“Anything Can Happen at Any Time”: Perceived Causes of Correctional Officer Injuries

Abstract

Prior research finds that correctional officers (COs) often report high levels of stress, poor mental and physical health and are at an increased risk of suffering work-related injuries. However, little is known about the causes of such injuries. In an attempt to fill this large gap in the literature, the current study used qualitative data to explore the perceived causes of work-related injuries according to COs and their executive staff. Officers identified the reasons for injuries as either within their control or outside of their control. Injuries resulting from factors within CO’s control were perceived to be related to complacency and corruption. Injuries stemming from circumstances outside of CO’s control were perceived to be related to the nature of the job, the mental health of inmates, minor events escalating, and what are known as inmate “check-ins.” In consideration of these findings, policy implications and directions for future research are also reviewed.

Keywords

institutional corrections correctional officer injuries pains of imprisonment qualitative methods

The most recent estimates suggest that there are approximately 500,000 correctional officers (COs) throughout the United States (Konda et al., 2013). Correctional scholars recognize that these individuals may “represent the single most important resource available to any correctional agency” (Archambeault & Archambeault, 1982, p. 72). COs supervise nearly 2 million inmates (Konda et al., 2013) and have many diverse responsibilities within institutions (Bazemore & Dicker, 1994; Crawley, 2004; Kauffmann, 1989; Moon & Maxwell, 2004). They perform these duties in dynamic, often unpredictable environments that involve potentially violent individuals such as gang members (Lombardo, 1989), those with mental illness (Kupers, 1999; Turner, 1975), or even terrorists (Crawley, 2004). This interaction with inmates, combined with working long hours, can predispose COs to an increased risk of work-related injuries (Brower, 2013; Stack & Tsoudis, 1997) similar to that of police officers or security guards (Harrell, 2011).

Work-related injuries can have a profound impact on COs and their families, coworkers, and their facilities. Injuries can impede officers’ regulation of inmate conduct, contribute to officer turnover and absenteeism, produce higher inmate-to-officer ratios, create budgetary problems for administrative officials, and reduce security levels across entire institutions (Brower, 2013; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Lambert et al., 2005). COs even face the risk of suffering work-related fatalities, with 113 COs losing their lives while on the job between 1999 and 2008 (Konda et al., 2013).

Given the potential impact of injuries to COs and the limited research in this area, the current study sought to develop a rich, detailed account of the causes of CO work-related injuries by directly examining the perspectives of COs and executive staff. Current COs and their supervisors are in a position to provide important insight into the factors that lead to injuries on the job. Their perspectives can help inform future policy and practice in an effort to reduce injuries and limit additional negative consequences associated with CO injury. The current study utilized in-depth interviews with COs and their supervisors in an effort to address the following research question: What do COs and their supervisors perceive as the causes of work-related injuries to COs? Policy implications and future directions for research are also discussed.

Literature Review

Scholars have long had an interest in examining COs’ well-being (Brower, 2013; Cullen et al., 1985; Ferdik et al., 2013; Finn, 1998, 2000; Halbesleben, 2006; Lambert et al., 2005; McCraty et al., 2003; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). Much of this research has focused on the mental toll correctional work can have on officers. In particular, a sizable body of prior research focused on CO stress has concluded that officers report high levels of stress as a result of working in a dangerous environment (Finney et al., 2013; Fitzgerald, 2010; Garcia, 2008; Hessl, 2001; Leip & Stinchcomb, 2013; Paoline et al., 2006; Patterson, 1992). In addition, COs often struggle with role conflict (Lambert et al., 2005), demanding work obligations (Brower, 2013), poor leadership, and a lack of resources necessary to complete their job responsibilities (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Botha & Pienaar, 2006; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; T. Morse et al., 2011). Furthermore, COs have reported elevated levels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which can impact officers’ physical health and job performance (Spinaris et al., 2012). Spinaris et al. (2012) found that 27% of their national sample of 3,599 COs reported symptoms of PTSD, which surpassed the overall rate reported by combat veterans (14%). Denhof and Spinaris (2016) found similarly elevated levels of PTSD and depression among COs in Michigan. The high prevalence of PTSD, stress, depression, and anxiety highlights one aspect of the risk associated with the occupation, but other risks may also pose threats to CO safety and well-being.

Mental health issues experienced by COs have been linked to impaired memory, heart disease, obesity, sleeping troubles, and digestive problems (Spinaris et al., 2012). COs who reported physical and mental health symptoms missed significantly more workdays and reported using both alcohol and tobacco more frequently as coping mechanisms (Spinaris et al., 2012). Poor physical and mental health for COs have been tied to officer burnout, turnover (Ferdik & Smith, 2017; Lambert et al., 2005; Patenaude, 2001), and decreased job performance (Paoline et al., 2006). These issues can lead to higher inmate-to-officer ratios, which can pose a greater risk to COs, staff, and inmates (Steward & Brown, 2001).

COs are at an increased risk of injury on the job similar to that experienced by other service workers including law enforcement officers, firefighters, and military personnel. In 2014, COs experienced substantially higher rates of injuries on the job (53.5 per 10,000 full-time equivalents [FTEs]) compared to all types of workers (2.9 per 10,000 FTEs) law enforcement officers specifically (42.5 per 10,000 FTEs; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015, as cited in Denhof & Spinaris, 2016). Roughly one third of these injuries were sustained as a result of interacting with inmates (Denhof & Spinaris, 2016). Injuries can also result from accidents or contraband and other objects. Although Larney and Dolan (2008) reported that needlestick injuries to COs were relatively rare, Lincoln et al. (2006) reported that many COs were injured by inmates using pitchers, hot pots, broom handles, dustpans, toothbrushes, pens, and pencils. Prison officials estimated that a total of US$1.125 million in lost wages and medical expenses resulted from these injuries (Lincoln et al., 2006).

Scholars have suggested that some COs are more likely to be injured on the job than others. In particular, male officers are more likely to be injured on the job than female officers (Konda et al., 2013); however, female officers reported feeling less safe while working in correctional facilities (Camp et al., 1995). COs working in medium- or maximum-security facilities, or a combination of the two, are injured more often than officers in minimum-security facilities (Lincoln et al., 2006). Finally, research suggests that COs who work with inmates who are mentally ill and/or incarcerated for violent offenses may be more likely to sustain a work-related injury. Despite the extant research related to the circumstances related to CO injuries, no known studies explore the causes of these injuries from CO’s perspectives.

Current Study

Although the prevalence of work-related injuries among COs is explored in a few recent studies (see Brower, 2013; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010; Harrell, 2011; Konda et al., 2013), there continues to be a gap in the literature related to the causes of these injuries. In particular, much of the prior research has focused on aggregate-level, secondary data sources and, therefore, has failed to capture detailed circumstances surrounding officer work-related injuries (see Konda et al., 2013). The current project builds on prior research by exploring factors related to these injuries in rich detail from the viewpoint of COs and administrative officials across multiple correctional facilities in two states. The study employed over 60 in-depth telephone interviews with COs and correctional institution administrators across maximum- and medium-security, male and female, facilities. Interviews provided the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the causes and consequences of injuries from CO and administrator perspectives.

Method

The current study is part of a larger multiphase project utilizing a mixed-methods approach of quantitative and qualitative methodology. The first phase involved in-depth telephone interviews with COs and executives across two states, one located in the Southern and the other located in the Midwestern region of the United States. Once institutional review board approval was received from the authors’ University, the respective states’ DOCs were contacted for official approval of the research project. Following approval by both states’ DOCs and all correctional institutions within the states, telephone interviews were scheduled in coordination with administrative personnel at each institution.

The nature of the agreements with the states’ DOCs required that the research team communicate with each institution’s administrative staff to facilitate interviews in a manner that presented minimal disruption to the facilities. As such, this phase of the study employed a convenience sample. Administrative officials within each state prison system recruited COs and executive staff to participate in telephone interviews. All respondents were told their participation was voluntary, and only those individuals who volunteered were interviewed. In total, 65 interviews (46 from the Midwestern state institutions and 19 from the Southern state institutions) were conducted across December 2016 and January 2017. The imbalance in the number of interviews from the Midwestern state institutions compared to the Southern state institutions resulted from the number of volunteers offered by each state. In addition, the Midwestern state has several more institutions than the Southern state and, therefore, more officers to recruit for the current study.

Demographic and job characteristic information can be located in Table 1. Fully 83.3% (n = 50) of participants were male while 16.7% (n = 10) were female. Participants’ race/ethnicity and age were not collected and, therefore, cannot be considered in the current study. Most participants reported being married (65.7%; n = 23), and 28.6% (n = 10) reported being divorced. Representation of COs and executive staff was nearly even with 44.6% (n = 29) COs and 55.4% (n = 36) executive staff members. It is important to note that all executive staff had experience as a CO. Among the executive staff, Sergeants (Sgt.) were most represented (21.5%; n = 14). The participants’ correctional work experience ranged from 11 months to 30 years with a mean work experience of 11.4 years and a mode of 3 years. Pseudonyms were assigned to participants in order to protect their identities.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Measure	Valid %	M	Range
Demographics
Sex
Male	83.3
Female	16.7
Marital status
Single	5.7
Married	65.7
Divorced	28.6
Position
Line
Correctional officer	44.6
Executive
General	10.8
Sergeant	21.5
Lieutenant	12.3
Captain	1.5
Deputy warden	4.6
Warden	4.6
Experience in years		11.44	11 months–30 years
Institution type ^a
Multiple	9.2
Minimum/maximum	35.4
Medium	7.7
Maximum	46.1
Male institutions	86.2
Female institutions	3.8

^a Institution type follows the language used by their respective state Department of Corrections.

The research team used a semistructured interview guide for each interview, with each telephone interview ranging from approximately 30 min to 1.5 hr in total length. Given the lack of prior research examining CO’s perspectives on the causes of work-related injuries and the exploratory nature of this study, the interview guide was developed to address the current research question and guided by prior literature related to COs and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s (2015) Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illness (see Harrell, 2011; Konda et al., 2013). Questions were designed to explore the participants’ first- and secondhand experience with work-related injuries and their perceptions of the causes of those injuries.

Two research assistants manually transcribed each interview, and transcripts were coded by one of the authors using focused coding, which aligned with the research goals of the present study and principles of analytic induction via a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 1983, 2006). This approach was utilized as prior qualitative research on this topic is sparse. Grounded theory allows researchers to simultaneously seek, compare, and conceptualize social patterns within an area of interest (Glaser, 1978). This sample size of 65 is sufficient as it exceeds the commonly accepted theoretical saturation point of 25 interviews for themes to emerge in qualitative research (J. M. Morse, 1994). Moreover, the current sample size is more than double the mean sample size found in a meta-analysis of 560 qualitative studies that utilized interviews (Mason, 2010). Regardless, the sample size of 65 was made out of convenience, as this was the number of officers and staff members who volunteered for an interview.

Findings

Coding of the interviews clearly revealed that the respondents’ perceived reasons for CO injuries among those interviewed fell into two broad categories. Specifically, COs explained the reasons for injuries as either within a CO’s control or outside of a CO’s control. Among the perceived determinants of injuries within a CO’s control, two themes emerged: (1) complacency and (2) corruption. Four themes fall under the category of perceived causes outside a CO’s control: (1) nature of the job, (2) inmates with mental illness, (3) an escalation from a minor event, and (4) inmate “check-ins.”

Perceived Causes of Injuries Within a CO’s Control

The data indicated that COs believed there were two key issues within their direct control that could potentially lead to injuries while on the job. These themes centered on what a CO should and should not do. The first theme discussed below, complacency, relates to CO’s attention to detail regarding all policies, procedures, and job duties of a CO throughout an entire shift. The second theme, corruption, refers to individual staff or COs engaging in misconduct that could jeopardize others’ safety. Although the two might appear as polar opposites, they are, in fact, related as they are both firmly in the direct control of individual COs.

Complacency

The most prevalent theme within this category was complacency. Complacency refers to a degree of comfort that COs may assume after increased job experience or after time has elapsed from the most recent inmate-on-CO assault. Fully 44.6% (n = 29) of COs discussed complacency as a leading cause of injuries within the direct control of a CO.

Hank, a Midwestern Sgt. with 9 total years of experience, introduced this theme by simply stating, “Complacency is the number one reason, and that’s just it. Some officers are complacent, some aren’t. Some maintain situation awareness and are, you know, aware of their environment, some are not.” Duane, a Lieutenant (Lt.) from the same Midwestern facility with 11 years of experience, reiterated this theme when he said, “Complacency. That’s the number one reason why anything occurs.” This Lt. later elaborated about how complacency can lead to injuries from inmates when he said:

There could be a situation arising in a housing unit and if you’re complacent, and not paying attention to your population, you know, you’re not gonna’ notice that. You know, emotions are high…you need to be vigilant every day and a lot of times…we’ll go weeks without any type of incident and that’s when people start becoming complacent.

The last part of the above quote is important because it touches upon a point made by several participants that there is a temporal order to complacency. Senses are heightened immediately after an injury to a CO occurs; however, this heightened sense of awareness appears to dissipate soon after the injury occurs, allowing complacency to creep back into the overall mindset of many COs. Consequently, this process is perceived to result in a greater overall likelihood for additional injuries to occur.

Darius, a Midwestern Lt. with 13 years of experience, said: “Well, I think the biggest contributing factor I would go back to is complacency. People who just become overly comfortable in the environment that they are in.” Barry, a Midwestern CO with 14 years of experience, similarly stated,

…you know what you’re going into when you come inside here. You know, some people get a little complacent and they kinda’ forget a little bit and something like that [injury] happens, you kinda’ like wake up.

Daniel, a 36-year-old CO in a Midwestern facility with 11 years of experience, discussed this same issue:

…I do think a lot of officers over time, they’ll get to a point where they’re kinda’ complacent and they don’t think about what could possibly happen…they’re kinda’ comfortable in their job, but you should never really get comfortable because anything can happen at any time.

Cole, a Midwestern Sgt. with 13 years of experience, expanded on the need for COs to always be aware of their environment when he stated,

…don’t ever get complacent and don’t think ever any of these guys are your friends or you know anything like that because…I’ve seen other bad things happen here and it’s just, don’t ever get complacent.

Josh, a Midwestern Lt. with 28 years of experience, told a story about one of his former coworkers who became complacent and was struck in the eye by an inmate, which led to him ultimately losing an eye and no longer being able to work as a CO.

Several individuals discussed how complacency does not necessarily only lead to injuries from inmates but can also lead to injuries from the physical environment of the institution. The potential environmental dangers can be related to weather conditions, inmate cells, heavy doors, and stairs within the facility. Duane, a Midwestern Lt. with 11 years of experience, explained, “…you know, people forget their environment…I mean getting your fingers pinched in the door, and we deal with big heavy steel doors.” Israel, a Southern CO for 5 years, discussed the challenges that varied weather conditions can pose:

I mean, if you’re out in the middle of December, and you got half a foot of snow on the ground, you need to know when you’re on the ground or on concrete…knowing your surroundings and being aware of who, what, when, and where you are.

Bruce, a Midwestern Major with 25 total years of experience, discussed another environmental danger associated with complacency: “People trip or fall down stairs. You go up and down those stairs 100 times a day, just one time, maybe, you just lost your focus and miss a step and maybe twist an ankle or something like that.”

Josh, a Midwestern Lt. with 28 years of experience, emphasized the role of supervisors in combatting complacency:

You need to remind [COs] every day when at roll call…or, maybe after a certain amount of time, you need to rotate the people. You’re leaving them in one place for four-to-five years. Maybe after a year, rotate them to another unit. Because, you know, don’t let them sit in that one unit and just be there.

Frederick, a Southern Sgt. with 9 total years of experience, expressed the challenge for supervisors in effectively communicating this message:

…you can preach to the choir all day long…they’re not going to listen. There’s a lot of people that when they come into prison, they need to remember that they came into prison. And you need to be on your toes at all times. But, like I said, you can preach to them, preach to them, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to do any good.

Thus, the theme of complacency emerged as a commonly perceived cause of injuries and one which is difficult to overcome.

Corruption

The second explanation that emerged for perceived causes of injuries directly within the control of COs is corruption among fellow COs and/or staff members. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of participants, when referencing a CO being intentionally injured by an inmate, almost exclusively cast the blame on COs or other staff. Often, this was viewed as resulting from some form of corruption involving a CO or staff member trafficking in a certain good (e.g., drugs, cell phones, sex). Consequently, the officers who discussed this theme argued that trafficking created unneeded hostility between inmates and COs that could potentially result in unrelated COs or staff members becoming injured. In total, 20% (n = 13) of the sample referenced this theme.

Jerod, a Midwestern CO with 23 years of experience, introduced this theme of corruption via trafficking with a hypothetical scenario of a CO being struck by an inmate: “I would think it’s because they’re doing something wrong. Maybe got themselves in a mess here [in prison]. Maybe trafficking with another offender….” Within the theme of corruption resulting in injuries, the issue of cell phones was prominent. Duane, a Midwestern Lt. with 11 years of total experience, spoke to the financial incentives for this type of corruption by stating, “…when you have a little $20 flip-phone that you can buy at a dollar store, and then it goes for $200 or $300 inside, of course there’s gonna’ be, you know, dirty staff….” In fact, several COs from the same Midwestern facility referenced violent inmate outbursts related to a recent incident involving a food service worker who smuggled cell phones into the facility. One of the youngest officers in the sample, Arnold, a 27-year-old Midwestern CO with 5 years of experience, discussed how the inmate who had been wronged by the food service worker used a fellow CO to get to the corrupt food service worker: “So, they [the inmate] had used the CO as bait, basically to get to the staff member that was trafficking or [that] attempted to traffic.”

Issues with inmates who were gang members were also referenced regarding corruption. For example, Bradley, a 26-year-old Midwestern CO for nearly 3 years, stated, “I mean, we’re in a small town and we don’t have a lot of high-risk offenders, but we got some pretty big gang members and you know, I guess if you got in with them, it could be bad.” Chuck, a 30-year-old Midwestern Sgt. with 6.5 years of total experience, provided a specific example of this situation:

There was an officer that worked here who had, he was having issues at home, having issues here [at work]. He was constantly late to work, and they were constantly on him. He slipped a letter to the Aryan Brotherhood that he was going to bring them money to have him beat up, so everybody would take it easy on him.

The association between corruption and injuries appeared to conjure conflicting emotions for Arnold, a Midwestern CO who was among the youngest interviewed. He stated,

…as a correctional profession, the last thing I want to think about is if somebody gets assaulted. The last thing I want to think about is, “okay, they were trafficking.” You know, I want to give them full, you know, [the] benefit of the doubt.

However, COs overwhelmingly referenced fellow COs and staff members who engaged in corruption with contempt due to the danger that could result from their actions. For example, Barry, a Midwestern CO with 14 years of experience, stated:

You got guys that bring in drugs to these guys, okay. They [inmates] get high on drugs, I gotta’ go in and shake down and look for drugs, although they don’t wanna’ let me in there. So, now I’m fighting these guys. But these guys [corrupt COs] don’t know their consequences of their actions, they’re out for a quick buck. Those ain’t COs, those are trash to me.

Perceived Causes of Injuries Outside a CO’s Control

Although participants generally believed that many injuries resulted from actions firmly within the control of COs, a number of themes emerged suggesting that work-related injuries occur as a result of factors outside the direct control of a CO. It was clear that many COs felt that injuries occurred due to the nature of the job. That is, because COs are dealing with a population known to be criminal, and oftentimes violent, injuries simply come with the territory. Within this theme, participants emphasized that inmates also suffer from a variety of issues, such as mental illness, which prime the environment even further for potential violence. Due to this pretext for potential violence, seemingly minor issues can escalate to violence. Inmates may also attempt to escape being the victim of a violent attack from another inmate through the “check-in” process described below, thus creating even greater risk of injury for COs.

Nature of the Job

COs are the physical manifestations of authority and are in direct contact with inmates. As such, COs believe they are often the target of attacks simply as a result of being present and accessible. Sixty percent (n = 39) of COs referenced this theme. According to Troy, a Southern Sgt. with 3 years of experience:

When they’re here 24 hours a day, living by their selves. In consecutive hours…all they see is the officers on the walk, so their retaliation’s going to be right to us first. Before anybody else is in there, somebody has to go and make them mad during the day, they come back and take it out on us. We’re the ones they see 90% of the day.

Sanford, a Midwestern Sgt. also with 3 years of total experience, summarized the oftentimes volatile and unpredictable nature of the prison environment, saying, “…you could be the best officer in the facility, but I’m not saying you’re always targeted because there are a lot [of attacks] that are random and spur of the moment.” Sheldon, a Midwestern Lt. with 13 years of experience, discussed the unpredictable nature of working in a prison, stating that the reason for one particular attack in his institution was that, “…they [an inmate] were being deprived of their freedoms that they had already had, they weren’t real happy with that, so they just lashed out.” Darius, a Midwestern Lt. who also has 13 years of experience, highlighted the random nature of attacks by discussing a former coworker who was killed due to a gang initiation:

It was a gang initiation if I remember correctly. Where the guy went along there, stabbed and killed the officer who was standing there. There was no personal animosity between the offender and that officer, it was merely an act that was a requirement for this offender to be initiated into the gang.

This story exemplifies CO’s perceptions that they are seemingly the physical manifestation of the prison authority and, therefore, are targets for unpredictable violence.

Charlie, a Midwestern CO for 3 years, discussed an injury that resulted after an inmate’s counselor filed paperwork leading to the inmate’s trustee status being revoked. According to Charlie, “At first, he [the inmate] attempted to go after the counselor that was in the unit. Me, being the officer that I am, I got his attention away from her to get her out….” During this process, the CO got Oleoresin Capsicum (also known as “pepper spray”) spray in his eyes while his Sgt. was struck with a food tray. This example reiterates the above theme that the COs are often not the target of the initial attack but become involved simply by virtue of their job and general physical presence.

Daniel, a 36-year-old CO in the Midwest, discussed his experience being physically assaulted by an inmate. Daniel initially described his injury as a “fluke.” The incident involved an offender who was struck by another inmate while the first inmate was talking to his family on the phone: “When he hit him…the adrenaline starts pumping. He ran after the guys, but he thought I was that guy’s friend coming to help him, so, when your adrenaline pumps, you’re not thinking.” The CO later went on to state that, “…he thought that I was that offender’s friend coming to help him out and he just automatically turned around and grabbed me thinking I was that guy’s buddy.”

Maribeth, a Midwestern CO for nearly 3 years, detailed a similar story about an inmate who wanted to attack her coworker:

…she wanted my co-worker, she didn’t want me…I just stood up, I was trying to move the chair ‘cause’, you know, I thought there were offenders fighting or something. I didn’t know where the chair had come from. Then, a chair comes back in, swings and hits me…then, she punches me in the face.

Maribeth later found out that her coworker was the target of the attack because she had been disrespectful to the inmate on several occasions. Duane, a Midwestern Lt. with 11 total years of experience, stated that he believed that assaults on COs resulted from inmate boredom. However, the overwhelming majority (66.7%; n = 26) of officers who reported this theme stated that they had simply been responding to a disturbance and were injured while trying to subdue the inmate.

The common thread throughout this theme was that COs believed being a victim of an inmate assault was not the officer’s fault. Often, it was someone else, whether another CO or inmate, who drew the ire of the inmate and was the target of the attack. The data suggest that COs perceived themselves as the physical manifestations of prison authority and, therefore, they would become the subject of inmate attacks simply by virtue of the job. Oftentimes, officers perceived this situation as being related to the high percentage of inmates who suffer from a mental illness.

Inmates with mental illness

The second most frequent perceived cause for injuries referenced by COs was interacting with inmates who suffer from a mental illness. Specifically, inmates with mental illnesses are perceived as unpredictable, oftentimes leading to violent outbursts and the need to physically restrain them. Nearly, 50% of COs referenced inmates who have mental illness as a primary cause for injuries (47%; n = 31). Cory, a Midwestern CO with 1 year of experience, viewed this as a systemic issue:

…a lot of it is mentally unstable and mentally-ill offenders because, part of, unfortunately, part of working at [name of institution] is we get these guys that aren’t really suited for prison, but they’re sent to prison anyway because we [DOC] do not, [the name of the state] does not really have a mental hospital or any kind of mental facilities for the mentally-ill anymore.

Another Midwestern CO, Clay, a Sgt. of 25 years, expressed his belief that offenders with mental illness were the primary cause behind CO injuries, stating, “Well…most offenders have a mental problem. I think 90% of them have mental problems, and when you deal with people with mental problems, they’re unpredictable.” He later expanded upon this idea:

…a lot of injuries and assaults have to do with unpredictable inmates. They’re agitated. They’re high. They’re drunk. You know, they’re paranoid, it can go on and on and on. It’s just [they are] too mental[ly] unstable because it’s not normal for another person to assault another person.

Although Clay’s perceived percentage of inmates suffering from a mental illness is much higher than the national average (James & Glaze, 2006), it is important to note that COs perceive this as an influential factor in work-related injuries.

Darius, a Midwestern Lt. with 13 years of experience, stated that he was attacked by an inmate suffering from Schizophrenia, saying:

I wasn’t the officer [then that] I am now, I didn’t feel at that time I was there to babysit a schizophrenic who just lost his safety blanket. But, after a day or two, I took it upon myself to stop by and check on him, make sure he had eaten, make sure he’d showered. I took a day or two to let that sink-in and maybe I can make a difference with this and eventually it backfired on me.

This same inmate later attacked Darius after inmates kept teasing the inmate with schizophrenia about his symptoms. Sheldon, a Midwestern Lt. with 13 years of experience, detailed how he was bitten by a female inmate in his housing unit. When asked why he believed she had decided to bite him, he responded by stating, “…I don’t know exactly, but she, she wasn’t completely sane.” He later stated that the inmate was soon transferred to another facility that specializes in mental health issues and also has segregated housing.

Clark, a Southern Warden with 11 years of experience across six different facilities, adequately summarized why he perceives inmates who suffer from a mental illness more likely to injure COs. Warden Clark stated:

Here, at the penitentiary, you know, that’s what makes a maximum-security prison, [the] offender population. It’s more of an antisocial, maybe perhaps sociopathic, rebellious, border-line personality [disorder] type of offender. We also see a common trend is a lower functioning, and what we call, a “socially immature, intellectually immature.” And, so, these guys have a different way of thinking, and they have fewer skills to rationalize and they’ll get hot headed. So, what matters to them, might not make sense to us. It does to them, so we have to be conscientious of that.

Several COs mentioned that the population of inmates with mental illness in their prison will likely increase due to a lack of alternative agencies or institutions. Consequently, they expressed fears that this increase will result in a more violent and unpredictable inmate population. Much of this sentiment focuses on the inability to predict how inmate encounters will evolve. This unpredictability contributes to situations in which relatively minor issues escalate into situations resulting in CO injuries.

Escalation from a minor event

Throughout the themes discussed above, evidence emerged that many injuries result from minor events escalating into more serious situations. Examples of minor events escalating to situations resulting in CO injuries ranged from something as small as an inmate being written-up for a minor rule infraction to an inmate losing his temper over a missing toothbrush. In both situations, the inmates lashed out and assaulted COs. As highlighted by Warden Clark, what might not seem important to people outside of a prison setting might be crucial to an inmate, especially one who suffers from a mental illness. Fully 44.6% (n = 29) of COs referenced this theme.

Theodore, a Southern CO with 5 years of experience, touched on this theme when he discussed a minor issue regarding mail resulting in another CO being injured:

Apparently, this inmate was being harassed with his mail, I don’t know the extent of it, but he took it out on this officer who has nothing to do with it. He put a chili can in a mesh bag and tried to swing it at this officer and hit him in the forearm with it…Not 100% sure, but he tried to block and it hit his arm. We went up and responded to it and restrained the inmate and took him to [the] restrictive housing unit.

Officers also described seemingly innocuous situations escalating into events leading to an injury. For example, Frederick, a Southern Sgt. with 9 years of experience, discussed an interview with an inmate that escalated, resulting in an assault on the CO:

…I went down to interview him [the inmate] and we record all of our interviews. Well, at the time, the Lieutenant that I worked with had the video recorder and all I had was the audio recorder, so I had it in my pocket. Well, the inmate was upset that he couldn’t see the recorder…And I thought to myself, well you know, at this point, the interview is over with due to his attitude. I told him to get up and leave the room. Staff went in to get him to exit the interview room, and when he got up, he spit in my face.

The escalation of seemingly minor events into assaults causing injury, according to the COs interviewed, is often related to the isolation of the inmates and officers being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Edwin, a Midwestern Captain with 7 years of experience, explained:

I was in a supervisory role. We had an offender who had himself barricaded in his cell. The judge was ordering him to be out for a video court, and we were having to extract him, and I had my cell extraction team there and first responders, and it was a Seg [segregation] offender and would not come out and he dumped multiple um buckets, capfuls of urine, feces and toilet water out all over me. He covered me from head to toe while I was out there trying, we were trying to get the door open to get him out.

Some of these escalations from a minor issue to an injury can result from the final perceived cause of CO injuries that are out of the direct control of COs: inmate “check-ins.”

Inmate “check-ins”

In essence, an inmate “check-in” is when an offender is believed to be attempting to escape some perceived or actual danger or threat facing them in the general population by attacking a CO, which will result in the inmate being sent to protective custody or solitary confinement. Consequently, being placed in protective custody or solitary confinement will remove the inmate from the general population and the perceived threat. In total, 18.5% (n = 12) of COs referenced “check-ins” as a primary cause for injuries. Duane, a Midwestern Lt. with 11 years of experience, outlined the process and purpose of “check-ins” from an inmate perspective:

Disciplinary check-in, we have kind [of] had a lot of those lately. There was a time they were almost every single night, you would have a disciplinary check-in. Somebody who has tried to request protection from multiple housing units and, generally, they are people who have ran up some type of debt and put themselves in a position that now they can’t pay their debt or they have numerous people after them. So, a lot of times, they’ll do something, assault a staff member or attempts to, in efforts, to get to segregation. Take them out of their situation altogether.

One 26-year-old Midwestern officer with nearly 3 years of experience, Bradley, explained his experience being the victim of an inmate “check-in” when he stated:

They [inmates] were just standing there talking, he swung [at another inmate]…he hit him with one punch and knocked him out. But instead, the guy who hit me only hit me once and he was done, which I later found out was more of what they call a “check-in” move. He was trying to get out of the house. He owed a bunch of money and stuff…This guy that hit the other officer, if we haven’t had showed up, I’m pretty sure he would have probably killed him.

Another example of an inmate “check-in” was conveyed by Cory, a Midwestern CO for just shy of 2 years. An inmate who was indebted US$600 to another inmate assaulted Cory in order to get removed from general population. Another example involved Ernest, a 62-year-old Midwestern Warden with 23 years of experience:

[one inmate]…gave another inmate a ton of commissary items, and a week-to-two weeks later told him he was collecting his debt back, which he knew the inmate didn’t have the ability to pay. And he told him if he would set me up one day, and swing on me and assault me and get me kicked out of here, then the debt is clean and clear.

This example demonstrates that “check-ins” can be used for more than simply being removed from a threat but to also manipulate other inmates. Regardless of their motivation, “check-ins” are a seemingly frequent cause of a CO or staff member being injured.

Discussion

Although there is a limited number of studies exploring injuries among COs working in prisons, the extant research provides evidence that COs are at a relatively higher risk of being injured on the job compared to many other professions including police officers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015, as cited in Denhof & Spinaris, 2016). Undoubtedly, more research is needed to gain a better understanding of the prevalence, types, seriousness, and impact of work-related injuries to COs. In addition to gaining a better perspective on these issues, it is important to develop a more informed understanding of the causes of injuries to COs. Developing a more complete picture of the factors that lead to injuries can play a vital role in developing strategies to reduce their occurrence and make the workplace safer for those who choose to enter this profession. COs themselves and their supervisors who have risen up through the ranks are in a unique position to provide their perspectives about why injuries to COs occur.

The current study employed 65 in-depth interviews with those working on the front lines as COs and executive staff to gain a rich, detailed account of their experiences and views. The findings reveal that, from their perspectives, the causes of injuries to COs can be categorized into two distinct types: causes that are within the CO’s control and those that are outside of the CO’s control. Injuries resulting from factors within CO’s control are perceived to be related to complacency and corruption. Injuries stemming from circumstances outside of CO’s control are perceived to be related to the nature of the job, the mental health of inmates, minor events escalating, and what are known as inmate “check-ins.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the COs and supervisors interviewed for this project were more likely to ascribe injuries to other officers as arising from circumstances within the injured officers’ control. Alternatively, when describing injuries to themselves, the respondents tended to discuss causes that were not within their control but rather were inherent in the job. The reality is likely a combination. As such, the findings suggest policy implications that focus on reducing the causes of injury that are within the control of COs by reducing both complacency and corruption. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the need to provide education and training that enables COs to better recognize and react to injury-causing factors that might be out of their control.

Policy Implications

Three of the themes discussed by the COs interviewed for the current study suggest that injuries simply emanate from the nature of the job, as escalations from minor events or due to “inmate check-ins.” Their perceptions largely regarded injuries of these types as out of their control. Placed in the context of the pains of imprisonment (Sykes, 1958), however, improved education and training focusing on the deprivations experienced by inmates and the impact of those deprivations could help COs learn to mitigate the dangers. As Sykes (1958) argued,

the frustration of the prisoner’s ability to make choices and the frequent refusals to provide explanations…involve a profound threat to the prisoner’s self-image because they reduce the prisoner to the weak, helpless, dependent status of childhood. (p. 75)

As such, events and circumstances that may seem minor or trivial to COs may escalate to potentially injurious situations due to built-up frustration within the inmate.

Furthermore, the lack of security and safety experienced by inmates can cause serious anxiety (Sykes, 1958), potentially leading inmates to act out and injure COs. As discussed by Rocheleau (2014) in her analysis of male inmates in Rhode Island, inmates who engaged in a higher level of institutional misconduct were significantly more likely to report conflicts with other inmates and prison staff. Inmates who committed high levels of misconduct also reported struggling to follow rules and found it extremely difficult to cope with missing their possessions and dealing with a lack of autonomy while they were incarcerated. Inmates’ concerns about their personal safety were found to be positively associated with the annual rate of violent reports in both medium- and maximum-security facilities (Rocheleau, 2014). Education and training to help COs better understand these frustrations and anxieties could serve to reduce injuries that seemingly arise from what appear to be minor events or threats to an inmate’s safety by enabling COs to recognize potential powder kegs before they explode.

The findings of the current study also suggest that COs may not have the necessary training or expertise to manage the behavior of those inmates who struggle with mental illness (SC Department of Mental Health, 2006; Torrey et al., 2014). According to James and Glaze (2006), incarcerated individuals who also have mental health problems are significantly more likely to report behavioral issues while in prison. In comparison to those incarcerated without a mental illness, individuals with mental illnesses may be more likely to violate the rules or assault a CO or other inmate (James & Glaze, 2006). Therefore, COs require more training geared toward interacting with and controlling inmates who have a mental illness.

As discussed by DeHart and Iachini (2019), collaborative work between correctional officials and health care professionals can result in the creation of an evidence-based training curriculum for COs. After a small pilot program, DeHart and Iachini (2019) found that participating COs felt more equipped to identify signs of trauma among inmates. Additionally, participating officers indicated that the training was informative in their attempts to prevent potential interactions with inmates with mental illness from escalating. While the officers interviewed in the current study discussed the need to remain vigilant and avoid complacency on the job, further training on how to interact and treat inmates with mental illness could go a long way in providing COs the necessary tools to complete their jobs while maintaining a safe working environment.

In addition to the complications that arise from working with inmates who have mental illness, it appears that prison administrators and COs may need additional information gathering to better understand when inmates are at risk of harm and therefore might “check-in” with officers. As Sykes (1958) argued, “The prisoner’s loss of security arouses acute anxiety…” (p. 78). While prior literature suggests that violence in prison is a common occurrence, with up to two thirds of inmates experiencing physical harm (see Daquin et al., 2016, for a review of the literature), more could be done to identify which inmates are more likely to be victimized by others during their incarceration. Practitioners and scholars have been able to more clearly identify inmates who are at an increased risk of experiencing sexual victimization in prison (Rantala, 2018); however, the same cannot necessarily be said for inmates who are more likely to be harassed or bullied by others. Although prediction is never perfect, prisoner classification systems could be helpful in this regard. These systems often focus on an inmate’s likelihood of engaging in prison misconduct but have been less useful in predicting which inmates are likely to assault an officer or other inmate (Austin, 2003). Many classification systems attempting to predict inmate behavior focus on the current age and gender of the inmate, their history of violence and mental illness, gang membership, participation in programs offered by the facility, and recent disciplinary actions (Austin, 2003). However, as the COs interviewed in the current study discussed, often inmates find themselves in financial trouble with other inmates, and in order to protect themselves, they act out in order to earn a spot in protective housing.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current study is not without some limitations that should be noted. First, although participation in the current study was voluntary, and respondents were informed of this before being interviewed, the administrators at each of the participating facilities selected the officers who were interviewed. The research team was not privy to this selection process, and so it is unclear whether there are significant differences between those officers who were interviewed and those who were not. This also led to an imbalance in the number of officers and administrative staff who were interviewed between the two states. Second, the interviews for the current study were limited to medium- and maximum-security facilities in two states. It is unclear whether these facilities are vastly different from institutions in other portions of the country. Finally, interviews were conducted by each member of the research team. Although a semistructured guide was created and adhered to by each of the interviewers, each member had a slightly different interview style, which could have impacted the quality of the information gathered. Even with this in mind, however, we are confident the findings presented here have begun to fill the gap in the literature surrounding the perceived causes of work-related injuries of COs.

There is still much work to be done in exploring the reasons or perceived causes of CO injuries. For example, scholars should examine whether the perceived causes of injuries differ for female officers or for officers who work in female institutions. Prior literature suggests that the culture of men’s and women’s facilities tend to differ significantly from one another (Carlson et al., 2004; Owen, 1998). As noted, the current study and its findings overwhelmingly focused on a predominantly male sample of COs. Another direction for future research could be to explore the causes of work-related injuries using larger or more diverse groups of COs. Survey data will also help to identify the types and extent of injuries experienced by COs. Finally, future examinations of officer injuries using official injury data could be instrumental to prison administrators, COs, and scholars alike.

Conclusion

COs are integral within the justice system to maintain safety and security within institutions and set the stage for the successful reentry and reintegration of inmates. Injuries to COs result in a myriad of negative consequences, including those related to turnover, absenteeism, institutional security, recruitment, and financial resources. Reducing such injuries, therefore, is imperative. Understanding the causes of injuries will enable practitioners and policy makers to take action. The findings from the current study provides important information about the causes of CO injuries from the perspectives of those most directly impacted.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the two state Department of Corrections, each institution’s administrative staff, and the correctional officers who provided us access and their time. They also thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received financial support for this research through the New Faculty Research Grant program (CR0019) from the University of West Florida.

ORCID iD

Natalie Goulette

References

Archambeault

W. G.

Archambeault

B. J.

(1982). Correctional supervisory management principles of organization, policy and law. Prentice Hall.

Armstrong

Griffin

(2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577–592.

Austin

(2003). Findings in prison classification and risk assessment. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Bazemore

Dicker

T. D.

(1994). Explaining detention worker orientation: Individual characteristics, occupational conditions and organizational environment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(4), 297–312.

Botha

Pienaar

(2006). South African correctional official occupational stress: The role of psychological strengths. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1), 73–84.

Brower

(2013). Review and input of correctional officer wellness and safety literature review. Office of Justice Programs.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work for state government and local government workers, 2009. www.bls.gov/iif/oshcdnew.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Occupational suicides: Census of fatal occupational injuries: Fact sheet. U.S. Department of Labor. http://wwwbls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/osar0010.pdf

Camp

S. D.

Steiger

T. L.

Batchelder

J. A.

(1995). Perceptions of job advancement opportunities: A multilevel investigation of race and gender effects. Federal Bureau of Prisons.

10.

Carlson

J. R.

Thomas

Anson

R. H.

(2004). Cross-gender perceptions of corrections officer in gender-segregated prisons. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(1), 83–103.

11.

Charmaz

(1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In Emerson

(Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109–125). Little Brown.

12.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

13.

Crawley

(2004). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. Willan.

14.

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

Frank

(1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505–533.

15.

Daquin

J. C.

Daigle

L. E.

Listwan

S. J.

(2016). Vicarious victimization in prison: Examining the effects of witnessing victimization while incarcerated on offender reentry. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(8), 1018–1033.

16.

DeHart

Iachini

A. L.

(2019). Mental health & trauma among incarcerated persons: Development of a training curriculum for correctional officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(3), 457–473.

17.

Denhof

M. D.

Spinaris

C. G.

(2016). Prevalence of trauma-related health conditions in correctional officers: A profile of Michigan corrections organization members. Desert Waters Correctional Outreach, 1–37.

18.

Dowden

Tellier

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

19.

Ferdik

F. V.

Smith

H. P.

(2017). Correctional officer safety and wellness literature synthesis. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

20.

Ferdik

F. V.

Smith

H. P.

Applegate

B. K.

(2013). An assessment of job satisfaction among South Carolina correctional officers. South Carolina Department of Corrections.

21.

Finn

(1998). Correctional officer stress: A cause for concern and additional help. Federal Probation, 62(2), 65–74.

22.

Finn

(2000). Addressing correctional officer stress: Programs and strategies and issues and practices. National Institute of Justice.

23.

Finney

Stergiopoulos

Hensel

Bonato

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.

24.

Fitzgerald

(2010). Cell “block” silence: Why contraband cellular telephone use in prisons warrants federal legislation to allow jamming technology. Wisconsin Law Review, 10, 1269.

25.

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.

26.

Glaser

(1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Sociology Press.

27.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

(2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134–1145.

28.

Harrell

(2011). Workplace violence, 1993–2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

29.

Hessl

S. M.

(2001). Police and corrections. Occupational Medicine, 16, 39–49.

30.

James

D. J.

Glaze

L. E.

(2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

31.

Kauffmann

(1989). Prison officers and their world. Harvard University Press.

32.

Konda

Tiesman

Reichard

Hartley

(2013). U.S. correctional officers killed or injured on the job. Corrections Today, 75, 122–125.

33.

Kupers

T. A.

(1999). Prison madness: The mental health crisis behind bars and what we must do about it. Jossey-Bass.

34.

Lambert

E. G

Hogan

Paoline

E. A.

Clarke

(2005). The impact of role stressors on job stress, job satisfaction and organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18(4), 33–50.

35.

Larney

Dolan

(2008). An exploratory study of needlestick injuries among Australian prison officers. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 4(3), 164–168.

36.

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.

37.

Lincoln

J. M.

Chen

L. H.

Mair

J. S.

Biermann

P. J.

Baker

S. P.

(2006). Inmate-made weapons in prison facilities: Assessing the injury risk. Injury Prevention, 12, 195–198.

38.

Lombardo

(1989). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work. Anderson.

39.

Mason

(2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). http://wwwqualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027

40.

McCraty

Atkinson

Lipsenthal

Arguelles

. (2003). Impact of the power to change performance program on stress and health risks in correctional officers (Report No. 03-014). Boulder Creek, CA: Heart Math Research Center, Institute of Heart Math.

41.

Moon

Maxwell

S. R.

(2004). Assessing the correctional orientation of corrections officers in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(6), 729–743.

42.

Morse

J. M.

(1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 220–235). Sage.

43.

Morse

Dussetschleger

Warren

Cherniack

(2011). Talking about health: Correction employees’ assessments of obstacles to healthy living. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(9), 1037–1045.

44.

Owen

B. A.

(1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. SUNY Press.

45.

Paoline

E. A.

Lambert

Hogan

(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.

46.

Patenaude

A. L.

(2001). Analysis of issues affecting correctional officer retention within the Arkansas Department of Correction. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 49–67.

47.

Patterson

B. L.

(1992). Job experience and perceived job stress among police, correctional and probation/parole officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19(3), 260–285.

48.

Rantala

R. R.

(2018). Sexual victimization reported by adult correctional authorities, 2012–2015. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

49.

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.

50.

SC Department of Mental Health. (2006). Pilot survey of persons with mental illnesses in SC Jails-July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. state.sc.us/dmh/forensic/pilot_survey.html

51.

Spinaris

C. G.

Denhof

M. D.

Kellaway

(2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder in United States correctional professionals: Prevalence and impact on health and functioning. Desert Waters Correctional Outreach.

52.

Stack

S. J.

Tsoudis

(1997). Suicide risk among correctional officers: A logistic regression analysis. Archives of Suicide Research, 3(3), 183–186.

53.

Steward

T. L.

Brown

D. W.

(2001). Focusing on correctional staff safety. Corrections Today, 63(6), 90–93.

54.

Sykes

G. M.

(1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press.

55.

Torrey

E. F.

Zdanowicz

M. T.

Kennard

A. D.

Lamb

H. R.

Eslinger

D. F.

Biasotti

M. I.

Fuller

D. A.

(2014). The treatment of persons with mental illness in prisons and jails: A state survey. Treatment Advocacy Center.

56.

Turner

(1975). Correction officer-prison guard. Arco.

57.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lindquist

C. A.

(1989). Determinants of correctional officers’ professional orientation. Justice Quarterly, 6, 69–87.