Topic – Correctional Officers Risk Factors and Strategies for Safety and Wellness From the recommendations provided in the article , which one do you believe will be the

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

July 2017

Frank Valentino Ferdik Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of West Florida, Pensacola

Hayden P. Smith Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia

This paper was prepared with support from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, under contract number 2010F_10097 (CSR, Incorporated). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Justice.

NCJ 250484

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh St. N.W. Washington, DC 20531

Howard Spivak

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

This and other publications and products of the National Institute of Justice can be found at:

National Institute of Justice

Strengthen Science • Advance Justice

http://www.NIJ.gov

Office of Justice Programs

Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s mission is to advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.

Opinions or conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

Introduction

Correctional Officer Job Responsibilities Correctional officers (COs) play a pivotal role within the wider prison system as they are tasked with numerous responsibilities designed to ensure that their respective facilities are operating efficiently. As the front-line bureaucrats of the prison institution (Lipsky, 2010), COs are charged with supervising the activities of inmates, enforcing rules and regulations, affording offenders access to social services, and perhaps most importantly, maintaining order (Crawley, 2004; Kauffmann, 1989). They are also tasked with responding to administrative demands; searching cells for drugs, weapons, and other contraband; and intervening to resolve potentially violent disputes among inmates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). COs play such a fundamental role in the functioning of any prison system that Archambeault and Archambeault (1982) remarked that officers “represent the single most important resource available to any correctional agency” (p. 72).

Recent scholarship has suggested that COs work under dangerous conditions that can threaten their general safety and wellness. Following several legislative reforms that started in the 1970s and included “get tough on crime” policies such as mandatory minimum sentences and habitual offender laws (Mackenzie, 2001), correctional institutions experienced dramatic changes in the composition of the inmate population. Not only did the total number of incarcerated offenders skyrocket from roughly 300,000 to more than 1.5 million between 1975 and 2013, but the percentage of offenders imprisoned for violent crimes increased from about 40 percent in 1985 to more than 60 percent by 2013 (Walmsley, 2013). Although incarceration rates have declined in recent years, the modern-day CO is still required to interact with and supervise individuals in a dangerous environment (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014).

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 1

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Officers are further responsible for maintaining safety in a setting with significant numbers of gang members (Lombardo, 1989), offenders with mental illness (Kupers, 1999; Turner, 1975), drug addicts (Ross, 1981), and even terrorists (Crawley, 2004), all of whom pose elevated safety and health risks to COs. Further compounding these issues is that prisons have long been described as “total institutions,” defined as places “where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an … enclosed life” (Goffman, 1961, p. xiii). As a result, officers are required to interact with and supervise potentially dangerous offenders in relatively unsafe and secluded surroundings. Collectively, these observations have prompted correctional scholars and practitioners to characterize prisons as dangerous environments that carry increased risk of harm to the people working in them (Beck, Harrison, & Adams, 2007; Crawley, 2004; Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury, 2005).

Correctional Officer Health Outcomes The position of CO carries with it the intrinsic danger of physical injury and mental stress. In terms of the former, figures from Harrell (2011) revealed that between 2005 and 2009, the rate of sustained nonfatal workplace injuries per 1,000 COs was 33.0, which, among 26 different professions, ranked third only to police officers and security guards (77.8 and 65.0, respectively). Harrell (2011) further found that in 2011, COs experienced 544 work-related injuries or illnesses that required absences from work per 10,000 full-time officers — the third highest rate of nonfatal workplace injuries, again surpassed only by police officers and security guards. Additional reports from Brower (2013) and the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (2013) noted that between 1999 and 2008, a total of 113 U.S. COs lost their lives in the line of duty — a fatality rate of 2.7 per 100,000 full-time employees — the 22nd highest among 115 professions.

Concerning mental health, there is evidence that COs experience high levels of stress, burnout, and a variety of other mental health-related consequences as a result of their employment (Brower, 2013; Stack & Tsoudis, 1997). According to the Management and Training Corporation (2011), between 22 percent and 33 percent of COs report high stress levels. Other studies (Lambert et al., 2005; Ferdik, Smith, & Applegate, 2014a) found that more than 35 percent of officers in the sample recorded high stress levels. Together, the impact of negative physical and mental health outcomes for COs can have deleterious effects on the wider prison institution. Staff shortages and officer absences from work can create a cycle whereby low officer-to-inmate ratios and high turnover in officer staffing threaten the effective implementation of a correctional facility’s security mandates (Brower, 2013; Crawley, 2004; Ferdik, Smith, & Applegate, 2014a).

Literature Search Strategy As previously mentioned, the intent of this report is to offer a comprehensive synthesis of the literature so as to highlight any inherent limitations and offer recommendations for future research and policies designed to enhance the overall well-being of COs. Information from published and peer-reviewed journal articles, state and federal government reports, university and academic think- tank reports, and commercially published books was retrieved and summarized. Emphasis was placed on collecting research conducted since 2000 to account for current safety and wellness concerns

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 2

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

confronting COs, although some earlier research is referenced to provide a baseline understanding of the various issues related to CO safety and wellness. The search phrase “correctional officer” was cross-referenced with the words “safety,” “wellness,” “risk,” “stress,” “burnout,” “depression,” “danger,” “health,” “well­ being,” “injury,” and “fatality” in the following literature search engines: JSTOR, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EBSCOHost, Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE with full text, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Hein On-Line, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar.

This initial search led to the dual findings that (1) COs are exposed to unique workplace dangers that can jeopardize their general welfare and (2) exploring CO perceptions of workplace safety and risk is an important and emerging area of research. Using the same search engines, a specialized literary search of specific dangers to which COs are exposed as well as officer judgments of workplace safety and risk was conducted by cross-referencing the search phrase “correctional officer” with “gang,” “disruptive inmate,” “riot,” “mentally ill inmate,” “contraband,” “disease,” “risk perception,” and “safety perception.” Each resulting citation was reviewed by both authors to determine its eligibility for the literature synthesis. Reference pages of all obtained reports were scanned to exhaust all pertinent literature related to the topic of CO safety and wellness.

Several themes emerged that form the basis of discussion for this synthesis. These themes include the dangers and risks confronting COs, CO perceptions of workplace safety and wellness as well as the consequences of their exposure to risk, the policies designed to enhance officer well­ being, and finally considerations for future

research. This report will conclude with a discussion of how the safety and wellness issues of law enforcement personnel compare with those of COs and an overview of the salient findings from this literature synthesis and how they can be used to inform decisions regarding CO well-being.

Dangers and Risks Confronting Correctional Officers Before proceeding to a discussion of the unique workplace dangers and risks that COs face, it is important to note conceptual differences between these terms. Reichman (1986) distinguished risks from dangers in the following manner: “The concept of risk should not be confused with that of danger; dangers are the causes of risk” (p. 151). Reichman added that risks entail the “uncertainty of loss, or the probability that loss will occur,” and that “dangers are those conditions which contribute to the probability of loss” (p. 152). This is a key distinction as this report identifies the risks confronting COs and the dangers that contribute to them.

COs are exposed to a number of safety and wellness-related risks. Most notable are the risks of death or physical injury, but of equal concern are mental health-related risks such as stress and burnout (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Lambert et al., 2005). These risks can accumulate and place significant pressure on a correctional administration, particularly when a fatigued staff and high turnover rates limit the degree to which officers can effectively engage in the surveillance of inmates. Expanding on Brower’s (2013) typology, the categories of dangers contributing to officer safety and wellness-related risks can be broadly described as work-related, institution- related, and psycho-social. Using this tripartite schema, this report examines

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 3

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

the most salient workplace dangers that threaten CO safety and well-being and their consequences. Exhibit 1 summarizes the identified dangers under their respective categories and the multiple mental and physical health-related risks connected to each danger as identified in extant literature.

Work-Related Dangers Work-related dangers are directly connected to officer safety and well-being. Under the work-related category are the dangers of infectious and communicable diseases (Macalino et al., 2004); the presence of prison gangs, disruptive inmates, and contraband (Bouchard & Winnicki, 2000; Fleisher & Decker, 2001; Garcia, 2008); working alongside inmates with mental illness (Adams & Ferrandino, 2008); and riots (Carrabine, 2005). Each of these dangers presents an elevated risk of

harm to COs in terms of both physical and mental health issues. These dangers are examined in greater detail below.

Inmates with Infectious Diseases

There is ample evidence that inmates disproportionately suffer from infectious and communicable diseases (e.g., Hepatitis B and C; Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV; and tuberculosis) (Alaird & Marquart, 2009; Bick, 2007). For example, Ruiz and colleagues (2002) found that in 2000, of the 5,730 inmates from a random sample of California prisons who received intake physical examinations during a two- month period, 1.4 percent tested positive for HIV, 3.5 percent tested positive for Hepatitis B, 33 percent tested positive for Hepatitis C, and 7 percent tested positive for tuberculosis. According to a report from the World Health Organization (2013), these estimates far surpass those for the general population. Moreover, Alaird and

Exhibit 1: Summary of Dangers and Risks Confronting Correctional Officers

Work-Related Dangers

Institution-Related Dangers

Psycho-Social Dangers

Mental Health Risks

Physical Health Risks

Inmates with Infectious Diseases

Prison Gangs

Disruptive Inmate Behavior

Contraband Presence

Inmates with Mental Illnesses

Riots

Role ambiguity/role conflict

Demanding work obligations

Poor leadership/trust/ support

No input into decision-making

Inadequate resources

Inadequate employment benefits

Extended hours

Co-worker conflict

Understaffing

Work/family conflict

Media/political scrutiny

Stress

Burnout

Injuries

Death

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 4

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Marquart (2009) noted that, as of 2008, 1.7 percent of the total U.S. custody population was infected with HIV and that between 12 percent and 35 percent had either Hepatitis B or C. Similarly, a 2006 report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the rate of confirmed Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) cases was between three and five times higher for prisoners than for the general population, with 0.55 percent of inmates and 0.10 percent of the general public having contracted the disease. This represents a serious challenge to daily operations for COs.

COs are susceptible to the risk of contracting potentially fatal diseases on account of occupational mandates that require them to routinely perform pat-down and cell searches, intervene in offender altercations, and respond to medical emergencies, accidents, and other “situations where they may encounter sharp objects, blood, and bodily fluids” (Alaird & Marquart, 2009, p. 441). High- risk behaviors engaged in by inmates, such as unprotected sex, intravenous drug use, and tattooing, make officers particularly vulnerable to risk. Although there are little empirical data on the rates at which COs contract any of the above-noted illnesses, practitioners and scholars consider infectious and communicable diseases among inmates to be a significant threat to the health and safety of COs.

Prison Gangs

Across correctional institutions, officers must interact with noncompliant and potentially violent inmates on a one-to-one basis to ensure adherence to institutional regulations. When inmates merge into groups, such as prison gangs, the threat to security can become even more severe. Fleisher and Decker (2001) opined that “prison gangs are a … prison manager’s biggest nightmare” (p. 2). A report from the FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center

(2011) further stressed that gangs are increasing in number across correctional facilities (particularly those found in the southeastern U.S.), and that gang affiliates are escalating in their level of violence and criminal sophistication.

Lyman (1989) defined a prison gang as “a violent organization that operates within the prison system as a self-perpetuating criminally oriented entity, consisting of a select group of inmates who have established an organized chain of command and are governed by a code of conduct” (p. 48). Prison gangs share many similarities with their counterparts on the outside, as one person is usually designated as a leader, and that person oversees the other members and their criminal operations. Gangs have been described as violent, secretive, and abiding by a creed, motto, or constitution that dictates member behavior, and further as organizations that adopt unique symbols to define membership status (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). Several major gangs have been identified as being most problematic or influential in the prison system, including the Mexican Mafia (La Eme), the Aryan Brotherhood, Black Panther groups (e.g., the Black Liberation Army), the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weatherman Underground Organization, the La Nuestra Family, and the Texas Syndicate (Skarbek, 2014). These groups are motivated by a desire to earn money and exploit often- overcrowded and understaffed prisons, thereby further threatening the safety of COs (Fleisher & Decker, 2001).

Disruptive Inmate Behavior

Disruptive inmate behavior is viewed as violent conduct against staff or other inmates (Rocheleau, 2014). Examples of this type of behavior include, but are not limited to, successful or attempted physical and sexual assault, murder, suicide, and even rape (Byrne, Hummer, & Taxman, 2008). Disruptive inmate behavior has been

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 5

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

shown to increase the rate of CO turnover (Patenaude, 2001), the rate of injury and death sustained by COs (Crawley, 2004), and the prevalence of self-destructive behavior, such as officers resorting to drugs and alcohol as coping mechanisms (Crawley, 2004).

Although Byrne and colleagues (2008) noticed a decline in the national rate of inmate-on-inmate fatalities from 3.2 to 2.4 per every 1,000 offenders between 1995 and 2000, they noted that these rates of violent death remained a major concern for correctional institutions. Between 1995 and 2000, these researchers noted an increase from 27.0 to 28.0 in the national rate of inmate-on-inmate assault per every 1,000 incarcerated offenders. Rates of inmate assault against COs also increased during this period, from 14.1 to 15.6 per every 1,000 officers (Byrne, Hummer, & Taxman, 2008). More recent figures from Wolff and colleagues (2007) showed that across a nationally representative sample of U.S. prisons, the rate of inmate-on­ inmate assault ranged from 129 to 346 per 1,000 offenders, and inmate-on-officer assault ranged from 83 to 321 per 1,000 COs. Variability in these rates was largely attributed to variance in institutional characteristics (i.e., some prisons housed more violent offenders than others) and to differences in reporting systems across correctional facilities.

Prison sexual assault has been a topic of considerable importance for correctional administrators and researchers over the past few decades. In their study of a maximum-security prison in the southern U.S., Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury (2005) found that 18 percent of inmates reported inmate-on-inmate sexual threats and 8.5 percent reported that they had been sexually assaulted by another inmate while incarcerated. Moreover, Beck and colleagues (2007) documented 3.75 alleged inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults per every 1,000 inmates in state-run prisons. Younger

inmates and offenders serving longer sentences initiated the majority of these assaults (Beck, Harrison, & Adams, 2007).

The role of place is also important to inmate behavior, suggesting that there are important differences both between and within prisons. Garcia (2008) noted that maximum-security facilities and facilities populated by a higher percentage of younger offenders are more likely to report higher rates of disruptive inmate behavior. Hensley and colleagues (2005) echoed some of these findings by revealing that maximum-security facilities are statistically more likely to report higher levels of inmate sexual assault than are lower security agencies. Since COs are responsible for controlling any type of disruptive inmate behavior and for ensuring that all individuals within the prison are protected, they become more susceptible to the violence in these facilities, thus elevating their risk for physical and mental harm. They must also intervene in incidents that involve disruptive inmate behavior, noncompliance, physical and sexual violence, and aggression. Combined, these issues further compromise the safety and wellness of COs and increase their risk of victimization.

Contraband Presence

Although prison administrators attempt to remove or reduce the presence of contraband, a system of illicit contraband circulation has developed in many institutional facilities, which has led to increased concern among correctional practitioners about the potential for harm associated with this illegal enterprise. Contraband can include weapons, fermented alcoholic beverages, drugs, narcotics, restricted medications, and state- owned equipment, tools, and other supplies (Burke & Owen, 2010). Cellular telephones, a more modern form of contraband in U.S. prisons, have also raised safety concerns for correctional officers and practitioners

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 6

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

(Fitzgerald, 2010). In recent years, inmates have even coordinated the use of drones to import contraband into prisons (Fitzgerald, 2010). Somewhat surprisingly, especially considering the potential for harm associated with contraband, some COs have been found to import contraband items into the prison in the form of cigarettes, drugs, and weapons ( Jurik, 1985; Tracy, 2004). According to nationally representative data from 101 U.S. prisons, contraband distribution was connected with more than 200 inmate injuries and 30 CO injuries (Biermann, 2007), further reinforcing the point that contraband circulation represents a considerable health risk to COs.

Inmates With Mental Illnesses

A notable rise in the incarceration rate of people with mental illnesses has been observed across the U.S. over the past several decades. As early as 1972, Abramson coined the phrase “criminalization of the mentally ill” (p. 101) to describe the growing number of individuals with mental illnesses serving time in custody. McLearen and Ryba (2003) attributed much of that increase to the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1970s, which saw large numbers of patients released from psychiatric facilities. Upon their release back into the community, many former patients found themselves under the control of the criminal justice system. These authors commented that this occurred because individuals afflicted with mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia often suffer an inability to restrain their behaviors and practice self-control. Sometimes, they unknowingly perpetrate acts such as assaults that are classified as legal transgressions, thereby landing them under criminal justice system supervision. Combined with widespread closures of mental health institutions and inadequate services to address the needs of this particular population, this has contributed to a drastic explosion of the

number of individuals with mental illness under custodial control (McLearen & Ryba, 2003; Robertson, 2013). Significant growth in the population of inmates with mental illness made the Los Angeles County Jail (15,000/23,000), New York Rikers Island (5,500/10,000), and Cook County Jail in Chicago (5,000/10,000) the “three largest psychiatric institutions in the country” in 2007 (Adams & Ferrandino, 2008, p. 913). Parenthetical figures reflect the average daily number of diagnosed mentally ill inmates per the average total daily inmate population of all three jail facilities. James and Glaze (2006) further noted that in 2005, 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent of those in jail reported symptoms of at least one mental health problem.

COs are often ill prepared to address the complex symptomology presented by inmates with mental illness. These vulnerable inmates require expensive medical services such as therapy, detoxification, and medication. They are more likely than other inmates to have histories of drug and alcohol dependency and to suffer from a chronic physical health condition. Research has found that inmates suffering from mental illnesses are more susceptible to physical and sexual assault (Robertson, 2013), present a greater physical threat to themselves and others (McLearen & Ryba, 2003), and are more likely to recidivate than inmates who do not experience mental illness (Robertson, 2013).

Prison administrators and staff are severely limited in their ability to meet the needs of these inmates because of budgetary constraints and insufficient resources (McLearen & Ryba, 2003). COs will typically assist inmates with mental illness when possible; however, officers rarely receive specific training in this area. These inmates may be considered a challenge to the safety and wellness of officers because of the multiplicity and complexity of their needs.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 7

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Riots

A prison riot is the most serious threat to the safety and well-being of COs. Fortunately, they are relatively rare occurrences. From 1774 to 1990, the United States witnessed 300 prison riots, 90 percent of which took place during the mid-to­ late 20th century (Martin & Zimmerman, 1990). Two of the most notorious examples of inmate rioting in the United States are the 1971 Attica (New York) and 1980 New Mexico prison riots (Carrabine, 2005). Together, those riots resulted in more than 100 officer and inmate casualties, numerous reported physical injuries, and a complete breakdown of state control. The riots also resulted in more than $30 million in structural damage to the prisons themselves (Carrabine, 2005).

Adams (1992) described a prison riot as “part of a continuum of practices … that involves dissenting and/or protesting activities by individuals or groups of prisoners that interrupt their imprisonment by means of which they take over all or part of the prison resources and either express one or more grievances or a demand for change, or both” (pp. 13-14). Post-hoc analyses of prison riots typically find similar causes, such as retaliation against inhumane conditions, prison overcrowding, economic factors, racial tensions, the disproportionate presence of young, violent offenders, and poor building design (Carrabine, 2005). Although prison riots are rare, they can quickly become highly consequential and produce numerous physical and mental health concerns for COs.

Institution-Related Dangers Institution-related dangers pose greater mental health-related risks than physical risks. Many of the institution-related dangers discussed here have been linked to increases in officer stress and burnout,

with the former conceptualized as “a particular relationship between a person and an environment that is appraised by the individual as taxing … and … endangering his/her well-being” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19). Job burnout has been defined as a “gradual loss of caring or emotional exhaustion about a job, co-workers, or clients” (Thompson & Prottas, 2006, p. 100). Included in the list of institution-related dangers are role conflict and role ambiguity (Lambert et al., 2005); demanding workloads, a lack of administrative leadership and officer input into institutional decision-making, and inadequate benefits and resources (Brower, 2013; Finney et al., 2013); prolonged work hours, understaffing, and poor recruitment, selection, and training of officers (Hessl, 2001; Lambert, Hogan, & Allen, 2006); and finally co-worker conflict (Morgan, 2009; Morse et al., 2011; Swenson, 2008).

Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity

Lambert and colleagues (2005) defined role stress as “the degree of incongruity of expectations associated with the role of the employee and the results from work roles” (p. 35). Two variations of CO stress analyzed in this report are role conflict and role ambiguity. Lambert and colleagues (2005) explain role conflict as a situation in which “compliance with one set of pressures makes compliance with another set difficult” and define role ambiguity as “uncertainty or a lack of information in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of a given position&#x

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.