Trauma in the correctional field and the correctional worker habitus

Occupational stress and correctional work

The prevalence of burnout and OSIs among CWs, and correlates of such outcomes, is of emerging interest among international scholars (Carleton et al., 2020a; Denhof and Spinaris, 2016; Harizanova and Stoyanova, 2019; Jaegers et al., 2019; Regehr et al., 2019; Useche et al., 2019). Across studies, researchers have pointed to the high prevalence of mental health conditions and disorders among CWs. In a recent systematic review, Regehr et al. (2019) found that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety were higher among correctional officers (COs) relative to both the general population and other professional fields. In the Canadian context, Carleton et al. (2020b) similarly found a high percentage (58.2%) of CWs screened positive for mental health disorders, particularly PTSD and major depressive disorder (see also Carleton et al., 2018).

The adverse mental health consequences of correctional work are explained, at least in part, by the stressful nature of correctional work, including operational and organizational constraints (Choi et al., 2020; Viotti, 2016). In the context of their duties, CWs may be confronted with an array of PPTE or otherwise stressful situations, including, for example, violence between prisoners, prisoner deaths, challenging interactions with prisoners, prisoner self-harm and suicidal behaviors, and violence and interpersonal harm directed at staff (Barry, 2017; Boudoukha et al., 2011; Viotti, 2016; Walker et al., 2017).

The impact of stressful operational incidents may be partially shaped by the role that CWs play in relation to such incidents—in particular, the ongoing connection they have to the people and spaces associated with trauma (Barry, 2017). For example, COs are typically “first responders” to prisoner deaths; resultantly, they may be involved not only in immediate response efforts, but in all related administrative procedures, as well as ensuing inquests or investigatory processes (Barry, 2017; Ricciardelli et al., 2020). Additionally, CWs must continue to work in the spaces where they have witnessed or experienced trauma (Barry, 2017; Ricciardelli et al., 2020). Studying the experiences of CWs in the Irish Prison Service, Barry (2017) found that spaces where prisoner deaths occurred could come to have significant meanings for staff, triggering memories when they encountered such spaces in the course of their day-to-day duties.

Another element of workplace stress among CWs is tied to occupational and managerial cultures. Studies of CW culture have noted problems such as sexism and harassment (Burdett et al., 2018; Harrison and Kanoff, 2010; Kunst et al., 2009; Savicki et al., 2003; Vartia and Hyyti, 2002), as well as contentious staff relations (Bourbonnais et al., 2005). The labor dynamics of correctional work may also have negative effects on job outcomes and well-being, including for example, shift work and irregular hours, heavy workloads, labor shortages, inadequate pay, and overtime (Brower, 2013; Keinan and Malach-Pines, 2007; Morse et al., 2011; Swenson et al., 2008; Triplett et al., 1996).

With some exceptions, less attention has been paid to how features of the correctional work environment, including exposure to stressors, contribute to working orientations and social dispositions more generally. Within studies of occupational cultures, authors have recognized that staff may take on a specific “habitus” that is shaped by the qualities and dynamics of their professional field (e.g. Chan, 2004). Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus speaks to “an acquired system of generative scheme objectively adjusted to the particular conditions in which it is constituted; the habitus engenders all the thoughts, the perceptions, and all the actions consistent with those conditions, and no others” (Bourdieu, 1977: 95). Habitus is a subjective disposition—a sense of how to act, think, and perceive—shaped by (and reproduced within) particular social conditions. Habitus is often not a conscious disposition—rather, formed in and through habit. Bourdieu described the habitus in relation to a set of associated structural conditions, referred to as a social field, “a network, or a configuration of objective relations between positions” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 97). Marking fields are systems of relations that exist beyond any individual (e.g. school, religious, or political systems) (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Thus, the habitus is the subjective mentality through which individuals navigate objective social structures.

In relation to the prison field, Caputo-Levine (2013) has developed the concept of the “carceral habitus” to understand the social dispositions embodied by prisoners that are shaped by qualities of prison life, particularly, the omnipresent threat of violence. She describes the carceral habitus as embodied in both body types and bodily dispositions—for example, a blank facial expression (the “yard face”)—as well as social dispositions—for example, hypervigilance. Underpinning her analysis is a recognition of how prison socialization may involve an intricate set of alterations to how one thinks, feels, and acts; “the individual learns the requirements for the situations in which he or she is immersed and comes to take on the characteristics necessary for each situation” (Caputo-Levine, 2013: 169). As Caputo-Levine observed among former prisoners in the community, the carceral habitus becomes engrained as one’s default embodied and social disposition, resulting in maladaptation in non-prison fields.

While recognizing the vast differences that characterize the social positions of incarcerated persons and CWs, we suggest that the latter undergo a process of socialization and develop engrained habits in the course of their correctional experiences. While undertheorized, some studies point to the social-subjective effects of workplace stress on the working orientations of CWs. For instance, Arnold (2005) found that officers may become numb or desensitized to stressful incidents as a way to cope with job realities, yet also become hyper-vigilant and alert to any perceived danger. A hyper-vigilant disposition may extend into CWs’ personal lives, evidenced by habits such as assessing one’s physical surroundings, counting the number of individuals within one’s proximity, being sensitive to stimuli, and assuming a ready-to-act mentality. Here, officers may experience routine activities in one’s personal life through their CW lens. While emotional detachment may enable one to deal with highly stressful correctional situations in the moment, emotional detachment can have adverse consequences insofar as it becomes one’s default mental state beyond the crisis.

For PSP, the occupational habitus may have implications for how CWs approach, view, and do their job. Studies of correctional occupational cultures shed light on the socialization of CWs and resulting implications for working orientations. For example, correctional occupational cultures are often described as being marked by characteristics that impede officers from displaying certain emotions or seeking support (Barry, 2017; Crawley, 2004). In a context where occupational culture is rooted in masculine ideals such as strength and stoicism, CWs may feel pressured to present themselves as resilient—to demonstrate their ability to withstand stressful events and situations (Barry, 2017). In analyzing staff experiences of prisoner deaths, Barry (2017: 230) found that, for staff, “[v]ocalisations or displays of sadness, distress or loss were off limits.” The finding illustrates how attitudes, practices, and habits shaping CW dispositions are informed by organizational and occupational norms and ideals surrounding work events; thus the habitus is shaped not simply by exposure to such events, but through socialization and immersion within occupational cultures.

Harm to prisoners/probationers

Incidents involving physical harm to prisoners were described as a PPTE and/or stressful correctional event among those working in institutions. Harm was also often described in terms of incidents involving suicidal and self-injurious behaviors as well as the sudden unexpected deaths of prisoners or probationers. Given the frequency of incidents of self-harm and attempted or actual death by suicide within correctional settings (Power et al., 2013), it is not surprising that numerous CWs reported they had responded to such incidents. Multiple participants indicated that discovering an attempted death by suicide was a particularly stressful event—for some, the most stressful event they had experienced in their career. Some respondents described witnessing and/or responding to suicide and self-harm incidents in general (e.g. “witness post suicide attempts and hangings” (health-care worker); “suicide of clients” (programs staff). Others described or referenced particular cases, often in visceral detail, as standing out, due to the particularly disturbing nature of the event.

While staff working in community correctional settings are less likely to bear direct witness or respond to attempted or completed death by suicide or other forms of physical harm, they are nonetheless impacted by unexpected deaths and suicide-related behaviors among probationers under their supervision. One participant explained, “As a former probation officer, I was not witness to the deaths of clients, but have supervised many people who have died by their own hand, or others.” In the context of their supervision duties, PPOs and other community CWs may also respond to suicidal/self harm behaviors among probationers; “in Probation/Parole, we don’t usually witness things directly,” but case management activities involved “talking, thinking and working through these things with clients and victims” (PPO). In the case of deaths of active clients (whether due to suicide or other causes), PPOs may also have to review death reports and become familiar with the details surrounding the death. Thus, even if less likely to respond to injury or death, PPOs and other community CWs risk exposure to psychological distress through vicarious traumatization tied to the potentiality of death and their role in supporting and supervising individuals.

Overdose incidents were another illustration of harm to prisoners cited by respondents both in institutional and community settings. Concerns around overdose incidents, and experiences of responding to such incidents, may be particularly pronounced in the current opioid-related public health crisis, which can have significant impacts on incarcerated and criminal justice-involved persons (Bucerius and Haggerty, 2019). Some participants explained that overdoses, including both fatal and nonfatal incidents, are “quite common” (PPO), one noting that overdoses are “happening so frequently, it’s sad, but almost the normal” (health-care worker). A participant (occupation unspecified) explained, such incidents “can be quite ugly.” The recognition that many prisoner overdoses result from “drugs within the institution” (CO) highlight a potential additional stressor for CWs, who must not only respond to the “ugliness” of the event itself, but are also responsible for helping prevent the introduction and spread of drugs within institutions.

Interpersonal violence among prisoners also featured prominently in discussions of PPTEs and correctional events. Participants discussed cases of interpersonal harm in terms of both generalized violence and as incidents that stood at to respondents. In regards to generalized violence, several respondents commented on the pervasive nature of prisoner-on-prisoner violence within institutions; for example, “have witnessed hundreds of fights or physical assaults some with weapons some just with fists and feet some people went to the hospital and needed surgery…Assaults are an almost every day occurrence” (CO). As in the case of incidents involving self-injury, several participants provided graphic and detailed depictions of violent actions or physical injuries, suggesting the sights and sounds of such incidents had lasting impacts.

Some respondents also described how professional obligations following incidents could shape their experience of bearing witness, including reviewing footage, engaging in investigations, and preparing/reviewing reports. In regards to a “severe inmate beating (including stabbing and stomping)” one participant recalled, “I was required to repeatedly view video footage of the event, read and re-read written reports of the event” (institutional management). Others remarked on the operational need to resume normal duties even in the context of PPTE, which could prolong exposure to the circumstances surrounding the incident, and extend one’s immersion in the incident.

Professional obligations may also require staff to intervene in situations involving harm and/or death, rendering the loss of life an experience they have witnessed often on more than one occasion. A CO described in graphic detail his memories of performing CPR on a prisoner for nearly half an hour, relaying that due to persistent vivid memories he will never forget the sounds, sights, and physical sensations associated with the experience of doing chest compressions. Others similarly recalled instances of performing unsuccessful resuscitation efforts, including the extended duration of interventions. Through their first response efforts, the loss of life is a process CWs may become viscerally connected to—illuminated by the participants’ descriptions of the senses associated with the experience (e.g. feeling the cracking of ribs during CPR, hearing breathing struggles from the victim, seeing signs of life fading). In responding to medical emergencies, some staff recalled not simply witnessing the loss of life, but experiencing it from a position where their physical response could shape the outcome.

Not only is it stressful for staff to intervene when individuals come under harm, but CWs’ professional roles requiring them to prevent harm and/or provide support mean they may grapple with their perceived role in incidents. This is true for those physically intervening in medical emergencies, such as COs who serve as first responders and health-care staff, as well as for case workers and rehabilitative staff who may also bear a sense of responsibility for tragic outcomes: “Not being able to help those from getting injured and witnessing the injuries and or deaths are horrific.” A correctional clinician wrote: “I have experienced several patient suicides…These are often the most distressing for me as a professional.” Beyond professional relationships, many staff are in a unique position to become quite familiar with prisoners/probationers, therefore injury and sudden death may impact them on a personal level. In the case of deaths, then, workers may experience a sense of loss and grief, with some reporting lingering effects associated with sudden and unexpected deaths. A participant described the challenges of sudden death: “there is little to no closure, leaving one vulnerable and unable to process this loss/senselessness of it.”

Relatedly, CWs may experience the strain of having to perform adequately and professionally while working under extremely trying circumstances. For some staff, part of the strain may be tied to their sense of being ill-equipped to handle the situations they face, as was highlighted in discussions of CWs working with individuals with mental health conditions. A CO noted he had received no mental health training, despite regularly having to deal with situations involving chronic and serious self-injury among prisoners. Another expressed feeling as though CWs are left to “pick up the pieces” due to lack of mental health resources, despite lack of training (CO). The feeling of being unprepared and ill-equipped to handle a significant aspect of one's job can precipitate considerable stress. As a CO noted, performing social worker functions, beyond their CO duties without formal training, can serve to exhaust staff energy and resources.

CWs bear witness to PPTEs within the institution and through their professional duties learn about the various historical trauma prisoners’ experience. Both direct and indirect exposure to PPTEs can impact the psychological well-being of a CW. Those involved in casework (e.g. program facilitators, PPOs, mental health/medical staff) spoke to regularly listening to or reading about trauma with their clients, including harm they had suffered or had inflicted upon others. Caseworkers may also review official files, including detailed written descriptions of crimes. As one respondent wrote, during their community supervision duties, “PPOs are repeatedly exposed to assisting their ‘clients’ with these experiences and listening to them recount their experiences”. Further, PPOs are exposed to graphic written and oral recounting of offence details concerning events.” Thus, staff in different occupational positions may experience the emotional toll of working with individuals who often experienced lives marked by trauma and/or who have caused harm to others.

Harm to staff

In addition to responding to and learning about the harm that befalls prisoners and probationers, CWs are themselves exposed to different types of physical and emotional harm. One key aspect of staff harm centers around victimization by those in custody/under supervision. As one participant explained “Correctional Officers are continually being abused physically, mentally, verbally and threatened daily. We witness this and live it daily.” While COs may be most likely to be the target of a staff assault, other types of staff, including health-care workers, too may experience violence, as noted by a health-care worker.

Assaultive incidents were described both in terms of assaultive actions (e.g. being spit on, punched, attacked, bitten, assaulted) as well as the nature of injuries incurred to the body. For example, a CO described receiving “a concussion, whiplash, contusions, abrasions, lower back and knee injuries as well as a chipped tooth.” While some staff assault incidents are tied to staff intervention in particular situations (e.g. breaking up a fight), other incidents may be related to underlying social tensions between staff and prisoners. Another CO conveyed how violence against COs was tied to an antagonistic culture: “inmates think it’s a badge of honor to attack or insult any officer.”

Some expressed feeling powerless to respond to prisoner-initiated violence and the sense that power tipped asymmetrically toward prisoners due to the normalization of staff violence and the lack of protective or reactive measures in place to deal with it. As one officer recalled after being stabbed with a reinforced pencil, “No charges were laid as I was told ‘This is part of working here, if it bothers you then quit’.” Others expressed a similar sense that staff assaults were treated as inherent to correctional work: “Being assaulted is a daily occurrence in our job…When an inmate assaults us, the inmate gets asked every single time if they want to press charges on the officer. We don’t get asked because its ‘inherit to our job’” (CO). Insecurity and vulnerability to physical harm can thus become perceived as an unavoidable component of correctional work, with recourse or protective measures perceived as unavailable or otherwise ineffective. Here, a CO remarked “staff seems to have taken a backseat [to prisoners].”

Both serious staff assaults (e.g. stabbings) and other types of assaultive incidents that do not necessarily result in immediate physical injuries (e.g. exposure to bodily fluids) contribute to an atmosphere of routinized violence. One CO noted the importance of not underestimating the impact of seemingly “minor” assaults, “smaller incidents that are repeated many times over a year, or even an entire career can also have a detrimental impact on one’s stress level at work and overall mental health.” She continued, “in the past 6 months I have had to bring my uniform home in a plastic bag because an inmate either threw the contents of his toilet on me (twice) or spat on me (once).” Here, the participant emphasizes that repeated exposure to degrading and humiliating incidents too can “have a significant negative impact on one’s mental health,” yet they may be more likely to be “swept under the rug.”

In addition to reporting harm personally experienced, many respondents also reported witnessing or learning about harm incurred by their colleagues. Some recalled examples of coworkers who experienced violent incidents such as being stabbed, beaten, or taken hostage. Consistently, seeing colleagues hurt, particularly persons in an occupational position similar to one’s own, can illustrate the dangers of one’s environment, and the possible harm to which one may be exposed. Further, workers may be implicated in incidents that resulted in harm to colleagues, again, operating in a position where their decisions and actions may shape outcomes. Some recalled situations where they successfully intervened to protect their colleagues from harm during violent or potentially violent situations, while others recounted failed attempts at intervention. One CW recalled in considerable detail a serious incident where he was unable to effectively terminate a violent situation involving his coworker. Thus, staff may bear responsibility not only for the well-being of prisoners but also their colleagues; resultantly, they may inevitably face situations where they are unable to ensure a safe or desired outcome.

In addition to physical staff assaults, both institutional and community workers noted that verbal aggression, including threats and emotionally charged verbal interactions, was a common occurrence. Within institutional settings, verbal aggression may reflect antagonistic relations with staff; for example, the use of threats resulting from frustration or anger with a situation. An institutional manager recalled two instances in particular involving threats “towards self and family that were credible.” Like respondents working in institutional settings, community workers described the feelings brought on by situations marked by aggression and the potentiality of violence. A PPO explained that interactions involving agitated probationers brought about stress due to the uncertainty of whether or not the situation could be de-escalated. Thus, situations marked by an elevation in emotion and behavior can prompt insecurity, with staff unaware of potential outcomes and unsure if they can contain them though de-escalation efforts. Like institutional workers, rather that particular or specific threats, the potentiality for, and inability to fully know, threats in one’s environment may be shaping community workers’ perceptions of their safety.

Harm tied to occupational and managerial culture

While CWs can be the recipients of harm in the workplace, some respondents noted how coworkers were sometimes the perpetrators. Consistent with previous research findings that organizational factors can constitute workplace stressors (Burdett et al., 2018; Ferdik and Smith, 2017; Keinan and Malach-Pines, 2007), participants described PPTE experiences that were largely tied to their interactions with colleagues, managers, or the occupational and organizational cultures of their workplace more generally. Specific types of harmful actions varied in their form and impacts, however, the topic’s salience suggests it is one of the most pressing stressors faced by CWs across positions.

Harassment, discrimination, bullying, and even physical aggression were cited examples of staff-perpetrated harms, which could occur at the hands of peers or management. Such experiences understandably could compromise the ability of staff to persevere in their positions. One caseworker wrote: “I have suffered being harassed, bullied and discriminated against in my workplace. Sometimes I have felt supported and other times it has been almost impossible to walk in the building.” A health-care worker commented, “terrible bullying at work, makes it difficult to function and know you have to come to work to put a roof over your head.” Staff-perpetrated harms were not limited to verbal actions, some recalled physical victimization (e.g. “was sexually assaulted by a co-worker”) and physical assault (“I was tackled by two coworkers”).

In discussions of such workplace challenges, a key theme was perceived ineffective managerial responses that either enabled or otherwise failed to address such problems. Shedding light on organizational factors, one respondent described how ineffective responses to bullying in the workplace aggravated the problem:

[I was] being bullied in the workplace and we had an external investigation for a month or so and nothing was done. This empowered the bullies…nothing is ever said to them even still after over a year, they continue to make myself and others uncomfortable in our work environment. (Health-care worker)

Some respondents noted how management actions (or inactions) too could serve as a source of stress or exacerbate an earlier stressor. For example, another institutional manager described how “nothing was done” when they reported being physically assaulted in the workplace. The participant wrote that the situation “affected my home life and quality of life in general.” In another case, a CO described the response from management following a PPTE as the primary source of distress. The participant echoed others in suggesting that management’s response was more stressful than an initial incident:

The assault on my person was not all as stressful as what my employer did to me for getting assaulted. They failed to record the inmate assault on his file. Management charged me with excessive use of force and unprofessional conduct in defending my life.

In a similar vein, a CO expressed how their treatment by management in relation to a prisoner death precipitated more stress than the incident: “The most traumatic [part] was not the death itself, but management trying to blame me.” The feeling as though staff were vulnerable to being “scapegoated” when things went wrong was a sentiment shared by participants. One respondent described a major source of work stress as the threat of being singled out for blame; “who knows when they will come after you?”

In addition to describing feelings of being unsupported and blamed, some also described feeling as though they lacked value—that they were “replaceable” and “expendable.” Illustrations used to explain this sentiment included practices like management failing to provide support in the immediate aftermath of PPTE. As respondents explained, expectations are placed on staff to resume normal duties following (and sometimes during) exposure to PPTE: a CO stated: “it is expected you just carry on as if nothing happened”, yet “they may not mentally be able to do so.”

The sense that staff should not be bothered by correctional events may be engrained within staff culture; as a CO noted “[the] prevailing attitude of managers and some staff is to just get used to it, or that its part of the job. Suck it up.” Lack of acknowledgment or recognition for the effects of exposure to stressors was reported by some participants, who explain the practice resulted in certain staff taking on the additional role of providing emotional support to coworkers. Thus, despite engrained pressures to “suck it up,” perceived lack of supports in place may mean that certain staff come to bear the burden of providing support following work incidents.

Another example used to highlight their perceived lack of value was managerial policies and work features that created an environment that disempowered staff and rendered them feeling unsafe and/or ill-equipped. In speaking of PPTE, one participant remarked: “Our workplace is under constant threat of these sorts of events. The employer does little to prevent them, and frankly quite a lot to make them more likely.” Both community and institutional workers felt that stress and burnout among staff were driven by conditions of work, including factors such as inadequate staffing, high case loads, and duties beyond actual abilities and skill sets.

In sum, beyond traumatic incidents, an important aspect of understanding PPTE and stress among correctional workers is the occupational and organizational climate in which they work – that is, the social field that encompasses formal and informal power dynamics and relationships within and between distinct occupational groups. Here, stressful and traumatic incidents occur against a backdrop of vulnerability and mistrust; rather than buffering the impacts of trauma, such organizational dynamics may exacerbate them.

Trauma and the correctional worker habitus

Participants’ accounts suggest the field of correctional spaces is marked by exposure to different types of stressful incidents and situations that are tied to different sets of social relationships (prisoner–prisoner, prisoner–staff, staff–colleague, and staff–management). Through participants’ accounts of the subjective effects of their work environment, we now turn our attention to the “correctional worker habitus.” Specifically, in analyzing the social-subjective effects of diverse forms of trauma/stress in the workplace, we note participants’ descriptions of hypervigilance, desensitization, disillusioned sense of others, and attitudes of distrust and cynicism. We unpack how this habitus can mediate social experiences in both work and nonwork settings.

Hypervigilance involves an enhanced alertness to one’s surroundings as well as a preoccupation with possible threats in one’s environment. The varied forms of violence and injury which workers may experience, witness or otherwise learn about, can led to such a disposition, whereby situations are approached as if they have dangerous potentiality. A CO explained that while traumatic events may be occasional, the potentiality for such events precipitates constant vigilance to prevent possible harm. The fear of danger may preoccupy one’s mind: “I am always worrying about when the next attack will occur, specifically when the next physical attack against me will occur” (CO). Another explained how the perpetual fear of being attacked lead to them being on constant alert and looking over their shoulder.

Thus, much like researchers have found prisoner subjectivities to be shaped by the looming threat of violence (Caputo-Levine, 2013), so too can the social dispositions of CWs be oriented around perceptions of insecurity. Hypervigilance to one’s surroundings (whether due to an actual threat or the possibility that a threat may emerge) undoubtedly reflects an adaptive response intended to reduce the risk of victimization, or otherwise mentally prepare for potential exposure to trauma. While a strategy to prepare for “worst case” scenarios, the hyper-vigilant mentality can have adverse outcomes. When PPTE do present themselves, responses may be heightened and a source of psychological stress; a PPO noted being “triggered by constant workplace exposure,” while a security manager described being “triggered” by confrontational/adversarial situations that resembled the circumstances of a prior PPTE. Here, the participant felt their fear of similar PPTE outcomes impacted their job performance; they stated they felt their effectiveness at work decreased and that they experienced diminished confidence in their skills and abilities when they found themselves in confrontational situations. The impact of trauma manifested in a flight reaction, stifling the participants’ sense of competency to perform their job.

Corresponding with the “worst case” mentality (health-care worker) was also a sense of powerless; for example, that one could not substantially shape their working realities and avoid negative outcomes. A CO explained “every day presents fears of being severally injured. Staff feel unprotected and defenceless in preventing attacks.” Feeling powerless related not only to situations involving potential harm to staff but also exposure to (and inability to prevent) harm to prisoners/probationers. For example, a CO spoke to “never knowing” when an individual may act upon threats of self-harm, thus leaving staff in a position where they were continually anticipating the moment they would discover such a situation.

The hypervigilance disposition and “worst case” mentality affect workers’ subjectivities even in “seemingly” nonthreatening situations, including outside of work. For instance, a CO explained that the nature of their work schedule (i.e. long shifts) combined with the content of their job led to “an increased situational awareness at all times that is hard to turn off, even when not at work.” Beyond the work setting, some participants experienced feeling sensitive to certain situations (e.g. large groups or crowds) and in relation to certain stimuli (e.g. noises). Some also expressed heightened fear for the safety of their loved ones, concerned that they might become victims of harm they have witnessed in their professional capacity. A related concern was being unable to shift gears from work to nonwork roles; for example, mentally replaying or fixating on situations at work while at home. In some cases, such mental fixation appeared to stifle the ability of participants to respond appropriately in nonwork situations. One participant recalled how work stressors stifled their ability to switch over from their work to parental roles at the end of the day. Some commented on how the content of their worked shaped their general feelings and attitudes toward everyday life. As a PPO wrote, “These events do not leave when I leave work. They are present with me and affect what I do and how I am to a degree.”

Perhaps in seeming contrast to hypervigilance, though in line with the findings of Arnold (2005), some participants also described feeling desensitized to situations involving violence and suffering—feeling as though traumatic incidents were seen as a “part of the job” (CO). Another CO stated that workplace stressors contributed to feeling unable to really “give a shit” about anything. The effect of desensitization or the sentiment that harm and suffering are “normal” can contribute to a lack of emotional reactions when they are needed. A CO explained, “The events and situations that we are exposed to are abnormal and we make ourselves unsensitive to these situations which is unhealthy.” Here, desensitization may serve as a coping strategy employed to withstand exposure to incidents that might otherwise elicit reactions—a strategy that might also be rooted in occupational culture (Walker et al., 2017). Some responses reflect lingering values of occupational correctional culture—namely “there’s no crying in corrections,” as an institutional manager remarked. In this sense, elements of workplace socialization may encourage emotional repression, serving to alienate workers from “normal” emotive responses, and thus likely limiting access to emotional supports. Further, sentiments of desensitization may, in some cases, reflect a “façade of capability,” whereby the presentation of being unaffected by incidents may mask emotional reactions and difficulties coping (Walker et al., 2017).

An attitude and disposition of distrust was another key subjective effect of correctional work described by participants. Some noted how their experiences with prisoners/probationers, who they felt were “deceiving and untrustworthy,” led to a generalized distrust of others, “where everyone new or unfamiliar is untrustworthy,” which “makes it hard to develop new relationships personally and professionally.” A caseworker expressed how professional experiences and immersion in the correctional world could potentially breed a tainted view of others, noting “many of our employees can become bitter and jaded without appropriate time away from the institution.” However, some also attributed deteriorated faith in others to interactions or situations they had experienced with colleagues. For example, a CO described how the failure of their colleague to intervene appropriately in a situation, which resulted in their being injured physically and psychologically, resulted in lingering difficulty trusting others.

Some expressed that distrust had resulted in them becoming more “guarded” and socially retreating (“sticking to myself”). Part of the self-imposed social retreat may not only be due to lingering distrust, but a related sense of disillusionment with others; as one CO explained “You see the worst in people.” Another stated, “I pretty much hate most people and most things most of the time. Before I started in corrections people always used to say ‘I smiled too much’, now they say ‘smile’.”

Related to a disillusioned view of others was a sense of feeling “otherized,” referring to feeling different from and/or misunderstood by individuals outside of the correctional field. A CO explained, “I avoid certain types of people and I have found that I have little in common with people who do not work in the same, or related profession.” Another CO explained they felt they had to present distinct personalities in work versus nonwork settings due to the perception that certain ways of being were not understood by those outside of the field (e.g. aspects of the CW “personality” need to be compartmentalized as they are not suited to other social contexts). In some cases, tied to social disconnection was the perceived stigma and/or stereotypes associated with correctional work. Here, the perception that correctional work is negatively viewed by the public leads to sentiments of performing a “thankless job” that “the public and the government doesn’t understand or they do and choose to ignore the difficult job we face daily.” Some respondents also appeared to have developed a cynical view of the criminal justice system. A PPO commented: the “system appears to just not work…and I as a PPO seem to have no ability to change this” (PPO). Some expressed pessimism regarding the potential for change to their working conditions and the correctional system more generally.

Through our discussions of select but notable elements of the CW habitus, we have sought to demonstrate certain social-subjective effects of correctional work, which, we suggest, are fundamentally shaped by exposure to traumatic and stressful work events and situations. What stands out across responses is the extent to which correctional work can become entangled with one’s sense of self, identity, and others. By and large, respondents relayed that the impacts of correctional work on their self and well-being were largely negative. Many participants also reported problems such as burnout, sleep disturbances, and mental health impacts as a result of their work experiences. Like stressful incidents, the resulting effects of such incidents are not experienced in a singular or predictable fashion. Understanding the mediating factors shaping the effects of correctional work is beyond the scope of the current study; however, illustrations of variation were evident. For example, a small number of participants felt they had not experienced significant impacts resulting from exposure to workplace stressors and some felt correctional work had led to the development of positive traits, such as resilience and gratitude. Thus, the elements of the CW habitus presented here may not capture or represent all experiences, but rather, reflect general tendencies, some or all of which may bear relevance to a given individual’s experiences.