“They Can Take Us Over Any Time They Want”

Abstract

Prisons in the Southern United States are among the most underfunded, understaffed, and crowded in the nation. This study seeks to identify how Alabama state correctional officers experienced crowding related to their mental and physical health and safety. A total of 66 correctional officers at 3 Alabama men’s prisons are surveyed about crowding in relation to job performance, health and safety, and inmate control. Respondents at all facilities, which had occupancy rates between 154% and 206% of capacity, report high levels of stress and impaired job performance due to understaffing and overwork. Officers at the most crowded prison are most stressed and fearful of inmates. In the absence of policies to reduce density or increase staffing in prisons, new strategies are urgently needed to reduce occupational stress among officers in crowded correctional facilities.

Keywords

correctional officers crowding health safety

Introduction

U.S. prisons are often crowded because “get tough” policies in the War on Drugs led to unprecedented growth in prison populations after the early 1980s (The Sentencing Project, 2006). Indeed, the United States has the dubious distinction of the highest rate of incarceration in the world, having surpassed countries such as Russia and South Africa for the first time in 2005 (The Sentencing Project, 2006). Regional differences in U.S. rates of incarceration occur, with the South traditionally having more prisoners behind bars than any other region (American Correctional Association, 2006; U.S. Department of Justice, 2002). At the same time, Southern prisons are among the most underfunded, understaffed, and crowded in the nation (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Pryor, 2005). This article presents the results of a survey of correctional officers’ experiences of prison crowding in a Southern state (Alabama) in which prison density has reached crisis levels (Alabama Task Force on Prison Crowding, 2005; Pryor, 2005). In Alabama, attrition rates for correctional officers are about 25 per month, allegedly because the ratio of inmates to officers is about twice the national average (Gordon, 2010).

Research on prison crowding suggests that population density (i.e., less than 60 sq. ft. per inmate by American Correctional Association standards) leads to myriad problems, including cramped sleeping quarters, health concerns, and loss of privacy among inmates. The growth in population density has outpaced housing capacity in most U.S. prisons, and facilities that were designed for 500 inmates are holding twice as many, with inmates being double- and triple-celled as a matter of necessity (Pollock, 2004). Research by Paulus (1988), Spector (2010), and Stinchcomb (2005) indicated that inmates were being double-bunked in small cells meant for one person and that they often slept on mattresses in hallways and gymnasiums. Crowding meant that space for recreation, work, and rehabilitation programs was eliminated after these areas were converted to dormitories to house additional prisoners.

Researchers have questioned whether or not crowding leads to increased violence in correctional facilities. Austin and Irwin (2001), Bonta and Gendreau (1990), Lester (1990), and Spector (2010) all reported that violence increased when inmates became more confined, programs and recreational space were eliminated, and personal space was violated in crowded dormitories. Other researchers (DiIulio, 1990; Ekland-Olsen, 1986; Gaes, 1994; Reisig, 1998) rejected this premise on the basis that poor management and lack of officer training are better predictors of disorder regardless of crowding. Gaes (p. 2) critiqued the crowding-leads-to-violence literature by stating that “Most prison crowding studies do not examine [the role of] intervening variables in the relationship between crowding and violence.” In a systematic review of the literature on prison violence, only one study out of five found a connection between institutional crowding and violence (Gadon, Johnstone, & Cooke, 2006). However, Franklin, Franklin, and Pratt’s (2006) meta-analysis of published research on prison crowding and inmate misconduct provided mixed results, with greater support demonstrated for the role of management than for crowding in relation to violence. Nevertheless, Huey and Mcnulty (2005) found that crowding, even at minimum-security prisons, increased the likelihood of prisoner suicide, which suggests that crowding does have negative effects on prisoner well-being (self-violence) if not on inmate-to-inmate violence. Regardless of such debates, prison crowding is widely considered to be detrimental to the health and safety of inmates and inmate-to-staff ratios, as evident in lawsuits over the matter and in court orders to reduce crowding because of health and safety concerns (Alabama Task Force on Prison Crowding, 2005; Biskupic, 2011; Ekland-Olsen, 1986; Pryor, 2005).

Research on occupational stress among correctional officers rarely addresses crowding as a primary variable but has identified circumstances in which crowding might be a factor. Two studies on stress among correctional officers stated that officers become hypervigilant in response to threats of disorder (Cole & Smith, 2007) and threats of violence by inmates are a major source of stress (Finn, 1998). Dowden and Tellier’s (2004) meta-analysis of articles on work-related stress among correctional officers concluded that employees who reported high levels of perceived danger also reported high levels of work-related stress. Other stressors that were associated with officer burnout involved turnover intent, more frequent absenteeism, and emotional exhaustion (Lambert, Hogan, & Altheimer, 2010). Lindquist and Whitehead’s (1986) qualitative study indicated that noise levels, organizational demands, boredom, and frustration in dealing with inmates are associated with work-related stress among correctional officers. In comparing the work experiences of supervisors and correctional staff in prisons, Owen (2006) concluded that supervisors were stressed by the demands of administrative work whereas correctional officers’ stressors typically arose from problems in dealing with inmates. Finn (1986) report that these stress-related problems intensify when officers have to work overtime because of short staffing, supervisors failing to give positive feedback, and when threats of violence by inmates occur on a frequent basis.

Compared to the violence and prison crowding literature, research on crowding as a stressor among correctional officers is sparse. Morgan, Van Haveren, and Pearson’s (2002) research on occupational burnout among correctional officers indicated that being assigned to the most crowded areas of the prison led to high rates of stress for these officers. Work-related stress from threats of violence in crowded prisons affected personal lives as well, with officers who were under constant fear of attack reporting the most problems in family or personal relationships (Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986). Finn (1998) described how crowding led to frayed tempers, sloppy work, and inability to handle confrontations with inmates with calm. This rather meager body of work certainly raises questions about the role of crowding in occupational stress among correctional officers and suggests that it is useful to address the issue of occupational health and safety in Alabama’s poorly funded prison system where the inmate-to-officer ratio is the highest in the United States (Alabama State Employees Association, 2008).

Models of Prison Control

The current research examined the occupational effects of prison crowding on health, safety, and inmate control. This focus led directly to scholarly debates regarding how prison systems maintain order and security. Following DiIulio (1990), these debates have weighed the strengths and weaknesses of three prison management methods known as the social control, consensus, and responsibility models of control (Reisig, 1998). The control model is a common style of management in maximum security prisons and is also the standard for prisons in Southern states such as Texas and Alabama. The model is characterized by bureaucratic command-control regimes, formal modes of address between coworkers (e.g.; sir or boss), strict punishment for rule violations, and restrictions on all inmate activities. By contrast, the responsibility model is based on informality between supervisors, officers and inmates, informal modes of address and self-governance for inmates in some cases, and officer opportunities to apply judgment in enforcing prison rules. The consensus model is a hybrid of the control and responsibility models but lacks the fundamentals of either system (e.g., total control or shared governance). In this model, prison policies are modified to fit particular conditions of the facility or location. The type of model being used often depends on regional factors, as described in DiIulio’s foundational work that compared “The Michigan Responsibility Model,” “The Texas Control Model,” and “The California Confused Model.” As ideal types, the responsibility and social control models are rarely used in the United States, with most systems using a hybrid (consensus) model to fit local conditions (Reisig, 1998).

Scholarly research on the efficacy of these models generally focuses on inmate control, but several studies include workplace conditions as well. DiIulio (1990) reported that the control model in Texas was favored by correctional officers, primarily because a talented administrator established a highly structured (control) system that instilled trust among officers and inmates alike. He concluded, “The quality of prison life depends more on management than any other variable” (p. 6). DiIulio contrasted the success of the Texas model with low morale among correctional officers in Michigan who lacked a clear sense of mission and were burdened by paperwork. Other research has viewed the control system skeptically because of its harshness toward inmates. For example, Dawes (1993) stated bluntly that the control model is ethically unacceptable because it leads to officer-to-inmate abuse. Reisig and Lovritch (1998) found that correctional officers who were employed in prisons with balanced, middle-ground managerial approaches experienced greater job satisfaction than their counterparts in either command-control model or responsibility model facilities. It is unclear which system is preferred by officers or even if any form of prison management is effective in crowded facilities with chronically low staffing levels. The issue for the current study was how correctional officers in three command-control facilities in Alabama experienced crowding in relation to their health and safety.

Research Questions and Survey Instrument

Two research questions guided the research for this article:

Research Question 1: Does crowding result in officer stress and work-related illness?

The first question sought narrative responses on the central question for the study about crowding as an occupational stressor. The extant literature on this topic was mixed, but local conditions suggested that crowding was a concern for correctional officers in Alabama.

Research Question 2: Does crowding lead to violence or threats of violence?

The second research question was based on evidence from the prison literature that crowding leads to violence (Austin & Irwin, 2001; Bonta & Gendreau, 1990; Lester, 1990) or that officers perceive crowded facilities to be dangerous for staff and inmates alike (Finn, 1998; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986; Morgan et al., 2002). These questions formed the basis of a 27-item survey instrument: seven demographic items on rank, job description, length of service, education, age, gender, and race/ethnicity, and four Likert-type scale items for stress among correctional officers and inmates. Seven open-ended items invited narrative comments on the effects of crowding on job performance, safety, health and well-being, and four open-ended items addressed crowding and inmate violence. The remaining items sought responses about officer–inmate interactions and remedies for crowding.

Approvals, Recruitment, and Sample

Research Approvals

Permission to conduct the research was sought from Institutional Review Boards at The University of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections respectively. Submitted documents included a research protocol, informed consent form, and a survey instrument. The research protocol outlined procedures for recruitment, informed consent, confidentiality, and data monitoring. Approvals were granted by both institutions prior to recruitment. An additional requirement was that an official from the research unit of the Alabama Department of Corrections should accompany the first author (JM) to each facility on study days. This official was not present when the protocols were being completed. At each facility, potential recruits were presented with an informed consent packet explaining their rights as research subjects. Officers who agreed to participate after reading the packet were given a protocol to complete. No identifying information (e.g., names and addresses) was collected from any officer who participated in the study. As a privacy protection, and to facilitate data management and analysis, the protocols were numbered according to the facility being surveyed and the order in which the completed protocols was collected (e.g., facility # 1:10). It should be noted that the surveys were only for correctional officers: No inmates were contacted or surveyed for the research.

Recruitment and Location

The study took place at three Alabama prisons for men (Facilities A, B, and C). Facilities A and B prisons were maximum-security prisons, and Facility C (the newest) was a medium-security prison. The occupancy rates at these prisons far exceeded official capacity (Facility A = 154%, Facility B = 164%, Facility C = 206%). Recruitment took place at morning roll call at the three facilities when all officers on duty (n = 90) were asked whether they would participate in the study. If the officers agreed, the first author (JM) distributed the protocols to the participants and requested the completed surveys to be placed in a designated collection box. The protocols were collected by JM at the end of the shift. A total of 66 officers completed the surveys for a 73% response rate (Facility A, n = 22; Facility B, n = 19; Facility C, n =25). Respondents were not compensated individually but were eligible for a prize draw for one gift certificate per facility.

Sample

Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic characteristics of the sample reported for each facility. Briefly, the large majority of officers were African American (67.2%) and male (82.5%). Approximately one in five respondents had a college education (18.0%). The average length of service in the facility was 10.6 years (Facility A = 14.4, Facility B = 11.5, Facility C = 6.2). A chi-squared test (χ² = 6.0, p < .05) indicated that Facility A, the oldest prison, employed a higher number of White officers whereas Facilities B and C were staffed at much higher percentages by African Americans. A one-way ANOVA (F = 8.2, p < .001) indicated that years of service differed across the facilities. Post hoc tests using Tukey (Fox, Levin, & Forde, 2009) demonstrated that years of service were significantly lower in Facility C (the newest prison) whereas Facilities A and B were essentially equivalent to each other. A chi-square test for differences by education was marginally significant (χ² = 5.4, p < .07), with Facility C having fewer officers with a college degree. There were no statistically significant differences across facilities by gender (χ² = 1.9, p > .05).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Respondents at the Participating Facilities

	Facility A	Facility B	Facility C	Total
	n = 22	n = 19	n = 25	N = 66
Ethnicity (%)
African American	47.6	83.3	72.0	67.2
Other	52.4	16.7	28.0	32.8
Gender(%)
Male	85.7	72.2	87.5	82.5
Female	14.3	27.8	12.5	17.5
College degree (% yes)	30.0	23.5	4.2	18.0
Years of service	14.4	11.5	6.2^a	10.6

Facility C (the newest) opened in 1998.

Analysis

SPSS 16.0 was used for compilation of the quantitative analysis (SPSS, 2007). Cross-tabulation and correlational analysis were used to examine relationships between the demographic variables and the officers’ attitudes toward job performance, violence, stress-related items, and crowding. An alpha level of .05 was used to identify significant relationships. The open-ended items were coded by number, and the written narratives were entered into a Word data management program for qualitative analysis. All items in the individual codes were tallied and organized according to the types of responses for each facility (e.g., types of violence or types of stressors) and then compared between facilities for cross-comparisons of the data as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994) for qualitative methods. This process produced consensus statements on crowding as a stressor in relation to prison control, officer health, and inmate violence. The results of this analysis are presented in narrative form by topic. A summary of all responses for these items appears in frequency tables at the end of each subsection.

Results

The results of the quantitative items are presented, followed by the qualitative results. In the Qualitative Results section, quotes from the narratives are used for consensus statements (e.g., crowding leads to stress). In order to protect confidentiality, each quote is followed by an identifier by facility (Facility A, B, or C) and by the code number that was assigned to each officer.

Quantitative Results

Table 2 provides a summary of the attitudinal items compared across facilities. The results indicate that officers uniformly identified crowding as a threat to officer safety, job performance, and to poor health among both officers and inmates. All respondents (100%) reported that crowding affected officer safety. When asked specifically whether crowding led to violence at their facility, 100% of the sample answered “yes.” Almost all of the respondents (93%) agreed that the facility was too crowded to do their job effectively. Every officer at the most crowded prison (Facility C) agreed that crowding had a negative effect on job performance.

Table 2.

Responses for Crowding in Relation to Job Stress, Job Performance, and Violence

	Facility A (n = 22)	Facility B (n = 19)	Facility C (n = 25)	Total (N = 66)
Crowding is responsible for
Threats to my safety	100.0	100	100	100
Increased violence	100.0	100	100	100
Impaired job performance	90.0	90.0	100	93.0
Crowding = stress (officers)
All of the time	65.0	56.2	72.0	64.4
Crowding = stress (inmates)
All of time	71.4	83.3	66.7	73.8

The respondents were asked to rate the degree to which crowding leads to stressful working conditions for correctional officers. Almost two thirds of respondents (64.4%) associated crowding with stressful working conditions. The percentages of officers reporting that officers were stressed all of the time were statistically equal across institutions (χ² = 3.9, p > .05). The officers were also asked to assess the degree to which crowding was stressful for the inmates. These results were also found to be high (73.8%) and statistically equivalent across facilities (χ² = 2.3, p > .05). Additional analysis of the correlation between perception of stress for officers and stress for inmates found a moderate correlation between the two variables (r_s² = .34, p < .01). Respondents who perceived crowding leads to stress among correctional officers were also likely to say crowding led to stress among inmates.

Qualitative Results

Crowding

The narrative data illustrated more clearly how officers experienced working conditions in crowded prisons. Stress was a primary concern for all respondents, with crowding being a reference point for systemic problems with staffing and capacity. One officer explained, “It causes officers to be stressed when we don’t work a normal work week. In one week, we might work eighty hours. Overtime is a fact of life for correctional officers whether you want it or not, and eight hours sleep is a thing of the past” (B19). A coworker agreed that being short-staffed adversely affected job performance at the facility, with officers treating inmates poorly because “There are too many inmates and too many officers stressing out with overtime and that causes a big problem with temperament” (B4). The chief complaints centered on the lack of staff members to secure, count, and monitor inmates and the fear that being outnumbered would lead to violence. One officer reported that “Inmates allow us to be in this institution every day, and they allow us to leave. I think that anytime they want to take over, then they can” (A1). This remark was echoed by other respondents who expressed frustration over short staffing and “stuffing more prisoners into facilities” (B28). These concerns led to hypervigilance to avoid being attacked, especially when backup was unavailable because of low staffing levels.

Prison management

The respondents felt that the operations at their facility were compromised on a daily basis and that crowding was a barrier to prison management and safety. One officer lamented, “It gets hard to try to contain some of the criminal activity going on here because of the crowding” (B19). As another officer reported, “Crowding makes it very difficult to have complete oversight over inmate activities” (C17). Respondents expressed frustration with officials who paid lip service to the control model of management but who “Let things slide to keep things calm. They hurt the effectiveness of the line officer who is in daily contact with prisoners” (A16). One officer wrote, “We are forced to let things go and give inmates less stringent punishment like time-out or segregation. The inmates see this happening and it emboldens them to escalate their behavior” (C20). Crowding also led to mandatory overtime, employee turnover, staffing shortages, and the hasty hiring of new officers who lacked training or experience to deal with inmates in crowded conditions. One officer summarized the problem of staff turnover as follows: “You can only control the prison if you are firm, fair, and know your job. The [newer] officers get overwhelmed, the inmates take advantage, and then they leave. It has a domino effect and it makes it more dangerous for the rest of us” (C11).

Health

Mental and physical health problems among officers and inmates were legion. Officers blamed work-related stress for chronic health problems involving headaches, alcoholism, hypertension, obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, and weak immune systems. In fact, stress-related ill health was cited in so many cases that it was synonymous with being a correctional officer. Typical comments included the following: “Stress leads to high blood pressure” (B10), “Crowding leads to stress which leads to headaches and other problems” (A15), and “Several officers from this facility have died from heart attacks related to stress” (C20). Poor hygiene and crowded conditions were blamed for outbreaks of staphylococcus infections among inmates and for respiratory diseases such as tuberculosis that posed a threat to staff and inmates alike. Other health risks involved crowded and unhygienic toilet areas, lack of nursing staff to care for sick inmates, and simply the pressure of “Too many bodies crowded together in one place” (C8). One officer referred to these multiple health problems as follows: “An already stressful job is made more stressful which leads to other health problems like heart disease. Not to mention the amount of diseases you can contract in this prison” (A27). A summary of responses to the health and job performance items appears in Table 3.

Table 3.

Responses to Qualitative Items on Crowding in Relation to Job Performance and Health

Item	N^a (%)	Effects
Job performance	43 (65.1)	Difficult to monitor inmates and secure facility (14)^b, short-tempered with inmates (12), excessive overtime (7), reduced job performance (6), excessive workload (4)
Health and well-being	52 (78.8)	High levels of stress (37), risk of infectious disease (9), hypertension and cardiovascular disease (6).

This column presents the number of participants who responded to these items out of a maximum of 66 participants.

The numbers in parentheses signify the number of respondents who commented on each issue.

Crowd control

All respondents feared being assaulted and having to break up fights between inmates. One respondent wrote, “With more inmates, the threat of an incident or disturbance is definitely higher” (A12). Another respondent agreed, saying, “With the number of inmates we have, it is impossible to control a riot or gang fight without officers being placed in more danger than necessary” (A21). Violence occurred when inmates were bored or when they became frustrated over lack of privacy in crowded conditions, so that “When a man’s space is violated, he tends to become more aggressive” (C19). The threat of violence was greater at certain times of year, particularly during summer when “Inmates are forced to live in hot, crowded cells [without air-conditioning] with people of different races. It makes it easy for fights to get started” (A21). Lockdowns were used to control inmates because “The more inmates there are, the more time it takes for officers to feed, count, supervise, and organize health care, which leave inmates locked in dorms for longer” (A18). This practice led to further animosity between staff and inmates. Officers were left to feel that “This is a hostile and dangerous environment. We are spread thin, we sometimes we have to monitor several hundred inmates by ourselves. We have become prey” (A16).

Violence

Violent incidents involved property damage, gang activity, race riots, and inmates being stabbed, raped, drugged, or cut from “fights going on every other day or night that turn into violence” (C4). Violence flared in cell blocks, dormitories, dining halls, medical stations, or “Just about anywhere” (B14). Managing disruptive behavior and fights was a daily struggle for most officers who complained about the dangers of handling incidents alone. Said one respondent, “There are 2,000 inmates in my facility but only about 20 to 25 officers for each shift. It makes it impossible for officers to see everything and to respond to everything” (C9). A coworker in the same facility concurred, “The officer-inmate ratio is completely imbalanced. Because of this the chances of a CO being hurt in the line of duty are extremely high” (C11). Whether or not officer–inmate assaults did occur was almost beside the point for respondents who felt they always had to watch our backs and who worried that help might not arrive in time if they needed it. This concern over security was likened to being in a war zone because “They are breathing down our neck, and they know we are outnumbered. There could be a hostage situation at any time” (B19). A summary of all responses on violence and crowding appears in Table 4.

Table 4.

Responses to Qualitative Items on Crowding in Relation to Violence

Item	N^a (%)	Problem
Impact on officers	61 (92.4)	Short staffing (28)^b; confusion, danger, and threats of violence (18); difficulty in controlling, securing, and monitoring inmates (15)
Impact on inmates	43 (65.2)	Lack of space and privacy (24), stress and tension (10), lack of security and supervision (9)
Impact on inmate behavior	37 (56.1)	Fights (23), lack of respect (9), verbal abuse or harassment (5)
Types of violence^c	—	Inmate-to-inmate fights (41), stabbings (25), rapes (21), gang activity (12), inmate-to-officer assaults (7)
Location of violence^c	—	Cell blocks (18), kitchen/dining hall (16), dormitories/bays (15), yard (13), gym (8), blind spots (1), everywhere (1)

This column presents the number of participants who responded to these items out of a maximum of 66 persons.

The numbers in parentheses signify the number of respondents who commented on each issue.

Participants had the opportunity to give multiple responses to these items. They gave a total of 106 responses to the “types of violence” item and 72 responses to the “location of violence” item.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that officers in crowded facilities face heavy burdens in relation to their work. The consensus among respondents that crowding led to stress, problems with safety, increased violence, and, in most cases, impaired job performance is evidence of how correctional officers viewed crowding in the most negative terms. In prior research on stress and burnout among correctional officers, Finn (1998); Lambert, Hogan, and Tucker (2010); Lindquist and Whitehead (1986); and Paoline, Lambert, and Hogan (2006) independently identified overload, exhaustion, shift work, inmate violence, role conflict, poor relationships with coworkers or supervisors, and institutional practices as primary sources of stress and made recommendations for workplace interventions. It is worth noting that relatively little research has been conducted on levels of stress that officers experience in relation to crowding and that two of the three articles cited here (i.e., Finn, 1988; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986) were published before crowding rose to the present critical levels. Our study has contributed to this prison crowding literature by identifying extremely high levels of self-reported stress (100%). This rate is considerably higher than the stress levels reported, 39% and 62%, respectively, in the two studies cited by Finn. The consensus reports in this article suggest that meaningful changes have yet to be made at the institutional level or, more important, that a combination of understaffing and extreme crowding have played a role in the amount of stress, staff turnover, and the health risks and conditions being reported by officers in Alabama.

As noted earlier, most U.S. prisons have adopted a hybrid system of management to fit local conditions. The control model is standard protocol for Alabama prisons. DiIulio (1990) argued that this ideal type of prison management is difficult to maintain, primarily because of political tensions over treatment of inmates, lack of funding for prisons, and temporal changes in prison administration. The officers in the present study favored a command-control system that was both firm and fair but felt that officials had let things slide to such an extent that employees’ health and safety were being compromised. Their statements indicated that tight prison budgets made it impossible to employ more staff and that crowding prevented prison officials from being effective in their job. As a result, the officers felt they were the “meat in the sandwich.” The hybrid model, or rather, an ambiguous system involving leniency (bending or ignoring the rules) and tight control (extended periods in lockdown) had been adopted at the three facilities for the sake of expediency. This outcome suggests that, although management typologies are important in assessing outcomes for the nation’s prisons (DiIulio, 1990; Franklin et al., 2006; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986), the control model (or any model) is likely to falter under the weight of budgetary constraints, staff shortages, and crisis levels of crowding.

The respondents in the present study believed that crowding led to violence among inmates and threats to their own safety. Inmate–officer assaults did occur on a regular basis, especially at the maximum-security facilities (Alabama Department of Corrections, 2010). In 2007, for example, 87 inmate–officer assaults were recorded at the 3 facilities, representing 48.9% of all inmate–officer assaults at Alabama prisons (Alabama Department of Corrections, 2010). Empirical work by Ruback and Carr (1993), Useem and Reisig (1999), and Woolredge, Griffin, and Pratt (2001) identified a positive relationship between violence and crowding, although other studies have stated otherwise (e.g., Ekland-Olson, 1986; Franklin et al., 2006; Gadon et al., 2006; Gaes, 1994; McCorkle, Miethe, & Drass, 1995). Debates among penologists on this issue are far from settled, although the present study suggests that prison crowding contributes to employees’ fears about the threat of violence, if not an actual increase in violence. These fears are detrimental to officers’ health and well-being and to officer–inmate relationships. In the present case, it is worth noting that the officers were concerned about two issues in relation to crowding and violence. On inmate–inmate violence, the respondents stated that infractions between inmates in cell blocks, dormitories, and in dining and recreational areas were more numerous because of crowding. On inmate–officer violence, respondents associated crowding with threats to their safety because staffing levels had not kept pace with population density, leaving them vulnerable to attack. It is possible that additional hiring would mitigate this sense of vulnerability and would certainly help to reduce stress-related behaviors that were experienced as somatic complaints, irritability, and in some cases, physical and mental illness.

The limitations of the study should be noted. First, the study sought self-reports from correctional officers about occupational health and safety in crowded facilities and did not include the experiences of prisoners or officials whose views might have differed from those of correctional officers. This task would be a useful point of inquiry for future research. Second, the respondents were not asked whether they had been assaulted by inmates or how often inmate–officer assaults occurred, although, as noted, departmental statistics indicate that violent incidents are more common at these prisons than at other facilities in Alabama. Nevertheless, the threat of being assaulted was extremely salient to the respondents and their fears about being outnumbered, and thus vulnerable to attack, led to many reports of work-related stress. Finally, the officers were not asked directly whether crowding was the primary culprit in violence or threats of violence or whether the inmate–officer ratio was a bigger problem in this respect. It would be logical to assume that there would be fewer problems with stress, overtime, and staffing shortages if more officers were employed at these facilities. This improvement would not have mitigated other problems with crowding, such as the risk of infectious diseases, pressures of cramped cells and dormitories, or having to deal with restive inmates who were denied recreational space and access to rehabilitation and work programs because of crowding. Such issues are unlikely to be resolved in the near future unless state and federal policy makers begin to address the problem of prison crowding, especially in the context of broader questions over diversion programs (drug courts), alternative sentencing, and U.S. crime and sentencing laws.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Ron Cavanaugh at the Alabama Department of Corrections for facilitating the study at three state prisons, to the correctional officers who participated in the study, and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

References

Alabama Department of Corrections. (2010). Unpublished statistics on disciplinaries, assaults, homicides, and suicides for October 2006 to June 2008. Montgomery, AL: Author.

Alabama State Employees Association. (2008). Did you know? The Advisor, 34(1), 4.

Alabama Task Force on Prison Crowding. (2005). Final report. Montgomery, AL: Governor’s Office. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://sentencingcommission.alacourt.gov/Publications/Gov%20TF%20Report.pdf.

American Correctional Association. (2006). Directory of correctional facilities. Map of federal prisoners since 1950. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://www.aca.org/search/globalsearch.asp?globalsrch=Federal+Prisoners&srchsec=All

Austin

Irwin

(2001). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Biskupic

(2011). Supreme Court stands firm on prison crowding. USA Today. Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-05-24-Supreme-court-prisons_n.htm

Bonta

Gendreau

(1990). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 347-372.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf

Cole

G. F.

Smith

C. E.

(2007). American corrections (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadworth.

10.

Dawes

(1993). Managing serious violent offenders in south Australian prisons: Control, consensus, or responsibility. In Gerull

Lucas

(Eds.), Conference proceeding 19: Serious violent offenders: Sentencing, psychiatry, and law reform (pp.143-157). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

11.

DiIulio

J. J.

(1990). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York, NY: Free Press.

12.

Dowden

Tellier

(2004). Predicting work related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31-47.

13.

Ekland-Olson

(1986). Crowding, social control and prison violence: Evidence from the post-Ruiz years in Texas. Law and Society Review, 20, 389-422.

14.

Finn

(1998). Correctional officer stress: A cause for concern and additional help. Federal Probation, 62, 65-75.

15.

Fox

J. A.

Levin

Forde

D. R.

(2009). Elementary statistics in criminal justice research (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

16.

Franklin

Pratt

(2006). Examining the empirical relationship between prison crowding and inmate misconduct: A meta-analysis of conflicting research results. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 401-412.

17.

Gadon

Johnstone

Cooke

(2006). Situational variables and institutional violence: A systematic review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 515-534.

18.

Gaes

G. R.

(1994). Prison crowding research reexamined. The Prison Journal, 74, 329-363.

19.

Gordon

(2010, February 18). Dozens of new faces join Alabama correctional officer ranks. The Birmingham News. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/02/dozens_of_new_faces_join_alaba.html

20.

Huey

M. P.

Mcnulty

T. L.

(2005). Institutional conditions and prison suicide: Conditional effects of deprivation and overcrowding. The Prison Journal, 85, 490-514.

21.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Altheimer

(2010). An exploratory examination of the consequences of burnout in terms of life satisfaction, turnover intent, and absenteeism among private correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 90(1), 94-114.

22.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Tucker

K. A.

(2010). Problems at work: Exploring the correlates of role stress among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 89, 460-481.

23.

Lester

(1990). Overcrowding in prisons and rates of suicide and homicide. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 274.

24.

Lindquist

C. A.

Whitehead

J. T.

(1986). Burnout, job stress, and job satisfaction among southern correctional officers: Perceptions and causal factors. Journal of Offender Counseling, 31, 107-117.

25.

McCorkle

R. C.

Miethe

T. D.

Drass

K. A.

(1995). The roots of prison violence: A test of the deprivation, management, and “Not-So-Total” institution models. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 317-331.

26.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A.M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

27.

Morgan

R. D.

Van Haveren

R. A.

Pearson

C. A.

(2002). Correctional officer burnout: Further analyses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 144-160.

28.

Owen

S. S.

(2006). Occupational stress among correctional supervisors. The Prison Journal, 86, 164-181.

29.

Paoline

E. A.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2006). A calm and happy keeper of the keys: The impact of ACA views, relations with coworkers, and policy views on the job stress and job satisfaction of correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 86, 182-205.

30.

Paulus

P. B.

(1988). Prison crowding: A psychological perspective. New York, NY/Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

31.

Pollock

J. M.

(2004). Prisons and prison life: Costs and consequences. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

32.

Pryor

(2005). Keynote address: Lessons of a sentencing reformer from the Deep South. Columbia Law Review, 105(4), 943-958.

33.

Reisig

M. D.

(1998). Rates of disorder in higher-custody prisons: A comparative analysis of managerial practices. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 229-244.

34.

Ruback

R. B.

Carr

T. S.

(1993). Prison crowding over time: The relationship of density and chances in density to infraction rates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 130-148.

35.

Spector

(2010). Everything revolves around overcrowding: The state of California’s prisons Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22, 194-199.

36.

SPSS

Inc

. (2007). SPSS 16.0 base user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Author.

37.

Stinchcomb

J. B.

(2005). Corrections: Past, present, and future. Chicago, IL: Versa Books.

38.

The Sentencing Project. (2006). New incarceration figures: Thirty-three consecutive years of growth. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf

39.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2002). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2001 (Table 16). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pjim01.htm

40.

Useem

Reisig

M.D.

(1999). Collective action in prisons: Protests, disturbances, and riots. Criminology, 37, 735-759.

41.

Woolredge

Griffin

Pratt

(2001). Considering hierarchical models for research on inmate behavior: Predicting misconduct with multilevel data. Justice Quarterly, 18, 203-231.