National Institute of Justice - Correctional Officer Safety and

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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” (p. 35). For several decades,

prisons across the United States have

shifted among correctional philosophies,

including treatment/rehabilitation,

retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation

(Lambert et al., 2005).

Fluctuations in punishment ideologies

have been shown to negatively impact COs,

as they are frequently left questioning

their occupational role. Literature has

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

shown that role conflict and ambiguity

significantly impact several outcomes.

Lambert and colleagues (2013) found that

higher levels of role conflict significantly

and negatively affect correctional staff job

commitment, which, in turn, increases

officer stress. Occupational and general

stress measures were significantly increased

by higher levels of both role conflict and

ambiguity in Castle and Martin’s (2006)

study. Researchers have linked heightened

stress as a result of role conflict and

ambiguity to increased officer turnover

(Leip & Stinchcomb, 2013; Matz et al., 2013;

Minor et al., 2010). Magnified officer stress

levels as well as elevated rates of turnover,

in turn, can jeopardize the security of

correctional facilities by resulting in higher

inmate-to-officer ratios and a reduced

sense of safety for COs (Leip & Stinchcomb,

2013).

Other Occupational Dangers

A National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study

(Finn and Kuck, 2005) reported that high

caseloads, combined with demanding

paperwork and deadlines, constituted

the greatest institution-related dangers

affecting CO stress levels. Scholars have

found that demanding shift work, extended

work hours, poor pay and benefits, elevated

perceptions of workplace danger and risk,

and insufficient staffing and resources

each contributed to increased stress levels

(Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Garcia, 2008;

Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lambert,

Hogan, & Barton, 2002; Morgan, 2009;

Morse et al., 2011; Swenson, 2008). Many

officers are asked to perform additional

tasks with limited resources, mostly because

of widespread budget constraints that

have financially handcuffed correctional

administrative officials. As reported

by Summerlin and colleagues (2010)

and Brower (2013), hiring freezes and

terminations have forced many COs to

work with outdated equipment and limited

training.

These problems have subsequently

contributed to higher officer stress and

burnout levels as well as low morale.

According to Brower (2013), budgetary

problems can also lead to strained

relationships between COs and correctional

administrators. Adding to these issues,

Paoline and colleagues (2006) found

that officers who perceived American

Correctional Association (ACA) directives

as confusing, and those who believed

that inmates were afforded more social

services than COs, were significantly more

likely to report higher levels of job-related

stress. COs’ negative perceptions about

managerial decision-making practices can

create friction between both sides and

contribute to higher levels of CO stress

and burnout (Finney et al., 2013; Lambert,

Hogan, & Allen, 2006). Lambert and

colleagues (2012) found that officer stress

and burnout could be predicted by their

distrust of the prison administration.

Other institution-related dangers include

a lack of administrative leadership and

an absence of officer input into decision-

making (Lambert, Cluse-Tolar, & Hogan,

2007; Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006a, 2006b).

Brower (2013) explained that mistrust

can have deleterious effects on the wider

prison system, as officers may become more

disengaged from their jobs, which can,

in turn, increase inmate violence levels

as well as the general level of danger in a

facility. If administrative officials desire to

maintain harmony with correctional staff,

it is imperative, according to Brower (2013),

that they forge trusting and long-lasting

partnerships with their subordinates.

One final institution-related danger that

can contribute to CO stress involves the

relationships they forge with co-workers.

Paoline and colleagues (2006) found that

positive relationships with co-workers

significantly reduced officer stress and

improved officer evaluations of job

satisfaction. Dowden and Tellier’s (2004)

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

meta-analysis of CO stress found that

strained co-worker relations predict

increased stress, and their aggregated

findings support many of the results

reported in this section.

Psycho-Social Dangers

Psycho-social dangers are issues and

challenges that COs encounter as they

move between work and community

surroundings, including their home

environments. These dangers include

work-family conflict, public misperceptions,

and political scrutiny from individuals

possessing limited knowledge of the daily

challenges faced by officers.

Work-Family Conflict

The most pressing issue related to work-

family conflict for COs is the fact they must

balance what is termed “dual role conflict”

(Brower, 2013, p. 13). In their professional

lives, COs are surrounded by and required

to supervise potentially violent individuals

as well as people with special needs (e.g.,

mental and physical health care and drug

rehabilitation). Few other professionals

work under such demanding conditions.

Officers’ daily tasks include using unique

communication strategies designed to

reinforce behavioral boundaries and

compliance when interacting with inmates.

The communication style required by the

prison environment may be described as

assertive, direct, and unemotional. However,

this communication style may have no effect

or a negative effect on family members at

home. What works for communicating in

prison may not work at home.

When COs experience dissonance between

work and family environments, their

level of well-being decreases dramatically

(Brower, 2013). This can manifest in

the form of “chronic fatigue, cynicism,

pessimism, sarcasm, flattened drama/stress

response and exposure to trauma and other

disturbing behaviors” (Brower, 2013, p. 8).

Finn (1998) suggested that this pattern can

be cyclical, as at-risk COs may direct their

frustrations at family members who, in

turn, redirect more frustration toward the

CO. Obidoa and colleagues (2011) add that

work-family conflict can also manifest as

depressive symptoms.

Of course, the challenge for COs is to

balance family demands with the stressors

of working in a correctional facility.

This requires adaptation to two often

incompatible milieus — the prison context

versus the family. One of COs’ most

common reactions to this incompatibility is

to become withdrawn and isolated (Brower,

2013). COs may experience difficulties in

discussing daily work events with spouses

and loved ones (Crawley, 2004). Devoid of

outlets for expressing their work-related

frustrations and concerns, COs may

experience elevated levels of emotional

stress and burnout (Brower, 2013; Crawley,

2004). These issues can contribute to days

missed from work, job-related apathy,

and increased security risks in their work

environments (Crawley, 2004; Lambert et

al., 2005).

Public Misperceptions and Political

Scrutiny

Apart from an inability to discuss work

experiences with loved ones, COs are

also often reluctant to discuss their

work with the general public because of

misconceptions about their profession.

The misconceptions are often rooted in

the frequently negative characterizations

of COs by the news media (Crawley, 2004;

Moon & Maxwell, 2004), which often

involve negative events such as inmate

escapes, inappropriate staff-inmate

relationships, and violations of inmate

rights. The portrayals of COs in other

forms of media, such as movies and music,

can be even more damaging. COs are

often depicted as brutal, cruel, racist, and

educationally deficient. Moreover, because

the general public has very little experience

with corrections and correctional

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

employees, they are apt to believe these

stereotypes (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000).

These misguided characterizations of COs

can influence political figures who are

responsible to the public and its concerns. If

the public typecasts COs in a stereotypically

negative way, the same political figures

who are responsible for ensuring that

officers conduct themselves appropriately

may express little to no support for those

officers (Brower, 2013). Absent public or

political support, COs may experience a

lack of respect and appreciation for their

important work, resulting in higher stress

levels, isolation, and reduced self-esteem

(Brower, 2013). The isolated nature of

prisons and jails may exacerbate this

negative state of affairs by reinforcing the

stereotypes and further amplifying mental

health-related consequences for COs.

Correctional Officers’

Perceptions of Workplace

Safety and Wellness

Given the harms to which COs are exposed,

it is surprising that little research has

been conducted on their perceptions of

workplace safety and wellness. Scholars have

discovered that employee perceptions of

the work environment can fundamentally

shape outcomes such as job performance,

co-worker and supervisor treatment, and

the intention to voluntarily resign (Ferdik,

Smith, & Applegate, 2014a; Konovsky &

Pugh, 1994; Schein, 1990). Since COs play

such a crucial role in establishing and

maintaining order in their institutions, it

is vital to understand how they perceive

safety. A literature search produced eight

studies on this topic. A detailed discussion

of each study is provided below, with the

accompanying table in the appendix

providing a comprehensive breakdown of

each study’s methodology and findings.

COs were surveyed on a variety of safety-

related issues, including their general

perceptions of danger (Garcia, 2008), the

risk of contracting an infectious disease

(Alaird & Marquart, 2009; Dillon &

Allwright, 2005; Hartley et al., 2012), their

risk of injury from specific prison-based

dangers (Ferdik, 2014), and their fear and

risk of victimization by both inmates and

co-workers (Gordon, Moriarty, & Grant,

2003; Gordon, Proulx, & Grant, 2013;

Lai, Wang, & Kellar, 2012). The officers

surveyed worked in a variety of correctional

institutions, including juvenile detention

facilities and minimum-, medium-, and

maximum-security adult prisons. In the

studies that surveyed officers’ perceptions

of their risk of contracting an infectious

disease, respondents perceived those risks

as moderate to high. Specifically, Alaird

and Marquart (2009) reported that 54

percent of respondents believed that they

were at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, and

Dillon and Allwright (2005) found that an

overwhelming 92.2 percent to 95.2 percent

of their sample believed that they were

at risk of contracting either Hepatitis B

or C, or HIV/AIDS. Another study found

that a majority of COs judged their entire

work environment to be dangerous, with

many officers reporting that they felt

physically threatened by both inmates and

co-workers (Hartley et al., 2012). Hartley

and colleagues (2012) also found that more

than half of their respondents perceived an

elevated risk of contracting an infectious

disease while on the job. Several statistically

significant covariates of officer risk

perceptions surfaced among the studies,

including findings that greater knowledge

levels about HIV/AIDS and additional years

of formal education reduced perceived

risk (Alarid & Marquart, 2009), and older

and male officers perceived statistically

significant increased levels of risk as

compared to their counterparts (Dillon &

Allwright, 2005).

Other studies examined COs’ perceptions

of either fear or risk of victimization by

inmates and co-workers, but found lower

levels of perceived risk when compared

to the aforementioned investigations. For

example, Gordon and colleagues (2003)

and Lai and colleagues (2012) found that

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

less than half of the officers sampled

feared victimization by either inmates

or co-workers. Furthermore, only a few

officers in Gordon and colleagues’ (2003)

study perceived a risk of such victimization.

Authors of both studies attributed these

comparatively lower rates of perceived

risk and fear to the types of inmates that

officers were responsible for supervising.

For example, whereas officers in Alaird

and Marquart’s (2009) and Dillon and

Allwright’s (2005) examinations were

employed in higher-security facilities, COs

in the latter studies worked in juvenile

detention and minimum-security, adult

prisons. Those officers worked among

inmates who posed reduced health and

safety threats as opposed to officers

employed in higher-security facilities

populated by more dangerous offenders.

Even considering this point, however,

Gordon and colleagues (2003) and Lai and

colleagues (2012) argued that despite being

employed in lower-security facilities, officers

were still cognizant of the fact that health

risks were a part of their job.

In Gordon and colleagues’ (2013)

investigation, for which COs employed

across predominantly medium- and

maximum-security facilities were surveyed,

between 57 and 73 percent of respondents

expressed moderate to high degrees of

risk of victimization by inmates. Gordon

and colleagues (2003, 2013) and Lai and

colleagues (2012) found that statistically

significant predictors of officers’ risk

perceptions held across gender, race,

and education levels. Women perceived

additional risk, as did non-white COs and

those with more formal education.

Two final studies examined COs’

perceptions of job-related danger and risk

(Garcia, 2008; Ferdik, 2014). Garcia (2008)

used multi-level modeling techniques

and secondary data from the Prison

Social Climate Survey to assess federal

COs’ perceived levels of danger using an

inventory measure of this outcome. Roughly

half of all officers across Garcia’s sample

expressed some perceived job-related

danger. Statistically significant predictors

of this outcome, at both the individual and

institutional levels, included race, gender,

and security level, with non-white, female,

and officers employed in higher-security

facilities perceiving greater danger levels

than their counterparts.

Ferdik (2014) asked a statewide population

of COs in maximum-security facilities to

rate their risk of injury from six specific

workplace dangers, which included the

presence of gangs and contraband. Not only

did a majority of the sample perceive a high

degree of injury risk from each danger, but

additional years of job-related employment

positively predicted officers’ perceived risk

of injury.

Assessments of COs and their general

perceptions of workplace safety and

risk carry a number of important

considerations. When COs perceive high

levels of any type of risk in their work

environments, this perception can adversely

influence their job performance and

even contribute to high levels of turnover

and a poorly managed prison facility

(Ferdik, Smith, & Applegate, 2014a). COs’

heightened risk perceptions can also

elevate their stress and job dissatisfaction

levels (Garcia, 2008), which may, in turn,

engender hostile interactions between

officers and offenders, thereby leading to

mismanagement of the inmate population

(Gordon, Moriarty, & Grant, 2003; Gordon,

Proulx, & Grant, 2013). Since COs play

perhaps the most important role in

successful prison management, gathering

insight into their levels of perceived

workplace risk can aid interested audiences

in better understanding the specific threats

to officer safety and wellness which, in turn,

can lead to policies and programs directly

related to enhancing the overall well-being

of COs.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Consequences of Risks to

Correctional Officer Safety and

Wellness

Numerous consequences have been

linked to the safety and wellness risks

confronting COs. For example, contentious

relationships between officers and their

co-workers and supervisors as a result

of increased stress levels were revealed

in various studies (Finney et al., 2013;

Lambert, 2004). This, in turn, led to

many COs reporting decreased work

performance and even being distracted

while on the job (Brower, 2013; Finn, 2000).

Griffin and colleagues (2009) found that

higher levels of stress were significant

predictors of three variations of officer

burnout: depersonalization, emotional

exhaustion, and job ineffectiveness.

Lambert and colleagues (2002) and Hogan

and colleagues (2006) found that stress

adversely and significantly impacted the

level of commitment of officers to their

work. In a rare study that evaluated the

influence of stress levels on perceived

danger, Garcia (2008) found that higher

individual and institutional stress levels

significantly increased perceptions of

danger in a sample of federal COs.

Many studies have found safety and wellness

risks within the correctional environment to

significantly influence officers’ desire to use

administrative sick leave (Lambert et al.,

2005; Lambert, Hogan, & Altheimer, 2010),

as well as their desire to resign (Ferdik,

Smith, & Applegate, 2014b; Patenaude,

2001; Udochukwu et al., 2007). The

Management and Training Corporation

(2011) estimated that between 2000 and

2008, 16.2 percent of all American COs

resigned from their posts after only three

years on the job. More troubling figures

were reported in individual corrections

departments, most notably those of

Vermont and South Carolina, where each

respectively reported that 35 percent of

their COs voluntarily resigned in 2009

alone (South Carolina Department of

Corrections (SCDC), 2013; Vermont

Department of Corrections (VDC), 2013).

Fiscal problems have been recorded by

various correctional administrative officials

as a result of losing so many officers, with

the SCDC operating at a $45.5 million

deficit in 2009. Budget constraints

subsequently forced remaining officers to

work with inoperable weapons, radios, and

other necessary equipment (SCDC, 2013).

Deprived of the most essential resources

with which to successfully perform their

jobs, COs often find that their health

and safety come under additional threat.

Elevated rates of officer turnover and

absenteeism can lead to higher inmate-

to-officer ratios and greater numbers of

inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff

assault (Lambert, 2004; Steiner, 2008).

Researchers have also found that COs

experience disproportionately higher

rates of physical health problems such as

chronic neck, back, and knee injuries,

heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol,

and hypertension, as compared with other

professionals such as crisis counselors,

teachers, and law enforcement personnel

(Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Morgan, 2009).

Much of this can be attributed to the

demanding nature of this line of work,

including prolonged work hours, irregular

sleep patterns due to constantly changing

shift assignments, and being tasked with

extra duties that extend beyond their

traditional responsibilities (Brower,

2013). Previously referenced dangers such

as role conflict and ambiguity, public

misconceptions about the CO’s job, and

work-family conflict also exacerbate

physical health problems for COs (Morgan,

2009; Swenson, 2008). Even life expectancy

rates are lower for officers. One seminal

study (Cheek, 1984) noted that the average

lifespan of individuals in this line of work

was 59 years, some 16 years below the

national average of 75. A more recent

study by the New Jersey Police Suicide Task

Force (2009) also found an average 59-year

lifespan among COs.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Crawley (2004) and Swenson (2008)

expanded on the above findings, noting

that the physical demands of this profession

can disrupt officers’ biological clocks and

sleeping patterns; impair their cognitive,

emotional, and motor functions; and

compromise their eating habits. These

problems can manifest as multiple

psychological and emotional disorders.

For example, Morse and colleagues (2011)

found that 31 percent of COs reported

serious psychological distress, twice the

rate of the general public. Spinaris and

colleagues (2012) found in a study of more

than 3,000 corrections professionals that

27 percent of officers reported symptoms

of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),

which surpassed rates of PTSD experienced

by combat veterans, who reported just

14 percent. PTSD symptoms among COs

have been further linked to memory

impairment, depression, obesity, and a

higher prevalence of substance abuse

(Spinaris, Denhof, & Kellaway, 2012).

Intensive interviews with COs conducted

by Crawley (2004) revealed that high levels

of stress led more than half of interviewees

to resort to self-destructive behaviors

such as alcohol and drug consumption to

cope with their jobs. The effects spilled

over to families, as many officers brought

work-related problems home. This led

to increased levels of tension between

domestic partners and, in some cases,

officer suicide. Stack and Tsoudis (1997)

found the suicide rate for COs to be 39

percent higher than that of the general

working-age population. This finding was

supported by research by the New Jersey

Police Suicide Task Force (2009), which

found the rate of suicide for COs to be

double that of police officers and the

general population.

Health and safety concerns, as

demonstrated by the empirical literature

referenced thus far, appear to be attendant

consequences of employment as a CO.

Officers are tasked with demanding and

often conflicting work responsibilities that

increase their risk for physical and mental

health problems such as injuries, stress, and

even death. Officers must interact with and

supervise potentially dangerous individuals

such as gang members, inmates with mental

illness, and those with communicable

diseases, which further complicates officers’

health issues. According to the research

cited above, officers, regardless of security

assignment, recognize the danger to

which they are subject as a result of their

profession. Many scholars conclude that

employment as a CO is among the most

dangerous and life threatening of all

professions, including law enforcement.

Given how COs are heavily relied upon

to supervise inmate behavior, establish

order in their facilities, and maintain wider

institutional security, it is paramount that

correctional practitioners, researchers,

administrative officials, and other

interested stakeholders begin developing

more effective and widely used strategies

for enhancing the general well-being of this

critically important workforce.

Fortunately, changes have begun. Policies

that include employee assistance and peer-

support programs have been implemented

across some prison systems. Despite the well-

intentioned purposes of these programs, few

have come under scientific scrutiny, meaning

little evidence attesting to their effectiveness

exists. These programs are few and far

between, implemented in only a few prisons.

Although for several years researchers have

extensively documented the numerous

dangers and health risks associated with

CO employment, relatively little is known

about how to best address these problems.

Moreover, with the exception of a handful

of studies, little is also known about how

COs judge the dangerousness of their jobs

and the steps they take to protect themselves

from workplace dangers and risks.

The next section of this report describes

the policies and programs designed to

assist officers from a wellness standpoint,

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

the empirical literature (or lack thereof)

related to their effectiveness, and an

argument for why more research on CO

safety and wellness is needed. Although

much is known about why and how the

CO’s job is dangerous, we still do not have

a foundational understanding of what

can be done to enhance their safety — a

critical area of research, given the essential

role officers play in the functioning of any

prison system.

Correctional Officer Wellness

Policies and Considerations

for Future Research

Policies That Support Correctional

Officer Safety and Wellness

Because COs are exposed to many

occupational dangers, correctional

practitioners, researchers, and administrative

officials must develop methods for

enhancing officers’ well-being. Such efforts

have been slow to develop (Armstrong &

Griffin, 2004; Brower, 2013). Although some

prison facilities have begun to institute

mental health counseling and other

measures designed to improve the general

welfare of COs, many of these programs are

in their infancy, have not been evaluated

using scientific methods, and exist in only a

handful of correctional facilities (Armstrong

& Griffin, 2004; Brower, 2013; Morse et al.,

2011). Many pundits have remarked that to

better address the safety and wellness threats

to COs, it is perhaps best to examine the

broader law enforcement profession and

what it is doing to ensure the well-being of

police officers (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004;

Brower, 2013; Delprino, 2001; Finn, 1998,

2000; Roland, 2011).

Some scholars have discouraged applying

police research and policies to the

correctional context because police officers

and COs are employed in dramatically

different working conditions (Brower, 2013).

For example, although police officers are

exposed to many occupational dangers

such as gangs and physical retaliation from

community members (Anson, Johnson

& Anson, 1997; Jones & Newburn, 2002),

when compared to the dangers confronting

COs, marked contrasts exist. Brower

(2013) suggests that the daily dangers

and pressures “faced by COs far exceed

those experienced by police officers”

(p. 5). Whereas the dangers faced by law

enforcement personnel are periodic, those

faced by COs are constant. In fact, COs

experience continued exposure to violent

and dangerous offenders throughout the

entirety of their work shifts. In addition,

although police officers must interact

with unpredictable citizens who may pose

a risk of harm, they also have multiple

opportunities to forge partnerships with

prosocial community members who can

help law enforcement maintain community

harmony (Brower, 2013). For COs, these

opportunities are largely absent as they

are responsible for overseeing offenders

who may be frustrated with their current

conditions and may express those

grievances against the very individuals

charged with monitoring their behavior.

Other differences exist as well. Police

officers are permitted to carry lethal and

less-lethal devices for protection, whereas

COs are not (Farkas & Manning, 1997).

In addition, although there are negative

portrayals of the police in mainstream

media, they are often counterbalanced by

positive images of law enforcement officers

engaging in heroic acts (Chermak & Weiss,

2005). The same cannot be said for COs,

with many media depictions stereotyping

them as inhumane figures who have a

fundamental disregard for human suffering

(Crawley, 2004). All these issues can

predispose correctional officers to greater

levels of stress, injury, and even fatality

when compared with law enforcement

(Garland, 2002).

Specific occupational differences aside, it is

widely recognized that both police officers

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

and COs are exposed to various dangers

that can threaten their welfare, and some

experts have noted the potential benefits to

corrections agencies of learning more about

law enforcement strategies to protect their

officers (Brower, 2013). Police departments

are frequently staffed by psychiatrists and

other mental health professionals trained

to assist law enforcement personnel.

Moreover, the mental health field now

recognizes police psychology as a discrete

area of academic study. The American

Psychological Association (APA), for

example, now issues board certification

to individuals specializing in this field

(Brower, 2013). A variety of policies

specially designed to protect officers

from physical and mental threats, such as

peer-support programs, have also been

implemented on a mass scale across police

agencies (Brower, 2013; Chermak & Weiss,

2005). It appears that the broader policing

profession has received the required

attention from counselors and other mental

health professionals who have been trained

and certified to help police officers cope

with the dangers inherent in the job.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for

the corrections field.

Currently, no psychological discipline

focused on corrections exists. Many prison

institutions lack the resources (whether

monetary or otherwise) that could be used

to introduce mental health counseling

for COs, and no established professional

organizations address the unique

psychological and physical needs of COs

(Brower, 2013; Delprino, 2001; Roland,

2011). Much of this deficit can be attributed

to difficulties in locating adequately

trained treatment providers who are

knowledgeable about best practices related

to correctional psychology. Additional

impediments include mental health

treatment providers’ lack of awareness of

psychological selection strategies and laws

specific to corrections, PTSD treatment

for COs, and how family matters interact

with work problems for COs (Brower,

2013; Finn, 1998; Roland, 2011). As this

white paper notes, not only is corrections a

dangerous field of employment, but some

studies have found that COs experience

disproportionately higher levels of injury

and stress as compared with other workers

such as law enforcement officers (Brower,

2013; Harrell, 2011). Programs and policies

designed to address these issues are critical

to improving the health conditions of COs,

and perhaps lessons can be borrowed from

law enforcement.

Despite the professional differences

between police and COs outlined above,

lessons for the corrections field can be

learned from the literature on police officer

well-being (Brower, 2013). Like COs, law

enforcement personnel are exposed to

physically demanding work conditions,

constantly rotating work shifts, inconsistent

sleep patterns, trauma, and a host of other

dangers (Anson, Johnson, & Anson, 1997;

Jones & Newburn, 2002). These problems

can contribute to increased stress levels,

physical problems such as heart disease and

diabetes, and even the risk of suicide (Stack

& Tsoudis, 1997). Because corrections and

police officers experience similar problems,

an argument can be made that the

corrections field needs to begin to borrow

ideas from the policing discipline. Brower

(2013) remarked that the policing literature

potentially has much to offer in terms of

improving health conditions for COs, and

that prison systems do not necessarily need

to “reinvent the wheel in order to do this”

(p. 13). This report describes some specific

strategies, largely borrowed from policing,

that correctional agencies can implement

to improve officer safety and wellness.

Also referenced are health improvement

recommendations provided by correctional

scholars, with critical insight into whether

policies are effective and should be

adopted.

Some corrections departments have begun

instituting employee assistance programs

(EAPs) that are borrowed directly from

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

policing (Sauter, 2001). EAPs are designed

to offer specialized services to assist

organizations in addressing front-line

worker productivity and in identifying

and resolving the personal concerns and

problems of subordinates. According to

Brower (2013), essential components of

EAPs include providing consultations to

organizational leaders to help manage

troubled employees, active promotion

of assistance services, confidential and

timely provision of services, and referral

of employees to treatment providers.

Significant numbers of law enforcement

agencies across the United States have

implemented EAPs for troubled officers,

but this has not been observed in

corrections departments. A 2013 report

issued by the ACA noted that of the more

than 4,000 prisons in operation across the

U.S., fewer than 100 had any type of EAP.

Moreover, very few of these programs have

been scientifically evaluated to determine

their effectiveness in improving CO

well-being.

Finn (2000) identified another strategy

that could be used to ameliorate officer

stress, and noted that a number of

correctional agencies nationwide have

adopted this technique, which includes the

establishment of peer-support programs.

Peer-support programs recruit workforce

colleagues who can offer emotional and

social support to those who may have

undergone traumatic experiences while

on the job. Peers offer counseling and

recommendations to their colleagues to

help them cope with the consequences of

their job-related experiences. Successful

implementation of peer-support programs

involves the provision of social support

through colleagues, experiential

knowledge, trust, confidentiality, and easy

access (Roland, 2011). Examples of these

programs can be found in Pennsylvania,

which instituted the Critical Incident Stress

Management Program, and Massachusetts,

which established the Peer Stress Unit

Program (Finn, 2000). Military and

policing organizations that have adopted

this strategy reported high levels of success.

Although some correctional institutions

have recently incorporated peer-support

programs, those programs have yet to

undergo scientific evaluation. Like EAPs,

little is known about whether peer-support

programs work in the correctional context

(Finn, 2000).

Other recommendations for improving CO

health have been scientifically evaluated.

Two such evaluations come from McCraty

and colleagues (2009) and Farbstein and

colleagues (2010), who each evaluated

mental health treatment programs for

officers in four correctional institutions.

The first study randomized 88 officers from

three prisons into either an experimental

stress-reduction program (HeartMath’s

Power to Change Performance Program)

or a waitlist control group. Following

program intervention, treatment recipients

experienced statistically significant

reductions in stress, cholesterol, heart rate,

and blood pressure levels when compared

to a similarly matched control group. In

the second study, after a prison installed a

mural depicting a nature scene, significant

reductions in CO stress and heart rate

levels were observed when compared to

the period before the mural was installed.

With only two such studies in existence

that have empirically assessed these types

of stress-reduction programs, additional

confirmatory research is needed.

Although limited in scope, studies by Finn

(1998, 2000) noted that some prisons and

jails across the U.S. have incorporated

critical incident stress-reduction units

that specifically address the needs of

officers who have experienced traumatic

events while on the job, including hostage

takeovers, riots, or the murder of fellow

officers and inmates. Such units provide

debriefings and counseling for officers

who may have mental health consequences

because of these experiences. However,

reports from NIJ (Finn and Kuck, 2005)

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

and Finn (1998, 2000) noted that these

programs are not seen on a massive scale

across correctional facilities, largely because

of correctional administrators’ failure to

recognize the health concerns of officers as

well as inadequate funding to support these

programs.

Elliot and colleagues (2015), noting high

stress levels present within corrections,

recommend the following strategies

to officers to improve their well-being:

maintain a healthy body weight, exercise

for at least 30 minutes per day, consume

five servings of fruits and vegetables

daily, and visit physicians twice annually.

Of course, correctional administrative

officials cannot oversee and regulate the

dietary intake and exercise regimens of

their officers, but they can recommend

that officers adopt these lifestyle habits

to promote health. An investigation by

Triplett and Mullings (1996) that directly

questioned officers about the measures

they take to improve their health uncovered

some interesting information: COs often

use a variety of coping mechanisms in

response to stress, including seeking

social support from others and selectively

ignoring stress-inducing stimuli.

Moreover, the study found that officers

who used these coping strategies reported

reduced stress when compared with their

counterparts. According to the ACA

and Keinan and Malach-Pines (2007),

prison administrative officials can follow

certain recommendations to increase

officer wellness. The study suggested that

administrative officials promote greater

teamwork among line staff, reduce role

ambiguity, improve officers’ job satisfaction

by rotating their shifts to make them less

physically taxing, screen incoming officer

applicants to determine their susceptibility

to stress, increase officer pay and benefits,

better prepare officers to confront

workforce dangers, and offer positive

reinforcement to productive line staff.

Summary of Policies on

Correctional Officer Safety and

Wellness

Correctional researchers, administrative

officials, and prison systems in general

have largely neglected the health and safety

concerns of COs, which is a crucial area of

focus given the important role that officers

play in maintaining order in correctional

facilities. Recently, some programs designed

to improve CO health, borrowed largely

from the broader policing discipline, have

been instituted in some prison facilities,

but few have been systematically evaluated

using social science research methods.

More concerted efforts must be undertaken

across the correctional field to improve CO

health and safety, as a result.

An important first step is recognizing that

this field of employment is perilous and

accompanied by many threats to CO health.

Brower (2013) remarked that policies and

programs designed to improve officer

health have not been instituted in many

prison facilities because administrative

officials fail to recognize the dangers

attached to the job. Improvement of CO

health starts by changing this mindset

among not only administrative officials

but also other relevant stakeholders in the

correctional field. Keinan and Malach-Pines

(2007) identified an additional impediment

to successful implementation of safety

and wellness programs: the widespread

attitude known as “machismo” among COs.

Machismo prevents officers from requesting

any type of assistance because they

perceive such requests as a sign of inherent

weakness. It is imperative that we begin to

change the cultural mindset in corrections

and recognize that this is a dangerous field

wherein external sources of assistance are

sometimes required to improve officer

well-being.

Psychiatrists, counselors, and other

mental health professionals have made

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

considerable strides in improving police

officers’ health, but similar efforts for COs

have not been observed. Further study

must be undertaken of the sources and

consequences of CO stress and other harms

to which these front-line prison personnel

are exposed. Knowledge of these subject

areas can help improve our understanding

of CO health and inform policies designed

to enhance their overall well-being. On

this point, Brower (2013) noted that the

American Board of Professional Psychology

has begun to consider the idea of creating

a subspecialty in correctional psychology.

Such a subspecialty could contribute

significantly to the development of

educational and training programs that

are specifically designed to address COs’

physical and mental health needs.

Police agencies have incorporated a number

of programs focused on improving officer

health, including peer-support programs

and EAPs. These programs are not seen

across correctional facilities, and the

few that exist have not been evaluated

to determine their effectiveness, so few

definitive conclusions can be drawn about

whether these programs are applicable to

the correctional context. Researchers are

strongly encouraged to apply rigorous social

science research methodologies to examine

whether these programs are effective, which

in turn, will help determine whether they

should be adopted on a broader scale.

Although much has been written about

the mental health risks associated with

employment as a CO and some policies

have been designed to address these

concerns, very little, if any, literature

exists on policies tailored to address COs’

concerns about physical health. Researchers

have noted that dangers such as prison

gangs, the presence of contraband, and

inmates with mental illness, among others,

pose considerable threats to the physical

health of correctional officers (Burke

& Owen, 2010; Fleisher & Decker, 2001;

McLearen & Ryba, 2003). Administrative

officials of the correctional system are

therefore encouraged to consider policy

interventions designed to minimize the

injurious risks connected to such dangers.

If these are the very dangers most likely

to inflict harm upon correctional officers,

then strategies aimed at mediating their

threats must be implemented on a mass

scale across penitentiaries. Policies could

include heightened intake procedures to

identify problematic inmates, improved

communication channels between

correctional line staff so they can discuss

potentially threatening offenders and

what can be done to handle them,

separation of gang members to limit their

ability to correspond with one another,

ensuring officers always have back-up

support when dealing with troublesome

offenders, instruction/training for officers

on mediation tactics that de-escalate

volatile situations, and provision of

additional therapeutic services, where

possible, for offenders afflicted with

mental disorders (Burke & Owen, 2010;

Fleisher & Decker, 2001; McLearen & Ryba,

2003). Implementation of such policies

targeted at decreasing and addressing

correctional-based dangers could have the

dual benefits of enhancing officer wellness

and establishing wider institutional order.

With all of this information in mind, what

follows is a discussion of what scholars

and researchers can do in terms of future

research on the broad topic of CO safety

and wellness.

Considerations for Future

Research

A considerable body of research on CO

safety and wellness has been amassed over

the past several decades. Findings have

provided important insight into the working

conditions of officers and what can be

done to improve their general well-being.

Although this research is informative, a

number of limitations restrict our ability

to draw definitive conclusions regarding

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

officer safety and wellness. This section

identifies inherent weaknesses in this

literature and recommends directions for

future research.

A variety of sources have shown that COs

frequently fall victim to workplace injuries

and even fatalities (Finn, 1998; Konda

et al., 2013). Largely unknown, though,

are the contextual factors that influence

these phenomena or the specific types of

injuries befalling officers. Lacerations,

cuts, bruises, and head trauma are some

of the many types of harm that COs

can experience while on the job, yet

researchers have not specifically explored

this issue. Furthermore, officers of the

prison system are forced to work alongside

dangerous offenders such as gang members

and inmates who create and distribute

contraband. Some officers are assigned

to more dangerous units of the prison

(e.g., administrative segregation), which

can increase their risk of physical and

mental health problems (Crawley, 2004).

Researchers are therefore encouraged to

ask the following questions: What are the

specific factors that contribute to fatal and

nonfatal workplace injuries experienced by

COs? Are there individual and institutional

differences in the rates of injury and fatality

experienced by COs? Are officers employed

in more overcrowded prisons more likely to

experience injury and fatality? Are officers

who work alongside inmates who have

infectious and communicable diseases as

well as those with mental disorders more

likely to fall victim to physical harm? From

a broader institutional standpoint, what are

the consequences of officers experiencing

injury and fatality while on the job? What

specific types of policies, training regimens,

or programs can address these dangers?

We know from the extant studies on CO

safety and wellness that dangers such as

the presence of contraband pose physical

threats to officers, but we need to better

understand how to address them.

The psycho-social dangers inherent

in employment as a CO have not been

adequately studied. This category includes

problems such as work-family conflict and

public misperceptions about the CO’s

job (Crawley, 2004). Researchers should

consider the following questions: Is this

danger an actual threat to officer well-

being? What are the potential consequences

of exposure to psycho-social dangers?

If this is determined to be of significant

concern, what can be done to address the

consequences of exposure to psycho-social

dangers?

Research has noted that COs experience

high rates of stress and other mental

health problems because of role conflict

and ambiguity, work-family conflict,

poor co-worker relations, and other

factors (Ferdik, 2014; Lambert et al.,

2005). Less known are the strategies that

correctional agencies can implement to

address these mental health concerns.

Future scholars should consider asking

the following questions: What policies and

programs work best to address the mental

health consequences associated with CO

employment? Although there is some

information regarding the correlates of

officer stress, there has not been sufficient

research into what can be done to resolve

this issue. Applying what is known about

the correlates of stress can help answer this

question.

Researchers have noted that COs

experience significantly higher rates of

suicide than both police officers and the

general public (Morgan, 2009). Brower

(2013) remarked that “much more research

is needed to develop a better understanding

of the prevalence and causes of suicide

among correctional officers” (p. 11). Future

researchers should ask: What factors lead to

increased suicide rates among COs? What

can be done to prevent officer suicide?

What impact does officer suicide have on

the wider correctional facility?

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Various programs and policies designed

to enhance officer well-being have been

introduced by correctional systems, but few

have been empirically assessed (Brower,

2013). Some prisons offer peer-support

programs, EAPs, and in some cases, trained

mental health professionals, but the greater

scientific community still lacks a clear

understanding of whether these programs

are worthwhile. Rigorous social science

research methods (e.g., experimental and

quasi-experimental designs) should be

used to better understand the efficacy of

these programs. Future research questions

might include: Do peer-support programs

and EAPs help improve CO well-being?

What other programs, policies, and larger

preventive measures that can effectively

address the broader health concerns of COs

should be implemented?

Other areas of research that should be

explored include the physiological effects of

this line of work. Some scholars have noted

that CO work can lead to physical health

problems such as diabetes, heart disease,

and chronic neck, back, and knee injuries

(Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Morgan, 2009).

Only a handful of studies have investigated

this issue, and more research into this area

is recommended. Because COs experience

high rates of stress and other mental health

problems, researchers should also ask

whether officers hold negative outlooks

on life and humanity as compared with

individuals not employed in this field.

These negative outlooks could have

harmful effects on social relationships, and

more research into this area is needed.

Although scholars have devoted

considerable effort to exploring the

harmful effects of correctional employment

on officers (Crawley, 2004; Finn, 1998;

Moon & Maxwell, 2004; Obidoa et al., 2011),

little is known about the deleterious effects

that this line of work can have on the family

environment. Domestic partners’ reactions

to their spouses’ employment in the prison

industry and the effects such employment

can have on family cohesion are just some

of the many research questions that future

scholars could explore as we attempt to

better understand the intersection between

correctional employment and the home

environment.

Another area requiring additional

scholarship is COs’ perceptions of

workplace safety and wellness. To date, only

eight studies have questioned officers about

their perceptions of the correctional work

environment; clearly, much more research

is needed in this area. For example, we do

not have a fundamental understanding of

the factors that contribute to the disparate

levels of fear and risk reported by officers.

Also absent from the correctional literature

is a solid understanding of the variables that

officers’ risk perceptions could influence,

such as the intention to voluntarily resign,

stress levels, and relationships with inmates.

Perceptions of the workplace have been

shown to influence a variety of outcomes

(Powell & Ansic, 1997); however, much of

this research has been restricted to non-

correctional settings. Scholars interested

in these issues are encouraged to ask:

What are officer judgments regarding

workplace safety and wellness? What

factors influence officers’ perceptions of

their jobs? What variables are influenced

by officers’ perceptions of the workplace?

With the exception of one identified study

(Triplett & Mullings, 1996), no researchers

have asked correctional officers for their

input about strategies designed to improve

their welfare. Triplett and Mullings (1996)

discovered that COs use coping strategies,

and these strategies are quite effective at

reducing stress levels. Future researchers

could employ mixed methodologies of

data collection in the form of surveys

and structured interviews to expand our

understanding about CO stress-reduction

efforts.

In addition to soliciting COs’ input about

their jobs, it would also be beneficial

to understand what correctional

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

administrative officials believe needs

to be done to address officer safety and

wellness. Some scholars have noted that

administrative officials have largely

neglected the safety issues of their officers

(Brower, 2013). Future researchers are

encouraged to gather more information

about and insight into the viewpoints

of administrative officials about CO

health. Questions might include: How

do correctional administrative officials

perceive the dangerousness of the CO’s job?

Do the officials believe that measures need

to be instituted to address officer safety

and wellness? If so, what strategies do they

recommend for improving CO health?

Countless individual studies on the

correlates of CO stress have been

conducted, but only one meta-analytic

synthesis of this research has been

performed, and even that is somewhat

dated (Dowden & Tellier, 2004).

Approximately 13 years have elapsed since

the publication of that study; therefore,

another quantitative synthesis of this

literature would be a welcome addition to

the scholarship on CO safety and wellness.

Conclusion

Synthesis of the Report on

Correctional Officer Safety and

Wellness

COs are employed under stressful and

dangerous conditions that are distinct

from other occupational milieus (Ferdik,

2014). Being employed alongside inmates

who may be violent, manipulative, or

mentally and physically ill requires a

strong focus on institutional safety and

security (Crawley, 2004). However, over

time, correctional employment has been

shown to have negative effects on officer

safety and well-being. For prison facilities to

operate efficiently, it is important that they

be staffed with officers who are physically

and mentally sound and able to respond

to the numerous challenges that this line

of work presents. This report highlighted

the high rates of injury and fatality that are

inherent in CO work and some strategies

designed to enhance their welfare. The

report concludes by summarizing its

major findings and offering additional

suggestions for how these results can be

used to improve officer well-being.

This synthesis of the literature on CO

safety and well-being revealed three distinct

dangers confronting officers: work-related,

institution-related, and psycho-social. To

date, work-related dangers have received the

most attention in the research literature,

because these issues are intrinsic to the

correctional context. These dangers include

exposure to infectious and communicable

diseases, prison gangs, disruptive inmate

behaviors, the presence of contraband,

inmates with mental illness, and riots.

The second category of dangers related

to CO safety and well-being encompasses

institution-related dangers, which

are largely influenced by the prison

administration. Examples include role

conflict and ambiguity, as well as low pay,

extended work hours, and insufficient

staffing and resources. In today’s

correctional environments, as documented

by the research on institution-related

dangers, officers are being asked to

accomplish more with fewer resources,

which elevates their mental health risks.

A final category of work-related dangers

threatening officer well-being comprises

psycho-social dangers, which are arguably

the most understudied and underappreciated

aspects of correctional work. Researchers

know relatively little about the impact of work-

family conflict on COs. Some studies have

explored this phenomenon (Crawley, 2004),

but there is a need for greater academic

attention in this area.

Another objective of this literature synthesis

was to identify studies that have questioned

COs specifically about their perceptions

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

of workplace safety and wellness. A review

produced eight empirical investigations,

suggesting that more research is needed in

this area. Overall, this research indicates

that officers of the correctional system are

aware of the perils that accompany this

line of work, as even low-level security and

juvenile detention facility officers expressed

some degree of concern about their general

safety and wellness. Given that increased

perceptions of harm can elevate officers’

stress and burnout levels (Armstrong &

Griffin, 2004; Dowden & Tellier, 2004;

Ferdik, Smith, & Applegate, 2014a), it is vital

that future researchers continue to expand

on this body of work to contribute to a more

refined understanding of how officers judge

the dangerousness of their profession.

Two final objectives of this report were

to evaluate the literature on CO wellness

programs and identify gaps in the overall

body of knowledge on officer well-being.

Although some policies to enhance officer

safety have been introduced, few have

been subjected to empirical scrutiny. It is

strongly advised that researchers begin

exploring this area through the application

of rigorous research methods.

Prisons function efficiently when they

are staffed with healthy officers, and

understanding ways to improve officers’

overall well-being can contribute to safer

and more orderly correctional facilities.

Given the gaps in the wider scholarship on

CO safety and wellness, several unresolved

questions remain. Researchers interested in

expanding the knowledge base concerning

CO safety and wellness are encouraged to

explore some of the focus areas identified

in this report. The policing discipline

and research on law enforcement officer

well-being can provide a starting point for

correctional agencies. Although police

and COs are employed under different

occupational conditions, both are exposed

to dangers that can threaten their welfare.

Police departments have taken important

steps to enhance officer well-being.

Although these initiatives (e.g., peer-

support programs and EAPs) have yet to

be comprehensively evaluated within the

corrections context, they offer a stepping

stone for better understanding how to

address issues that threaten CO safety and

wellness (Brower, 2013).

Only within the past few years has attention

been directed at examining issues of CO

safety and wellness. This report provides

a comprehensive synthesis of the most

recent and salient studies that explore

this topic. Although this review does not

constitute the final word on all issues

related to officer well-being, it does

offer a general perspective of the threats

confronting officers and the strategies

required to improve their safety. Scholars

and practitioners who read this report are

encouraged to learn from the research of

others, institute best practices designed

to enhance officer well-being, and further

study the major issues related to CO safety

and wellness.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Works Cited

Abramson, M.F. (1972). The criminalization of mentally disordered behavior: Possible side

effect of a new mental health law. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 23, 101-107.

Adams, K., & Ferrandino, J. (2008). Managing mentally ill inmates in prisons. Criminal Justice

and Behavior

35, 913 -927.

Adams, R. (1992). Prison Riots in Britain and the USA. London, England: Chippenham

Publishing.

Alaird, L.F., & Marquart, J.W. (2009). Officer perceptions of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS

in prison: A two-state comparison. The Prison Journal

89(4), 440 -459.

American Correctional Association. (2013). Adult Correctional Security Staff by Gender

Race and

Pay-Grade. Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.

Anson, R.H., Johnson, B., & Anson, N.W. (1997). Magnitude and source of general and

occupation-specific stress among police and correctional officers. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation

25(2), 103-113.

Archambeault, W.G., & Archambeault, B.J. (1982). Correctional Supervisory Management

Principles of Organization

Policy and Law. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Armstrong, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress

among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice

32, 577-592.

Beck, A.J., Harrison, P.M., & Adams, D.B. (2007). Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional

Authoritie

2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bick, J.A. (2007). Infection control in jails and prisons. Healthcare Epidemiology

45, 1047-1055.

Biermann, P.J. (2007). Improving Correctional Officer Safety. Washington DC: U.S. Department

of Justice.

Bouchard, J., & Winnicki, A. (2000). “You found what in a book?” Contraband control in the

prison library. Library & Archival Securit

16(1), 47- 61.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Brower, J. (2013). Review and Input of Correctional Officer Wellness and Safety Literature Review.

OJP Diagnostic Center. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Occupational Outlook Handbook: Correctional Officers.

Washington, DC: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections.

Burke, T.W., & Owen, S.S. (2010). Cell phones as prison contraband. Law Enforcement

Bulletin. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Byrne, J.M., Hummer, D., & Taxman, F.S. (2008). The Culture of Prison Violence. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.

Carrabine, E. (2005). Prison riots, social order and the problem of legitimacy. British Journal

of Criminology

45(6), 896-913.

Castle, T.L., & Martin, J.S. (2006). Occupational hazard: Predictors of stress among

correctional officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice

31(1), 65 - 80.

Cheek, F.E. (1984). Stress Management for Correctional Officers and Their Families. Alexandria,

VA: American Correctional Association.

Chermak, S., & Weiss, A. (2005). Maintaining legitimacy using external communication

strategies: An analysis of police-media relations. Journal of Criminal Justice

33(5), 501-512.

Crawley, E. (2004). Doing Prison Work: The Public and Private Lives of Prison Officers. Portland,

OR: Willan Publishing.

Delprino, R.P. (2001). Work and Family Support Services for Correctional Officers and Their Family

Members: A National Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice. Available at:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/

grants/192292.pdf

Dillon, B., & Allwright, S. (2005). Prison officers’ concerns about blood borne viral

infections. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice

44, 29-40.

Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work related stress in correctional officers: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice

32, 31-47.

Elliot, D., Kuehl, K., El Ghaziri, M., & Cherniack, M. (2015). Stress and corrections:

Addressing the safety and well-being of correctional officers. Corrections Today

77(4), 40.

Farbstein, J., Farling, M., & Wenner, R. (2010). Developing the Evidence for Evidence-Based

Design: The Impact of Simulated Nature Views on Stress in a Correctional Setting. New York, NY:

American Institute of Architects.

Farkas, M.A., & Manning, P.K. (1997). The occupational culture of corrections and police

officers. Journal of Crime and Justice

20(2), 51-68.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). National Gang Threat Assessment — Emerging Trends.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Ferdik, F. (2014). Examining the Correlates of Correctional Officer Risk Perceptions and Decision-

Making. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina. Proquest Dissertations and

Theses Abstracts.

Ferdik, F.V., Smith, H.P., & Applegate, B.K. (2014a). An Assessment of Job Satisfaction

among South Carolina Correctional Officers. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of

Corrections.

Ferdik, F.V., Smith, H.P., & Applegate, B. (2014b). The role of emotional dissonance and job

desirability in predicting correctional officer turnover intentions. Criminal Justice Studies.

DOI: 10.1080/1478601X.2014.938741.

Finn, P. (1998). Correctional officer stress: A cause for concern and additional help. Federal

Probation

62(2), 65-74.

Finn, P. (2000). Addressing Correctional Officer Stress: Programs and Strategies and Issues and

Practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice.

Finn, P., & Kuck, S. (2005). Stress Among Probation and Parole Officers and What Can Be Done

About It. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice. Available at:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205620.pdf

Finney, C., Stergiopoulos, E., Hensel, J., Bonato, S., & Dewa, C.S. (2013). Organizational

stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: A systematic review.

BMC Public Health

13(1), 82-94.

Fitzgerald, E. (2010). Cell “block” silence: Why contraband cellular telephone use in prisons

warrants federal legislation to allow jamming technology. Wisconsin Law Review

10, 1269.

Fleisher, M.S., & Decker, S.H. (2001). An overview of the challenge of prison gangs.

Corrections Management Quarterly

5(1), 1-9.

Garcia, R.M. (2008). Individual and Institutional Demographic and Organizational Climate

Correlates of Perceived Danger among Federal Correctional Officers. Doctoral dissertation, Temple

University. Proquest Dissertation and Theses Abstracts.

Garland, B. (2002). Prison treatment staff burnout: Consequences, cause, and prevention.

Corrections Today

64(7), 116-120.

Glaze, L.E., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional Populations in the United States

2013.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essay on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and Other Inmates.

Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Gordon, J.A., Moriarty, L.J., & Grant, P.H. (2003). Juvenile correctional officers’ perceived

fear and risk of victimization: Examining individual and collective levels of victimization in

two juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. Criminal Justice and Behavior

30(1), 62-84.

Gordon, J.A., Proulx, B., & Grant, P.H. (2013). Trepidation among the “keepers”: Gendered

perceptions of fear and risk of victimization among corrections officers. American Journal of

Criminal Justice

38, 245-265.

Griffin, M.L., Hogan, N.L., Lambert, E., Tucker-Gail, K., & Baker, D.N. (2009). Job

involvement, job stress, job satisfaction and organizational commitment and the burnout of

correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior

37(2), 239-255.

Harrell, E. (2011). Workplace Violence, 1993-2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hartley, D.J., Davila, M.A., Marquart, J.W., & Mullings, J.L. (2012). Fear is a disease: The

impact of fear and exposure to infectious disease on correctional officer job stress and

satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justic

38(2), 323-340.

Hensley, C., Koscheski, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2005). Examining the characteristics of male

sexual assault targets in a southern maximum-security prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence

20(6), 667-679.

Hessl, S.M. (2001). Police and corrections. Occupational Medicine

16, 39-49.

Hogan, N., Lambert, E., Jenkins, M., & Wambold, S. (2006). The impact of occupational

stressors on correctional staff organizational commitment: A preliminary study. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice

22(1), 44 - 62.

James, D.J., & Glaze, L.E. (2006). Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). The transformation of policing? Understanding current

trends in policing systems. British Journal of Criminology

42(1), 129-146.

Jurik, N.C. (1985). An officer and a lady: Organizational barriers to women working as

correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social Problems

32(4), 375-388.

Kauffmann, K. (1989). Prison Officers and Their World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Keinan, G., & Malach-Pines, A. (2007). Stress and burnout among prison personnel:

Sources, outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior

34(3), 380-398.

Konda, S., Tiesman, H., Reichard, A., & Hartley, D. (2013). U.S. correctional officers killed

or injured on the job. Corrections Today

75, 122-125.

Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of

Management Journal

37, 656 - 669.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Kupers, T.A. (1999). Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis behind Bars and What We Must Do

about It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lai, Y.L., Wang, H.M., & Kellar, M. (2012). Workplace violence in correctional institutions in

Taiwan: A study of correctional officers’ perceptions. International Journal of Comparative and

Applied Criminal Justice

36(1), 1-23.

Lambert, E.G. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff members. The

Prison Journal

84(2), 208-227.

Lambert, E.G., Cluse-Tolar, T., & Hogan, N. (2007). This job is killing me: The impact of

job characteristics on correctional staff job stress. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice

3(2),

117-142.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Allen, R. (2006). Correlates of corrections officer job stress:

The impact of organizational structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 227-246.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Altheimer, I. (2010). When domains spill over: The relationships

of affective and continuance commitment with work-family conflict among correctional line

staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(4), 476 - 502.

Lambert, E.G, Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the

literature on the correlates of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior

29(2), 115-143.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Barton-Bellessa, S., & Jiang, S. (2012). Examining the

relationship between supervisor and management trust and job burnout among correctional

staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior

39(7), 938-957.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Dial, K., & Barton-Bellessa, S.M. (2013). The relationship

between job stressors and job involvement among correctional staff: A test of the job strain

model. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice

52(1), 19-38.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N., Paoline, E.A., & Clarke, A. (2005). The impact of role stressors

on job stress, job satisfaction and organizational commitment among private prison staff.

Security Journal

18(4), 33-50.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York, NY: Springer

Publishing.

Leip, L.A., & Stinchcomb, J.B. (2013). Should I stay or should I go? Job satisfaction and

turnover intent of jail staff throughout the United States. Criminal Justice Review

38(2),

226-241.

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New

York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lombardo, L. (1989). Guards Imprisoned: Correctional Officers at Work. Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson Publishing.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Lyman, M.D. (1989). Gangland. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishing.

Macalino, G.E., Vlahov, D., Sanford-Colby, S., Patel, S., Sabin, K., Salas, C., & Rich, J.D.

(2004). Prevalence and incidence of HIV, Hepatitis B virus, and Hepatitis C virus infections

among males in Rhode Island prisons. American Journal of Public Health

94(7), 1218-1223.

Mackenzie, D.L. (2001). Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the

Future. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Proquest Dissertations and Theses

Abstracts.

Management and Training Corporation. (2011). Correctional Officers: Strategies to Improve

Retention. Centerville, UT: Management and Training Corporation.

Martin, R., & Zimmerman, S. (1990). A typology of the causes of prison riots and an

analytical extension to the 1986 West Virginia riot. Justice Quarterly

7(4), 711-737.

Matz, A.K., Wells, J.B., Minor, K.I., & Angel, E. (2013). Predictors of turnover intention

among staff in juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

11(2), 115-131.

McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Lipsenthal, L., & Arquelles, L. (2009). New hope for correctional

officers: An innovative program for reducing stress and health risks. Applied Psychophysiology

and Biofeedback, 34(4), 251-272.

McLearen, A.M., & Ryba, N.L. (2003). Identifying severely mentally ill inmates: Can small

jails comply with detection standards? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

37(1), 25-34.

Minor, K.I., Wells, J.B., Angel, E., & Matz, A.K. (2010). Predictors of early job turnover

among juvenile correctional facility staff. Criminal Justice Review

36(1), 58 -75.

Moon, B., & Maxwell, S.R. (2004). The sources and consequences of COs’ stress: A South

Korean sample. Journal of Criminal Justice

32(4), 359-370.

Morgan, W. (2009). Correctional officer stress: A review of the literature 1977-2007. American

Jails

23(2), 33-34.

Morse, T., Dussetschleger, J., Warren, N., & Cherniack, M. (2011). Talking about health:

Correction employees’ assessments of obstacles to healthy living. Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine

53(9),1037-1045.

New Jersey Police Suicide Task Force. (2009). New Jersey Police Suicide Task Force Report.

Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Police Suicide Task Force. Available at: https://dspace.njstatelib.

org/xmlui/handle/10929/25070.

Obidoa, C., Reeves, C., Warren, N., Reisine, S., & Cherniack, M. (2011). Depression and work

family conflict among corrections officers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

53(11), 1294-1301.

Paoline, E.A., Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). A calm and happy keeper of the keys: The

impact of ACA views, relations with co-workers, and policy views on the job stress and job

satisfaction of correctional staff. The Prison Journal

86(2), 182-205.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Patenaude, A.L. (2001). Analysis of issues affecting correctional officer retention within the

Arkansas Department of Correction. Corrections Management Quarterly

5(2), 49- 67.

Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decision-

making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology

18(6), 605-628.

Reichman, N. (1986). Managing crime risks: Toward an insurance-based model of social

control. Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control

8, 151-172.

Robertson, J. (2013). The mentally ill inmate and sexual victimization. Correctional Law

Reporter

3, 23-32.

Rocheleau, A.M. (2014). Prisoner coping skills and involvement in serious prison

misconduct. Victims and Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-Based Research

Policy and

Practice

9(2), 149-177.

Roland, J.E. (2011). Developing and maintaining successful peer support programs in law

enforcement organizations. Handbook of Police Psychology, 3, 509-524.

Ross, R. (1981). Prison Guard/Correctional Officer: The Use and Abuse of the Human Resources of

Prisons. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworth Publications.

Ruiz, J.D., Molitor, F., & Plagenhoef, J. (2002). Trends in Hepatitis C and HIV infection

among inmates entering prisons in California, 1994 versus 1999. AIDS: Official Journal of the

International AIDS Society, 16(16), 2236-2238.

Sauter, C. (2001). Health and wellness programs made available to Maryland correctional

employees. Corrections Today

63(6), 110-115.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional

officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management

7(1), 19-48.

Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist

45, 2109-2119.

Skarbek, D. (2014). The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American

Penal System. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). (2013). Agency Accountability Report.

Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Corrections.

Spinaris, C.G., Denhof, M.D., & Kellaway, J. (2012). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in United States

Correctional Professionals: Prevalence and Impact on Health and Functioning. Florence, CO: Desert

Waters Correctional Outreach.

Stack, S.J., & Tsoudis, O. (1997). Suicide risk among correctional officers: A logistic

regression analysis. Archives of Suicide Research

3(3), 183-186.

Steiner, B. (2008). Maintaining Prison Order: Understanding Causes of Inmate Misconduct Within

and Across Ohio Correctional Institutions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Proquest Dissertation and These Abstracts.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Summerlin, Z., Oehme, K., Stern, N., & Valentine, C. (2010). Disparate levels of stress

in police and correctional officers: Preliminary evidence from a pilot study on domestic

violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

20(6), 762-777.

Swenson, D. (2008). Shift work and correctional officers: Effects and strategies for

adjustment. Journal of Correctional Health Care

14(4), 299-310.

Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G.E. (2006a). Examining the effect of emotional dissonance on

work stress and satisfaction with supervisors among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Policy

Review

17(3), 290-301.

Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G.E. (2006b). Prison staff and work stress: The role of

organizational and emotional influences. American Journal of Criminal Justice

30(2), 247-266.

Thompson, C.A., & Prottas, D.J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support,

job autonomy, perceived control and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health

Psycholog

11(1), 100-118.

Tracy, S.J. (2004). The construction of correctional officers: Layers of emotionality behind

bars. Qualitative Inquiry

10(4), 509-533.

Triplett, R., & Mullings, J.L. (1996). Work-related stress and coping among correctional

officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justic

24(4),

291-308.

Turner, D. (1975). Correction Officer-Prison Guard. New York, NY: Arco Publications.

Udochukwu, I., Harrington, W., Manyak, T., Segal, S., & Graham, S. (2007). The Georgia

Department of Corrections: An exploratory reflection on correctional officer turnover and

its correlates. Public Personnel Managemen

36(3), 247-268.

Vermont Department of Corrections. (2013). Report on Factors Contributing to High Attrition

Rates of Correctional Officers. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Department of Corrections.

Walmsley, R. (2013). World Population List, 10th ed. Essex, UK: International Centre for

Prison Studies.

Wolff, N., Blitz, C.L., Shi, J., Siegel, J., & Bachman, R. (2007). Physical violence inside

prisons: Rates of victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 588-599.

World Health Organization. (2013). Priority Communicable Diseases. Geneva, Switzerland: World

Health Organization.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 31

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

About the Authors

Frank Valentino Ferdik is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology and

Criminal Justice at the University of West Florida in Pensacola, Florida. His research

interests consist of tests of criminological theories, the application of risk-based analyses to

the criminal justice field, perceptual outcomes, criminal justice actor decision-making, and

correctional officer job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and health and wellness. He earned

his doctoral degree from the University of South Carolina in 2014, and to date has published

11 peer-reviewed articles, three technical reports, two book chapters, and two encyclopedia

entries. Many of his publications have been on the topics of correctional officer desires to

resign, risk perceptions, power bases, and punishment orientations. His work has appeared

in journal outlets such as

Journal of Criminal Justice and Psychology, Crime and Law.

In 2015,

he was invited by the National Institute of Justice to deliver a presentation in Washington,

DC on the topic of correctional officer health and wellness, especially for those assigned to

administrative segregation units. Currently he is working on numerous other correctional

officer-based research projects.

Hayden P. Smith is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal

Justice at the University of South Carolina. His research interests consist of inmate self-

injurious behaviors, the intersection between mental health outcomes and criminal justice

processes, correctional officer job satisfaction and turnover intentions, offender behavioral

and mental health outcomes, as well as police use of force. He earned his doctoral degree

from the University of Central Florida in 2007 in Public Affairs, and to date has published

30 peer-reviewed journal articles, 15 technical reports, two books, two book chapters, and

six encyclopedia entries. He also possesses extensive grant management experience, with

most of his publications on the topics of inmate self-injury and correctional officer decision-

making. His work has appeared in journal outlets such as

Justice Quarterly

and

Criminal

Justice and Behavior

. He has won numerous awards for his contributions to research, and is

currently working on a handful of projects involving offender mental health.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Appendix

Summary of Literature on Correctional Officer Perceptions of Workplace Safety and Wellness

Study Citation Methodology

Safety and

Wellness

Concern Results

Alaird, L.F., & Marquart, J.W. • Randomly distributed • Risk of contracting • 54% of sample rated their risk of contracting HIV/

(2009). Officer perceptions of surveys to medium- HIV AIDS as high.

risk of contracting HIV/AIDS in and maximum-security

• Significant predictors: Greater HIV/AIDS

prison: A two-state comparison. officers in two U.S.

knowledge led to reduced perceptions. Higher

The Prison Journal. states (Missouri and

Texas)

• N = 553

• Logistic regression

prisoner contact increased perceptions. Older and

more formally educated officers were less likely

to perceive risk, and those working in higher level

custody prisons perceived greater risk.

Dillon, B., & Allwright, S. (2005). • Randomly distributed • Risk of contracting • 92.2% of sample believed they were at risk of

Prison officers’ concerns about survey to medium- and Hepatitis B, C, and contracting Hepatitis B.

blood borne viral infections. maximum-security HIV

• 95.2% believed they were at risk of contracting

Howard Journal of Criminal officers in four Dublin,

• Worry of Hepatitis C.

Justice. Ireland prisons

• N = 272

• Logistic regression

contracting

Hepatitis B, C, and

HIV

• 94.1% believed they were at risk of contracting HIV.

• Significant predictors: Lower ranking and

less seasoned officers perceived greater risk of

contracting any disease. Older and male officers

also perceived increased risk of contracting any of

the diseases. Younger and male officers worried

more about contracting any of the diseases.

Ferdik, F. (2014). Examining the • Surveys distributed to • Risk of injury • High mean risk rating across all dangers, with a

correlates of correctional officer statewide population from six dangers range of 7 to 35 and mean of 26.76.

risk perceptions and decision- of maximum-security (gangs, disruptive

• Significant predictors: Longer tenured officers

making. Doctoral dissertation, correctional officers inmates, riots,

perceived increased risk of injury. Officers who

University of South Carolina. (South Carolina) inmates with

expressed greater fear and anxiety about dangers

Proquest Dissertations and

• N = 559

mental illness,

perceived increased risk.

Theses Abstracts.

• OLS models

physically

ill inmates,

contraband)

Garcia, R.M. (2008). • National survey data • Composite danger • Between low and moderate perceived danger

Individual and institutional collected from U.S. index reported by the sample (range of -2.0 to 2.0, with

and organizational climate federal correctional mean of 0.01).

correlates of perceived danger officers

• Significant predictors: Individual level: Non-white

among federal correctional

• N = 2,954 and female officers perceived greater danger;

officers. Doctoral dissertation,

Temple University. Proquest

• Multi-level modeling

higher security-level officers perceived greater

danger. Institutional level: Institutions with higher

Dissertations and Theses

percentages of non-white and female officers

Abstracts.

perceived increased danger; higher security-level

institutions recorded greater perceptions of danger.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 33

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov

Summary of Literature on Correctional Officer Perceptions of Workplace Safety and Wellness (cont.)

Study Citation Methodology

Safety and

Wellness

Concern Results

Gordon, J.A., Moriarty, L.J., • Convenience sample • Fear of • Between low and moderate perceived fear and risk

& Grant, P.H. (2003). Juvenile of correctional officers victimization of both inmate and officer victimization reported

correctional officers’ perceived in two Virginia juvenile from officers and (range of 1 to 5 for each, and means between 2.3

fear and risk of victimization: detention facilities inmates and 2.4 across measures).

Examining individual and received surveys

• Risk of • Significant predictors: Men less likely to perceive

collective levels of victimization

• N = 100 victimization risk. Non-white officers and those with additional

in two juvenile correctional

centers in Virginia. Criminal

• OLS models

from officers and

inmates

years of formal education were more likely to

perceive risk.

Justice and Behavior.

Gordon, J.A., Proulx, B., & • Statewide population • Fear of inmate • 73% of officers at least somewhat afraid of inmate

Grant, P.H. (2013). Trepidation of correctional officers victimization victimization. 57% perceived at least moderate risk

among the “keepers”: Gendered employed in all adult

• Risk of inmate

of inmate victimization.

perceptions of fear and risk of prison facilities in an

victimization • Between 85% and 90% of officers perceived low

victimization among corrections

officers. American Journal of

unidentified U.S. state

received self-report

• Fear of staff

fear and risk of staff victimization.

Criminal Justice. surveys

• N = 1,273

• OLS models

victimization

• Risk of staff

victimization

• Significant predictors: Female, more formally

educated officers and officers employed in higher

security-level facilities perceived greater fear and

risk of inmate victimization.

• Higher security-level officers perceived greater risk

of staff victimization. Older and non-white officers

perceived less risk of staff victimization.

Hartley, D.J., Davila, M.A., • Randomly distributed • Composite • Officers reported relatively high perceived danger,

Marquart, J.W., & Mullings, J.L. surveys presented inventory of with a range of 5 to 25 and mean of 19.18.

(2012). Fear is a disease: The to medium- and perceived

• Officers perceived moderate levels of fear of

impact of fear and exposure maximum-security dangerousness of

contracting an infectious disease, with a range of 0

to infectious disease on officers across Texas the job

to 5 and mean of 2.80.

correctional officer job stress

• N = 2,999 • Fear of contracting

and satisfaction. American

infectious disease

Journal of Criminal Justice.

Lai, Y.L., Wang, H.M., & Kellar, • Convenience sample • Perceptions of fear • Between low and moderate levels of fear of both

M. (2012). Workplace violence of Taiwanese of victimization inmate and co-worker victimization were reported

in correctional institutions in minimum- and from inmates by correctional officers, with respective ranges of 1

Taiwan: A study of correctional medium-security

• Perceptions of fear

to 4 and mean values of 2.53 and 2.06.

officers’ perceptions. correctional officers

of victimization • Significant predictors: Older officers perceived

International Journal of received self-report

from co-workers reduced fear of inmate victimization. Officers

Comparative and Applied surveys

exposed to both physical and vicarious victimization

Criminal Justice.

• N = 348

• OLS models

perceived increased fear, and officers who reported

greater trust in administration perceived less fear of

co-worker victimization.

Note: OLS = ordinary least squares.

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 34