71 (1.07)^a	.32*	.33*	1
4. Well-being	3.01 (.92)	.43*	.48*	.40*	1
Time 2 dataset ( N = 2,522)
1. Procedural justice	2.77 (1.07)^c	1
2. Staff relationships	2.73 (1.09)^c	.85*	1
3. Prison safety	3.63 (1.07)^c	.28*	.27*	1
4. Well-being	3.06 (0.91)^b	.39*	.43*	.34*	1
Time 3 dataset ( N = 3,776)
1. Procedural justice	2.76 (1.09)^c	1
2. Staff relationships	2.71 (1.10)^c	.86*	1
3. Prison safety	3.65 (1.21)	.24*	.25*	1
4. Well-being	2.98 (0.96)^a	.43*	.47*	.29*	1
Longitudinal dataset ( N = 373)
1. Procedural justice T1	2.74 (1.10)	1
2. Staff relationships T1	2.55 (1.09)^a	.83*	1
3. Prison safety T1	3.65 (0.99)	.29*	.30*	1
4. Well-being T1	2.98 (0.89)^a	.42*	.47*	.40*	1
5. Procedural justice T2	2.87 (0.99)^b	.54*	.50*	.21*	.21*	1
6. Staff relationships T2	2.78 (1.03)^b,c	.49*	.59*	.23*	.23*	.82*	1
7. Prison safety T2	3.55 (1.05)	.24*	.24*	.49*	.17*	.35*	.27*	1
8. Well-being T2	3.10 (0.85)^c	.29*	.32*	.27*	.59*	.43*	.43*	.33*	1
9. Procedural justice T3	2.72 (1.03)^a	.53*	.49*	.16**	.16**	.61*	.53*	.24*	.27*	1
10. Staff relationships T3	2.65 (1.03)^a	.46*	.53*	.11***	.18*	.58*	.63*	.23*	.30*	.85*	1
11. Prison safety T3	3.62 (1.17)	.15**	.16**	.41*	.14**	.26*	.23*	.55*	.20*	.36*	.34*	1
12. Well-being T3	3.04 (0.91)	.27*	.30*	.22*	.60*	.31*	.30*	.24*	.69*	.41*	.43*	.36*	1

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05; ^a Significantly different from Time 2; ^b Significantly different from Time 3; ^c Significantly different from Time 1 at p < .05 as assessed via t-tests.

The procedural justice scale was constructed using 10 items (e.g., “Staff members treat people with respect and dignity”). It was taken from Barkworth and Murphy (2021) and was designed to capture respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice from prison staff. It included the four sub-elements of procedural justice (i.e., respect, neutrality, voice, and trustworthiness). Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree), with higher scores indicating stronger perceptions of procedural justice (Cronbach’s alpha Time 1 = .97; Time 2 = .96; Time 3 = .97).

The bespoke staff relationships scale was designed by CSNSW. As reported in Islam et al. (2024, p. 7), the measure was originally developed by drawing on a series of similar constructs previously utilized to assess “agent of change relationships in correctional and therapeutic settings as well as relational aspects of hope and motivation for rehabilitation.” Following a review of the literature containing a variety of relevant constructs, CSNSW took 22 items to construct a staff relationships scale. The items covered four key elements of rehabilitative staff relationships: motivating people toward change, inspiring hope by influencing prosocial goals, collaborating with people to achieve goals, and enacting an orientation toward rehabilitation. To validate the newly formed 22-item scale, Islam et al. (2024) subjected the items to a series of factor analyses. Problematic items were removed, and after several iterations, a reliable 12-item measure was created.

Our measure uses the 12-item scale developed by Islam et al. (2024). It focused on perceptions of staff members’ ability to nurture, engage, and rehabilitate those who lived in the prison. These relational elements included staff ability to (1) motivate people toward change (three items, e.g., “Staff members support people in their care to make positive change”); (2) inspire hope by influencing prosocial goals (three items, e.g., “Staff members support me to achieve my goals”); (3) collaborate with those housed in the facility to achieve their goals (three items, e.g., “Staff members work with me toward mutually agreed upon goals”); and (4) exhibit an orientation toward rehabilitation (three items, e.g., “Staff members seem motivated to help me become more ready for change”). Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). Higher scores on the scale reflect more favorable perceptions of staff relationships. All 12 items loaded as expected onto one factor (Cronbach’s alpha Time 1 = .98; Time 2 = .98; Time 3 = .98).

Perceptions of prison safety were measured utilizing five items from the Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES; Schalast et al., 2008). The EssenCES is a self-report tool that assesses the perceived characteristics of the social and therapeutic atmosphere of a prison. It includes 15 items; five of which measure the perceived safety of the prison (e.g., “There are some really aggressive inmates in this unit”). Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very much). Items were reverse-coded so that higher scores on the 5-item prison safety subscale indicate a more favorable view of prison safety (Cronbach’s alpha Time 1 = .88; Time 2 = .88; Time 3 = .92).

To measure well-being, respondents were asked to evaluate their mental health and well-being. This was assessed using the 14-item Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS), a validated instrument designed to assess the mental well-being of a population (Taggart et al., 2015). Participants were asked to indicate how often they had recently experienced each statement (e.g., “I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future”). Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = None of the time to 5 = All the time); higher scores indicate better mental well-being (Cronbach’s alpha Time 1 = .95; Time 2 = .94; Time 3 = .95).

Also measured and used in this article are a series of demographic and control variables. These items were taken from the OIMS database and merged with the survey data. Items included age, sex (0 = female; 1 = male), Indigenous status (non-Indigenous = 0; Indigenous = 1); marital status (unmarried = 0; married/de facto = 1); and sentencing status (0 = remand; 1 = sentenced). Also captured was the total number of days the participant had spent in custody over their life (i.e., lifetime days in custody), and the number of days spent in the correctional facility where the survey was completed (days in survey center).

Analytic Strategy

We first examined descriptive statistics and correlations for all key measures across all three cross-sectional surveys and for the panel survey group (see Table 2). To test our hypotheses, we then conducted a parallel mediation analysis on the Time 1 cross-sectional dataset (N = 1,936), specifying Model 4 using the PROCESS macro in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v.27. By specifying Model 4 in PROCESS we could test the association between procedural justice and well-being, while exploring the potential mediating influence of staff relationships and prison safety in this association. Demographic and control variables were also included as covariates. Table 3 presents the findings for this mediation analysis. We repeated this analysis with the Time 2 and Time 3 cross-sectional datasets. Key findings from Time 1 were replicated in the Time 2 and 3 datasets, so only Time 1 findings are presented in this article.

Table 3:

Parallel Mediation Analyses: Predicting Well-being With Time 1 Cross-Sectional Survey Data (N = 1,936) (PROCESS Model 4)

Time 1 data (N = 1,936)	1. Staff relationships					2. Prison safety					3. Well-being
Predictors	β	b	SE	LLCI	ULCI	β	b	SE	LLCI	ULCI	β	b	SE	LLCI	ULCI
(Constant)	-	.42	.07	.27	.56	-	3.17	.13	2.92	3.42	-	1.46	.12	1.23	1.69
Procedural justice (PJ)	.85***	.83	.01	.80	.85	.34***	.31	.02	.27	.35	.07	.05	.03	-.01	.11
Staff relationships	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.34***	.28	.03	.22	.34
Prison safety	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.25***	.22	.02	.18	.25
Days in survey center	-.01	.00	.00	-.00	.00	.03	.00	.00	-.00	.00	.02	.00	.00	-.00	.00
Total days in custody	-.03*	.00	.00	.00	.00	.04	.00	.00	.00	.00	.06**	.00	.00	.00	.00
Sentencing status(ref: remand)	.05***	.13	.03	.07	.19	.14***	.34	.06	.23	.45	.07**	.14	.04	.06	.23
Age	-.03*	-.00	.00	-.01	.00	-.15***	-.01	.00	-.02	-.01	-.07**	-.01	.00	-.01	-.00
Sex (ref: female)	-.02	-.06	.05	-.15	.04	-.02	-.10	.08	-.25	.07	-.01	-.03	.06	-.16	.09
Indigenous status(ref: non-Indigenous)	-.01	-.03	.03	-.10	.03	.03	.08	.05	-.03	.18	.01	.01	.04	-.07	.10
Marital status(ref: unmarried)	.01	.02	.03	-.03	.08	-.03	-.06	.05	-.15	.04	-.02	-.04	.04	-.12	.03
	R ² = .74					R ² = .15					R ² = .31
	F(8, 1780) = 620.88 ***					F(8, 1780) = 38.00 ***					F(10, 1778) = 78.55 ***
Standardized total and indirect effects of procedural justice on well-being
	β	BootSE	LLCI	ULCI
Total Effect PJ	.38	.03	.31	.44
Via Staff relationships (c1)	.29	.03	.23	.36
Via Prison safety (c2)	.09	.01	.07	.10
Contrast (c1-c2)	.21^#	.04	.14	.28

LLCI = 95% lower level confidence interval; 95% ULCI = upper level confidence interval; Confidence intervals for total and indirect effects are generated more than 5000 bootstrap samples.

p < .05, **p < .01. ***p < .001; ^#Strength of indirect effects are significantly different from each other.

To test the causal relationship between variables of interest in our hypotheses—and to ascertain whether the findings from the cross-sectional analysis could be replicated with panel data—we conducted another parallel mediation analysis using the panel group survey data (i.e., those who completed all three surveys: N = 373; see Table 4). We again specified Model 4 in PROCESS, and included the procedural justice measured at Time 1, the mediator variables (staff relationships and prison safety) at Time 2, and the well-being measure at Time 3. Well-being at Time 1 was a covariate in the model, so too were demographic and control variables.

Table 4:

Parallel Mediation Analysis: Predicting Well-Being at Time 3 Using Panel Data (N = 373) (PROCESS Model 4)

Predictors	1. Staff relationships T2					2. Prison safety T2					3. Well-being T3
Predictors	β	b	SE	LLCI	ULCI	β	B	SE	LLCI	ULCI	β	b	SE	LLCI	ULCI
(Constant)	-	1.67	.31	1.05	2.29	-	3.04	.36	2.34	3.75	-	.69	.28	.14	1.23
Procedural justice (PJ) T1	.47***	.44	.05	.34	.54	.21***	.21	.06	.09	.32	-.07	-.06	.04	-.15	.03
Staff relationships T2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.20***	.17	.04	.09	.26
Prison safety T2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	.08	.07	.04	-.01	.14
Days in survey center T3	.03	.00	.00	-.00	.00	.02	.00	.00	-.00	.00	.02	.00	.00	-.00	.00
Lifetime days in custody T3	.03	.00	.00	.00	.00	-.01	.00	.00	-.00	.00	-.01	.00	.00	.00	.00
Sentencing status T3(ref: remand)	-.10	-.32	.16	-.64	.00	.04	.15	.19	-.22	.51	.07	.20	.13	-.06	.45
Age T3	-.02	-.00	.00	-.01	.00	-.10	-.01	.00	-.02	.00	-.00	-.00	.00	-.01	.01
Sex T3 (ref: female)	.02	.06	.18	-.30	.41	-.07	-.25	.21	-.65	.16	-.07	-.22	.14	-.50	.06
Indigenous status T3(ref: non-Indigenous)	-.09	-.23	.13	-.48	.02	.03	.07	.15	-.22	.36	.04	.09	.10	-.11	.29
Marital status T3(ref: unmarried)	.05	.11	.11	-.10	.32	.02	.04	.12	-.20	.28	-.02	-.04	.08	-.21	.13
Well-being T1	.05	.05	.06	-.07	.18	.10	.12	.07	-.03	.26	.59***	.61	.05	.51	.71
	R² = .26					R² = .08					R² = .43
	F(9, 323) = 12.69***					F(9, 323) = 3.16**					F(11, 321) = 21.68***
Standardized total and indirect effects of procedural justice on well-being
	β	BootSE	LLCI	ULCI
Total effect PJ T1	.11	.03	.05	.17
Via staff relationships T2 (c1)	.09	.03	.04	.14
Via prison safety T2 (c2)	.02	.01	-.00	.04
Contrast (c1-c2)	.08#	.03	.02	.13

LLCI = 95% lower level confidence interval; 95% ULCI = upper level confidence interval; Confidence intervals for total and indirect effects are generated more than 5,000 bootstrap samples.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001; ^#Strength of indirect effects are significantly different from each other.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Bivariate correlations between measures are presented in Table 2, as are the means and standard deviations for each measure for each of the three cross-sectional surveys and the longitudinal panel survey. In general, Table 2 shows that respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice were typically unfavorable across all three surveys, as were their perceptions of their relationship with prison staff. Perceptions of prison safety fared much better across the three surveys, while participants’ self-reported mental well-being fell close to the midpoint of the well-being scale in all three surveys. Table 2 shows if and where mean scores on each scale differed significantly between each of the three surveys for each cross-sectional group of respondents, as well as for the panel group. For example, in the cross-sectional datasets, procedural justice perceptions only changed significantly from Time 1 to Time 2; that is, perceptions improved between Time 1 and Time 2. The same pattern was observed for staff relationships. Well-being and perceived prison safety did not change significantly across the three time points in the cross-sectional datasets. For the panel group, procedural justice staff relationships also changed significantly from Time 1 to Time 2 (i.e., improved), but dropped back down at Time 3. Similarly, well-being increased significantly from Time 1 to Time 2, but again dropped back down at Time 3. Safety perceptions did not change over time in the panel group. Table 2 also shows that procedural justice is positively correlated with perceptions of staff relationships, prison safety, and well-being across all surveys, suggesting that those who perceived staff as procedurally just were more likely to perceive staff relationships more positively, see their prison as safer, and report feeling greater levels of well-being.

Parallel Mediation Analysis: Cross-Sectional Time 1 Data

Table 3 presents the results of the parallel mediation model for the Time 1 survey data, and includes the total and indirect effects of procedural justice on well-being via staff relationships and prison safety. Model 1 in Table 4 presents the findings for staff relationships, Model 2 presents findings for prison safety, and Model 3 shows the findings for well-being. Considering staff relationships first, it can be seen from Table 3 that procedural justice was positively associated with staff relationships (β = .85); those who perceived prison staff as more procedurally just at Time 1 evaluated staff relationships more favorably at Time 1. Relative to those on remand, those individuals who had been sentenced perceived staff relationships more favorably (β = .05). Custody length (β = −.03) was negatively associated with staff relationships, with those who had been in custody longer reporting less favorable relationships with staff. Of note, the strength of these associations for the demographic/control variables was weak.

Turning to perceptions of prison safety, procedural justice was a significant and positive predictor of prison safety (β = .34); those who perceived prison staff as more procedurally just were more likely to perceive their prison as safe. Sentencing status was again positively related to prison safety (β = .14), with those on remand being less likely than sentenced individuals to perceive the prison as safe. Finally, age was negatively associated with perceptions of prison safety (β = −.15), with older individuals perceiving their prison as less safe.

With respect to well-being, sentencing status (β = .07) and custody length (β = .06) were both positively associated with well-being, while age (β = −.07) was negatively associated with well-being. That is, those who had been sentenced, been in custody longer, and who were younger reported higher levels of well-being. More importantly, procedural justice was unrelated to well-being in the model, but staff relationships (β = .34) and prison safety (β = .25) were positively associated with well-being. While procedural justice did not have a direct effect on well-being when staff relationships and prison safety were considered, the findings suggest that individuals who perceived staff relationships as more favorable and who perceived prison as safer were more likely to report higher levels of well-being. Of the two mediator variables, staff relationships had the strongest association with well-being in the Time 1 data.

For the total and indirect effects, Table 3 shows that procedural justice at Time 1 had a significant total positive effect on well-being at Time 1 (β = .38). It also shows the significant indirect positive effect of procedural justice on well-being is fully mediated by both staff relationships and prison safety (this is due to the fact that procedural justice was unrelated to well-being when the mediator variables were included in the model). That is, procedural justice at Time 1 indirectly affected well-being at Time 1 via the mediating influence of staff relationships (β = .29 [LLCI = .23; ULCI = .36]), and prison safety (β = .09 [LLCI = .07; ULCI = .10]). A contrast test confirmed that staff relationships had the stronger mediating influence in this relationship (Contrast β = .21, BootSE = .04 [LLCI = .14; ULCI = .28]).

Parallel Mediation Analysis: Longitudinal Data

Panel datasets are extremely rare in the procedural justice literature and in criminological research more generally. The advantage of longitudinal data is that it can provide stronger evidence for theorized causal relationships between variables. For example, from the cross-sectional survey data presented above, it is unclear whether procedural justice caused a change in well-being levels over time because both procedural justice and well-being were recorded at the same point in time. Perhaps respondents who had lower levels of well-being at Time 1 were more likely to evaluate prison staff at that same time as procedurally unjust.

To examine whether procedural justice did change respondents’ well-being over time, we utilized the panel dataset (N = 373). We tested the relationship between procedural justice at Time 1 and well-being at Time 3, while ascertaining whether this relationship was mediated by staff relationships and prison safety at Time 2. To account for possible changes in well-being over time, we also controlled for the level of well-being that respondents reported at Time 1. Table 4 presents these findings.

Results show that demographic and control variables had no significant associations with perceptions of staff relationships, prison safety, or well-being. We thus focus our attention on the key variables of interest. First, procedural justice at Time 1 was positively linked to both mediator variables (staff relationships and prison safety) at Time 2. Those individuals who evaluated prison staff as more procedurally just at Time 1 were significantly more likely at Time 2 to evaluate their relationships with staff more favorably (β = .47) and perceive their prison as safer (β = .21). With respect to well-being, as expected, well-being levels at Time 1 were strongly associated with well-being levels at Time 3; individuals who had higher levels of well-being at Time 1 also had higher levels of well-being at Time 3 (β = .59). Procedural justice at Time 1 was not directly linked to well-being at Time 3 (β = −.07) when the mediator variables were in the model, nor was perceived prison safety at Time 2 linked to well-being at Time 3 (β = .08). However, staff relationships at Time 2 were positively linked to well-being at Time 3 (β = .20). Those who evaluated staff relationships more favorably at Time 2 were more likely to report higher levels of well-being at Time 3, even after controlling for Time 1 well-being levels.

Turning to the total and indirect effects, however, Table 4 shows that procedural justice at Time 1 had a significant total positive effect on well-being at Time 3 (β = .11). Indirect effects suggest the association between procedural justice at Time 1 and well-being at Time 3 is fully mediated by staff relationships at Time 2 (β = .09 [LLCI = .04; ULCI = .14]). Unlike for the cross-sectional data, prison safety did not mediate the procedural justice and well-being relationship in the panel dataset (β = .02 [LLCI = −.00; ULCI = .04]). Results again confirm that staff relationships are the stronger mediator of the two mediator variables (Contrast β = .08, BootSE = .03 [LLCI = .02; ULCI = .13]). Figure 1 summarizes our panel group findings.

Figure 1:

Final Model Using Panel Data

Discussion

Our study examined whether procedural justice in prisons could improve the well-being of those living in prison. Importantly, it sought to better understand the association between survey respondents’ perceptions of prison staff use of procedural justice and their well-being using both cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets, and whether this relationship is explained by their perceptions of staff relationships and prison safety. Our findings suggest that procedural justice perceptions are positively associated with higher quality relationships with staff, perceptions of prison safety, and well-being, and these relationships are consistent across the three cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets (supporting Hypothesis 1). Importantly, perceived staff-inmate relationships were found to mediate the procedural justice/well-being relationship in both the cross-sectional datasets and the longitudinal panel dataset, with staff relationships emerging as a more influential mediator than prison safety (support for Hypothesis 2). In fact, while we found the relationship between procedural justice and well-being was mediated by perceived prison safety in the three cross-sectional datasets, prison safety did not mediate this relationship in the panel group dataset (partial support for Hypothesis 3). The fact that we observed some key differences between our cross-sectional and panel datasets shows the value of undertaking longitudinal research. The results from the longitudinal data suggest that procedural justice does appear to positively impact well-being in prison over time because procedural justice enhances perceived relationships with staff over time.

Before discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our panel findings, it is important to note some limitations of our study. First, this article utilizes secondary data. As such, the data analyses are limited to including the variables available and included in the survey developed by CSNSW. Ideally, it would have been useful to control for variables such as the personality characteristics and coping styles of those residing in prison, their broader perceptions of prison climate, and their relationships with others who are incarcerated in the prison, as these may also have an impact on incarcerated individuals’ mental well-being (cf. Beijersbergen et al., 2014; Van Harreveld et al., 2007). Future research might include a greater complement of variables when examining the relationships depicted in our model, to account for a greater proportion of variance in well-being and to control for other factors that may impact these relationships. To provide a comprehensive test of the Group Engagement Model—which was used as a theoretical framework for understanding why procedural justice might enhance the well-being of people who have been incarcerated—social identity and psychological engagement variables should also be included in future research. Neither of these two variables was included in our study. We drew on the Model to posit that procedural justice might improve staff relationships because it promotes respondents’ identification with prison staff. Whether future research confirms this remains to be seen.

Second, the well-being dependent variable utilized was the WEMWBS, therefore limiting our findings to one conceptualization of well-being. Prior research examining the well-being of incarcerated individuals has drawn on a range of outcome variables, including, for example, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidality. To address this, future research could unpack whether the relationships tested in our study hold with a range of different mental health and well-being measures. Third, these data are only drawn from prisons in NSW. It is possible that the institutional management, policies, and culture of NSW prisons may limit the generalizability of these findings to other Australian states and territories or to prisons in other countries. Future research could test these relationships in other jurisdictions and abroad. Fourth, there is some potential for response bias given the self-report nature of the survey. Particular types of individuals may have chosen to participate in the survey, or those who did participate might have given more socially desirable responses. However, this is likely offset by our longitudinal analytic approach. Finally, our procedural justice staff relationships measures were highly correlated, suggesting they may tap into similar aspects of the treatment people in prison receive from staff. Although our factor analysis showed these two measures were conceptually distinct, we suggest future research could examine different measures of staff relationships, including, for example, (a) how strongly those in prison identify with staff, or (b) their level of comfort with staff.

The Importance of Procedural Justice

Our study advances prior literature on procedural justice in prisons by examining longitudinally the predictors of incarcerated individuals’ well-being and by developing a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between procedural justice and their well-being. Our study suggests that the relational and procedural justice aspects of prison life may be pivotal in shaping the well-being of those living in prison. Specifically, we find that procedural justice is important to building relationships between staff and those housed in prison, and that these relationships strengthen the well-being of those living in the prison. These findings align with the underlying tenets of the Group Engagement Model (Tyler & Blader, 2003). That is, procedural justice appears to foster the relational connections between authorities and those they govern. The relational connections forged by procedural justice may entail reducing the social distance between people in prison and prison staff, as well as enhancing identification and alignment with the values and norms of prison officers and the prison environment more broadly. We also found that “staff relationships” was a much stronger predictor of well-being than perceived prison safety and that it was the only significant mediator in the panel dataset. These findings remind us that prison safety must be coupled with dignified and respectful treatment (Liebling & Arnold, 2005). Rather than suggest that prison safety does not matter, we argue that prison safety should be balanced with a prison environment that shapes positive staff relationships. Balancing these considerations may be challenging when, for example, designing prison environments is constrained by budgets (see Gamman & Caulfield, 2023). We know from prior research that prison staff utilization of procedural justice can enhance cooperation and compliance from those in their charge (Baker et al., 2019; Barkworth & Murphy, 2021), and our study supports the added benefit that it also elevates the well-being of those living in prison (cf. Abderhalden & Alward, 2024; Beijersbergen et al., 2014; Slotboom et al., 2011). Prison regimes which aim to improve the well-being of individuals living in prisons should therefore de-emphasize their almost exclusive focus on control and punishment as the primary regulatory tool to manage behavior and instead place equal attention to relationship building between staff and people living in prison by encouraging staff to utilize the procedural justice principles of voice, neutrality, dignity, and respect, and trustworthy motives.

From a policy and practice standpoint, our findings highlight the importance of staff skills training in relational approaches for effective behavior management. Implementing such training will enable prison staff to focus on facilitating opportunities for more positive and respectful interactions with people in prison. It will also provide staff with additional opportunities to learn how to listen respectfully, be neutral, make decisions fairly, and give people living in prison the chance to voice concerns/grievances. Future research could assess the efficacy of procedural justice training in the correctional context—as has been done in the policing context (e.g., Telep et al., 2024). Research in policing has revealed that training police officers about the value of procedural justice can positively impact officers’ attitudes about those they police, and can change how they interact with those people (see Telep et al., 2024).

When implementing procedural justice training, it will be important to consider prison culture. The prison occupational culture literature suggests that prison officers, like police officers, can be highly cynical of people, which can result in an “us” versus “them” mentality toward those they govern (Poole & Regoli, 1980). This suggests that some prison officers may resist the value of procedural justice and the notion that those in their charge might identify socially with officers. While this resistance from staff cannot be ignored, given that we know that the well-being of those in prison is associated with reduced aggression and noncompliance, and that procedural justice may promote their well-being, it will be important to highlight that closer social relationships between staff and those in prison can also prove favorable to staff.

In addition to training prison officers in procedural justice approaches, recent research indicates that organizational justice supports authorities to adopt procedurally just approaches when interacting with clients or members of the public. Yesberg et al. (2025) found that when new prison officers were treated with procedural justice by their supervisors, they were more likely to have greater well-being themselves, and consequently, were more inclined to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. Future research could examine the way that internal procedural justice (i.e., organizational and supervisory procedural justice) impacts prison officers’ treatment of those in their charge.

Staff Relationships and Professional Boundaries

Our research suggests that procedural justice can promote positive relationships between those housed in prison and prison staff, which, in turn, can promote the well-being of those living in prison. In our study, we measured “staff relationships” with a rehabilitative focus (“staff support people in their care to make positive change”; cf. Islam et al., 2024). In any discussion of the relationship between people living in prison and prison staff, it is important to be aware of the nature of professional boundaries. A boundary can be defined as “the edge of appropriate professional conduct” (Gutheil, 2005, p. 89; Jones, 2015). Boundary violations are of considerable concern for correctional systems as they pose a risk to prison safety and integrity (Jones, 2015). Research has found, for example, that variations in correctional officers’ attitudes can provide insight into boundary violations. In their survey of correctional officers in the United States, Stevens et al. (2024, p. 1) found that correctional officers “with more liberal attitudes toward discretion correspond with higher odds of being approached by incarcerated people to violate boundaries” and that “women officers have higher odds of having incarcerated people try to initiate an inappropriate relationship.” Further research should unpack the boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate relationships between incarcerated people and prison officers. We would anticipate that interactions incorporating principles of procedural justice will provide the building blocks for positive and productive relationships that are focused on enhancing the well-being and rehabilitation of those living in prison.

Conclusion

Procedural justice has a history of application to the criminal justice system. Most existing research focuses on procedural justice in policing and courts (Sargeant et al., 2020), with research focused on the prison context being scarce by comparison. Our study sought to extend prison-based procedural justice research by better understanding why procedural justice is beneficial to the well-being of individuals who are incarcerated. We found that procedural justice is important to incarcerated individuals’ well-being because procedural justice can foster their positive relationships with staff. We also found that procedural justice promoted perceptions of prison safety, but prison safety perceptions did not predict their well-being over time. Our study suggests that the relational and procedural justice aspects of prison life may therefore be more pivotal in shaping the well-being of those housed in prisons over time.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

Authors Julie Barkworth and Mark Howard were employees of Corrective Services NSW at the time of completing the study. We would like to thank Corrective Services New South Wales (CSNSW) for their assistance with this research. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not those of CSNSW. Responsibility for any errors of omission or commission remains with the authors. CSNSW expressly disclaims any liability for any damage resulting from the use of the material contained in this publication and will not be responsible for any loss, howsoever arising, from use of or reliance on this material. This research was funded by Corrective Services NSW.

ORCID iD

Elise Sargeant

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are held by Corrective Services New South Wales and are subject to third-party restrictions.

Elise Sargeant is a senior lecturer in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and a member of the Griffith Criminology Institute. Her current research explores the relationship between criminal justice institutions and their clients. Her specializes in research on procedural justice and legitimacy from both the citizen and criminal justice perspectives.

Kristina Murphy is a professor of criminology at the Griffith Criminology Institute at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Her research integrates theories from psychology, criminology, and sociology to better understand why people trust authorities, and why they defy or comply with authorities and their rules/laws. She is widely recognized for her research on procedural justice, having undertaken work in this area in corrections, policing, extremism and counter-terrorism, and taxation regulation.

Julie Barkworth is a senior research analyst in Corrections Research Evaluation and Statistics at Corrective Services NSW, Australia. Dr Barkworth is an experienced corrections researcher, contributing to projects on procedural justice, prison social climate, and rehabilitative culture.

Mark V. A. Howard is a registered forensic psychologist and current manager of Research and Evaluation at the Corrections Research Evaluation and Statistics (CRES) unit of Corrective Services NSW, Australia. He has published more than 90 research articles and reports with interests in correctional climates, risk assessment, mechanisms of change in treatment, and program evaluation.

References

Abderhalden

Alward

(2024). Jailed individuals’ perceptions of procedural justice and suicidal ideation: An empirical examination. Crime & Delinquency, 70(2), 414–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221106942

Ajdukovic

(1990). Psychosocial climate in correctional institutions: Which attributes describe it? Environment and Behavior, 22(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916590223006

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Corrective services, Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/corrective-services-australia/latest-release

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). The health of people in Australia’s prisons 2022. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/prisoners/the-health-of-people-in-australias-prisons-2022/contents/summary

Baker

Abderhalden

Alward

Bedard

(2019). Exploring the association between procedural justice in jails and incarcerated people’s commitment to institutional rules. Corrections, 6(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1618224

Barkworth

(2018). Prisons, procedural justice and motivational posturing: Examining prisoners’ well-being and compliance behaviour [Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation]. Griffith University. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/ed971db6-0cf8-49df-ab78-84927d5a65b8/content

Barkworth

Murphy

(2021). Procedural justice, posturing and defiant action: Exploring prisoner reactions to prison authority. Justice Quarterly, 38(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666905

Beijersbergen

Dirkzwager

Eichelsheim

van der Laan

Nieuwbeerta

(2014). Procedural justice and prisoners’ mental health problems: A longitudinal study. Criminal Behavior & Mental Health, 24(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1881

Beijersbergen

Dirkzwager

Eichelsheim

van der Laan

Nieuwbeerta

(2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 196–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550710

10.

Beijersbergen

Dirkzwager

Nieuwbeerta

(2016). Reoffending after release: Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter? Criminal Justice & Behavior, 43(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609643

11.

Bradford

Murphy

Jackson

(2014). Officers as mirrors: Policing, procedural justice and the (re)production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 527–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu021

12.

CSNSW. (2024). Women offenders. https://correctiveservices.dcj.nsw.gov.au/reducing-re-offending/initiatives-to-support-offenders/specialist-support/women-offenders.html#:~:text=Female%20offenders%20are%20housed%20in,and%20Bolwara%20at%20Emu%20Plains

13.

Favril

van Ginneken

(2023). Individual and environmental contributors to psychological distress during imprisonment. European Journal of Criminology, 21(3), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708231201726

14.

Gamman

Caulfield

(2023). Made in prison: Understanding knowledge exchange, co-design and production of cell furniture with prisoners to reimagine prison industries for safety, well-being and sustainability. In Moran

Jewkes

Blount-Hill

St. John

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of prison design. Palgrave studies in prisons and penology. Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

Goncalves

Endrass

Rossegger

Dirkzwager

(2016). A longitudinal study of mental health symptoms in young prisoners: Exploring the influence of personal factors and the correctional climate. BMC Psychiatry, 16, Article e91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0803-z

16.

Gover

Mackenzie

Armstrong

(2000). Importation and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment to correctional facilities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X00444004

17.

Gutheil

(2005). Boundary issues and personality disorders. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 11(2), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/00131746-200503000-00003

18.

Islam

M. J.

Barkworth

Howard

(2024). Exploring perceptions of correctional climate among people in prison in New South Wales. NSW Government. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md-Jahirul-Islam/publication/395012825_Exploring_perceptions_of_correctional_climate_among_people_in_prison_in_New_South_Wales/links/68af89437984e374acebbbd2/Exploring-perceptions-of-correctional-climate-among-people-in-prison-in-New-South-Wales.pdf

19.

Jones

(2015). Recommendations for correctional leaders to reduce boundary violations: Female correctional employees and male inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(5), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.989301

20.

Kyprianides

Easterbrook

Brown

(2019). Group identities benefit well-being by satisfying needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, Article e103836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103836

21.

Liebling

(2007). Why prison staff culture matters. In Byrne

Hummer

(Eds.), The culture of prison violence (pp. 105–122). Allyn & Bacon.

22.

Liebling

Arnold

(2005). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality, and prison life. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(3), 284–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199271221.001.0001

23.

Liebling

Durie

Stiles

Tait

(2005). Revisiting prison suicide: The role of fairness and distress. In Liebling

Maruna

(Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 209–231). Willan.

24.

Maguire

Atkin-Plunk

Wells

(2021). The effects of procedural justice on cooperation and compliance among inmates in a work release program. Justice Quarterly, 38(6), 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1634753

25.

Meško

Hacin

(2019). Social distance between prisoners and prison staff. The Prison Journal, 99(6), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519877382

26.

Murphy

Bradford

Sargeant

Cherney

(2022). Building immigrants’ solidarity with police: Procedural justice, identity and immigrants’ willingness to cooperate with police. British Journal of Criminology, 62(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab052

27.

New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2025). NSW Custody Statistics Quarterly update December 2024. https://bocsar.nsw.gov.au/research-evaluations/2025/nsw-custody-statistics-quarterly-update-dec-2024.html

28.

Poole

Regoli

(1980). Examining the impact of professionalism on cynicism, role conflict, and work alienation among prison guards. Criminal Justice Review, 5(2), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168800050020

29.

Reisig

Meško

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802089768

30.

Sargeant

Barkworth

Madon

(2020). Procedural justice in the criminal justice system. In Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.635

31.

Schalast

Redies

Collins

Stacey

Howells

(2008). EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.677

32.

Slotboom

Kruttschnitt

Bijleveld

Menting

(2011). Psychological well-being of incarcerated women in the Netherlands: Importation or deprivation? Punishment & Society, 13(2), 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474510396313

33.

Stevens

Schultz

Patterson

(2024). Discretion as weakness: Exploring the relationship between correctional officers’ attitudes toward discretion and attempted boundary violations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 95, Article e102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102274

34.

Stranges

Samaraweera

Taggart

Kandala

Stewart-Brown

(2014). Major health-related behaviours and mental well-being in the general population: The Health Survey for England. BMJ Open, 4(9), Article e005878. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005878

35.

Taggart

Stewart-Brown

Parkinson

(2015). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS). User guide–version 2. NHS Health Scotland.

36.

Telep

Weisburd

Jonathan-Zamir

Zastrow

(2024). Examining the relationship between officer attitudes and behaviour in a multi-site trial of procedural justice training. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 18, Article paae031. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paae031

37.

Toch

(1975). Men in crisis: Human breakdowns in prison. Aldine.

38.

Tonkin

(2015). A review of questionnaire measures for assessing the social climate in prisons and forensic psychiatric hospitals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(12), 1376–1405. http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15578834

39.

Trammell

Cook

Marquez

Hinkle

Protze

Rodriguez

(2018). From procedural justice to procedural injustice: Understanding prison staff and inmate conflict. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 57(4), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12285

40.

Tyler

Blader

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_

41.

Van Ginneken

Nieuwbeerta

. (2020). Climate consensus: A multilevel study testing assumptions about prison climate. Journal of Criminal Justice, 69, 101693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101693

42.

Van Harreveld

Van der Pligt

Claassen

Van Dijk

. (2007). Inmate emotion coping and psychological and physical well-being: The use of crying over spilled milk. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806298468

43.

Wallace

Wang

(2020). Does in-prison physical and mental health impact recidivism? SSM Population Health, 11, Article e100569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100569

44.

Yesberg

Fenn

Sargeant

(2025). Going above and beyond: Procedural justice, mental wellbeing, and organizational citizenship among new prison officers. Corrections. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2025.2493692

Procedural Justice and Mental Well-Being in Prisons: The Mediating Roles of Staff Relationships and Prison Safety

Abstract

Keywords

Procedural Justice in Prisons

Why Might Procedural Justice Promote Well-Being?

Linking Staff Relationships and Prison Safety With Well-Being

The Current Study

Method

Study Context: NSW Correctional Facilities in Australia

Participants and Procedure

Measures

Analytic Strategy

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Parallel Mediation Analysis: Cross-Sectional Time 1 Data

Parallel Mediation Analysis: Longitudinal Data

Discussion

The Importance of Procedural Justice

Staff Relationships and Professional Boundaries

Conclusion

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References