Abstract
Drawing on prior theory and research, this study develops and tests hypotheses about the potential for work in extended restrictive housing (ERH), which entails solitary confinement, to contribute to emotional numbing among personnel. It draws on a mixed-methods approach using data from a large-scale survey and from focus groups and interviews with correctional personnel. As compared to work in general population housing (GPH), ERH work was reported to be associated with greater emotional numbing due in part to unique aspects of this work. The numbing effects, then, may have adverse consequences for personnel's mental and physical health and relationships. Implications for understanding the punitive era and social order in prisons are discussed.
The punitive turn in criminal justice has led to a greater reliance on incarceration, resulting in approximately 1.8 million Americans currently behind bars, a decline from the peak of the get-tough era but substantially high by historical standards (Kang-Brown et al., 2021). This shift has entailed not only more incarceration but also changes in the prison experience. One of the most notable changes has been greater reliance on extended restrictive housing (ERH), which involves the prolonged segregation of an individual, placed into a cell, alone or with another person, for 22 to 24 h a day (Mears et al., 2019). It is distinct from segregation for protection or short-term punishment and is instead designed to manage those who cannot safely be contained in other areas of the prison (Labrecque et al., 2021). Individuals placed into the housing have restricted privileges and are only allowed out of their cells for limited activities, such as showers, medical appointments, and individualized recreation.
Concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effects of ERH on the individuals incarcerated in it (Franco et al., 2022; Garcia, 2016), but, to date, there has been little attention to the effects that it may have on other groups, such as those who work in this housing. As recent work attests (e.g. Rudes 2022), there is reason to anticipate that the work may have unique consequences for personnel. Research suggests that prison work, in general, is challenging (Evers et al., 2020; Schiff and Leip, 2019), in large part because officers and staff manage and interact with individuals who can be violent (Armstrong and Griffin, 2004). ERH work may entail even greater or additional challenges. Personnel who work in the housing may, for example, be exposed to more extreme and dangerous conditions and behavior (Labrecque et al., 2021).
How, though, might it affect personnel? One possibility is emotional numbing, which entails the inability to fully engage with one's personal feelings or the feelings of others (Presseau et al., 2018). It constitutes a conscious or unconscious psychological defense mechanism for coping with extreme and distressing emotions arising from traumatic events or conditions (Wright et al., 2017). Prior work has found that prolonged emotional numbing itself may have harmful effects on emotional and physical wellbeing, including strained personal relationships and risk of suicide (Najmi et al., 2007). Extending this line of work, we argue that ERH work conditions may contribute to emotional numbing and its sequelae.
Against this backdrop, the goal of this study is to contribute to theory and research on the consequences of the punitive turn on contemporary correctional systems, including personnel, and, more specifically, to illuminate the potential effects of work in ERH. Specifically, we develop hypotheses about the emotional numbing effects of ERH work versus general population housing (GPH) work, unique aspects of ERH work that may contribute to emotional numbing, and consequences for personnel. We test these hypotheses through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from a mixed-methods study, then discuss the findings and their implications.
Background
The punitive turn, ERH, and corrections personnel
Beginning in the 1970s, the punitive turn led to an expansion of, and emphasis on, punishment, and can be seen most visibly in the rise of mass incarceration (Travis et al., 2014). The punitive turn can also be seen in changes inside prisons. One striking example is in the increasingly widespread use of ERH for the prolonged management of individuals who prison systems believe cannot be safely controlled in any other manner (Mears et al., 2019). Reliance on ERH has led to concern about potentially adverse effects on the individuals incarcerated in the housing, especially to their mental health (Franco et al., 2022; Reiter et al., 2020). Concerns exist as well about disparities in the use of ERH and a range of other possible harms to those incarcerated in it (see, e.g. Garcia, 2016; Reiter et al., 2020).
Despite literature that suggests that prison work can be especially stressful and accounts that depict especially challenging work conditions in ERH, little attention has been given to how ERH work may affect personnel. Research suggests that prison work is a highly stressful occupation (Armstrong and Griffin, 2004). Personnel are at heightened risk of being witness to or involved in violent incidents (Regehr et al., 2021; Ricciardelli and Gazso, 2013; Steiner and Wooldredge, 2017). They also risk being exposed to disturbing events, such as self-injury and deaths. Scholars have found that exposure to such traumatic events may contribute to stress and lead to short-term and long-term adverse effects on physical and mental health (Lerman, 2017; Regehr et al., 2021). The work conditions lead corrections work to rank among the highest in risk of suicide (Frost and Monteiro, 2020).
Impacts of prison work may extend to interpersonal relationships inside and outside of the prison walls (Armstrong et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2010; Vickovic and Morrow, 2020). Such factors as fear for physical safety, witnessing a traumatic incident, or being victimized may result in distress and heightened emotional states, ones that personnel have difficulty sharing with others, including spouses or intimate partners and other family members. These individuals may feel shut out, leading to tension and conflict. Strains in relationships may, in turn, interfere with job performance, exacerbating work-related stress and its effects (Armstrong et al., 2015; Vickovic and Morrow, 2020).
Prison work and emotional numbing
Scholarship establishes, in short, that prison work can be dangerous and difficult, and contribute to heightened risks of stress, health problems, suicide, and work and relationship conflicts. In addition, personnel may develop unhealthy eating habits, such as relying on “comfort food” that is high in fat and sugar, to cope (Waterhouse et al., 2003). Others may turn to alcohol or drugs as a response to the work conditions (Carlson and Thomas, 2006). And still others may become emotionally detached (Ricciardelli and Gazso, 2013), which may result from work conditions and the overall climate and culture within prisons.
As in the military, mental toughness is highly valued both in law enforcement and in correctional settings (Laws, 2019; Smith, 2021). Personnel, in fact, are trained to minimize emotional reactions when confronted by individuals who attempt to assault them or others (Crawley, 2004; Ricciardelli and Gazso, 2013). They are expected to tolerate psychological discomfort and to maintain a high level of professionalism in the face of traumatic incidents, and to otherwise do so may be perceived as weakness.
One effect of these work conditions and organizational culture is a tendency to become emotionally numb, defined as the inability to fully engage with one's personal feeling or the feelings of others (Higgins et al., 2022; Litz and Gray, 2002; Walters, 2022). Emotional numbing constitutes a psychological defense mechanism used to shut out distressing feelings and, thus, to avoid having to confront or navigate them. It can manifest as avoidance, denial, or detachment. On a temporary basis, emotional numbing may assist individuals in managing stressful circumstances. On a prolonged basis, however, it can prevent individuals from developing or using healthy modes of navigating work and relationships, and undermine psychological and physical wellbeing (Bryan et al., 2012; Kaplow et al., 2014; Najmi et al., 2007). Studies have found associations between emotional numbing and mental illness and symptomatology, including depression, anxiety, negativity, suicidal ideation, and difficulty feeling joy or happiness (Najmi et al., 2007).
Prior research has found that correctional personnel report feeling emotionally numb or detached from their feelings in response to their work (Ricciardelli and Gazso, 2013; Ricciardelli and Power, 2020; Walters, 2022). For example, Ricciardelli and Power (2020) conducted interviews with correctional officers and found that officers commonly reported feeling detached or lacking any empathy in their responses to witnessing violence or incidents of self-harm among the incarcerated population (p. 98). They also found that violence in correctional work becomes normalized, which may reinforce or amplify numbing effects and further contribute to adverse effects on personnel mental health and relationships.
Emotional numbing and work in ERH
If emotional numbing occurs in response to exposure to trauma, then it can be anticipated that the risk of emotional numbing will be greater among those who work with populations where a greater likelihood of witnessing or being subjected to traumatic or violent incidents exists. Such incidents are ubiquitous in prison settings. By extension, personnel who see or are involved in them may respond with emotional numbing to process the resulting feelings and psychological distress (Ellison and Jaegers, 2022; Fusco et al., 2021; Hatcher et al., 2011).
From this perspective, personnel who work in ERH can be anticipated to experience greater levels of emotional numbing because of the greater risk of exposure to traumatic events and violence. One reason is that ERH is designed to house the most violent people in the prison system. Even when in this housing, incarcerated persons can engage in extreme acts of violence (Mears and Watson, 2006; Sundt, 2016). They can attack personnel during transitions out of the cell to the recreation yard or during cell extractions that occur for the individual's safety or because of a failure to comply with rules (Frost and Monteiro, 2020). Personnel may also more likely to be exposed to extreme behaviors, such as self-harm, exhibited by those incarcerated in ERH, resulting in trauma. More generally, as Sundt (2016) has emphasized in describing administrative segregation, a form of ERH, personnel who work in such settings “may be regularly exposed to traumatic events, including suicides and disturbing acts of self-mutilation” (p. 315).
In addition, ERH work can entail working conditions that especially challenge personnel because of the unique and more intensive stressors. Prior accounts have described ERH work conditions as including greater uncertainty, relative to work in general population prison settings, in how individuals in the housing will behave (Cloud et al., 2015; Mears and Watson, 2006; Rudes, 2022). In Rudes’ (2022) study on restrictive housing units, correctional staff described these units as “dangerous, hectic, under-resourced, and chaotic” (p. 27), and reported that it took a toll on their personal and professional lives (see also Mears et al., 2021). Media accounts (e.g. Sullivan, 2006) have documented similar patterns, with officers reporting that ERH work amplifies “us-versus-them” divides among personnel and incarcerated persons in ways that harm personnel wellbeing and contribute to emotional numbing.
The possibility that work under ERH conditions is more likely to contribute to emotional numbing is also anticipated by research on service workers who interact with groups who are dangerous or have experienced substantial trauma. For example, studies on juvenile justice workers (Hatcher et al., 2011) and staff at a Sexual Assault Referral Center (Massey et al., 2019) have found that emotional numbing is a common coping response to the trauma and violence witnessed or experienced. Similarly, ERH work, which entails greater levels of exposure to trauma and violence may also contribute to greater emotional numbing among personnel.
Hypotheses
This study seeks to respond to calls to understand the impacts of ERH. Research shows that it adversely affects incarcerated persons in a variety of ways, and recent work (e.g. Mears et al., 2021; Rudes, 2022; Sundt, 2016) suggests it may also adversely affect personnel. Building on this work, and the insight that personnel who work in ERH may encounter unique challenges and elevated risks of trauma and violence, we investigate whether and how exposure to such conditions contribute to emotional numbing. This focus stems from consideration of ERH work and research on ERH, and of a related literature on service providers, which finds that the latter become emotionally numb as an adaptation to working in traumatic and violent situations or with traumatized or violent populations. Specifically, we hypothesize the following:
H1: Work in ERH will be associated with greater emotional numbing than what arises from work in GPH. Personnel who work in ERH manage individuals whom the prison system has deemed to be violent, disruptive, and out of control. These individuals may be especially likely to assault personnel or others. It is possible that personnel have incorrect perceptions of these individuals, or that prison conditions give rise to observed behaviors. The end result, however, is that personnel experience work conditions that can be or may feel more traumatizing and difficult than what arises in GPH, and, accordingly, respond through emotional numbing. H2: Work in ERH will be associated with greater emotional numbing than what arises from work in GPH due to the unique nature of work in ERH. Prior accounts suggest that ERH work is unique in many respects. For example, they may witness extremes in typical work experiences, such as violence or manipulation. But they also may experience unique challenges, such as difficulty having any meaningful interactions with persons who are incarcerated. H3: Emotional numbing will adversely affect work performance and interpersonal relationships of those who work in ERH. Prior work has found that emotional numbing may have a wide range of negative consequences. These include difficulty in expressing emotions and communicating with their families and friends, resulting in strained relationships and difficulty concentrating or effectively undertaking work responsibilities. To the extent that ERH work entails more intense and unique challenges, it may increase emotional numbing and, by extension, the potential for adverse effects on work and interpersonal relationships. Of course, numbing may be palliative, in the sense of making some aspects of work more tolerable. At the same time, as Sundt (2016) has argued, “extended exposure to trauma and feelings of disgust may contribute to professional detachment and loss of compassion, causing employees to become numb to emotions and to act out in anger and frustration” (p. 315).
Data and methods
To test the hypotheses, we draw on a mixed-methods study that relies on two data sources. The first is survey data collected from state correctional personnel who worked for the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) when the survey was administered. At the time of the study, the FDC was the third largest correctional system in the United States, housing almost 100,000 incarcerated men and women, and employing nearly 20,000 prison personnel. The second source is qualitative data collected from focus groups and interviews with FDC personnel. Below, we describe each of the data sources in more detail.
Florida Department of Corrections personnel survey
The FDC personnel survey was part of a broader research project funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) focused on the effects of ERH on personnel, the prison system, and incarcerated persons. With the assistance of FDC administrators, a point of contact was identified for each prison. A web link to access the survey, along with information about the study, was sent to each point of contact, who then set up computer stations and placed the survey link into a Word document that could be accessed by personnel. The survey was administered through Qualtrics (2019) to 19,166 correctional personnel across all 50 FDC major correctional institutions, between November 2019 and January 2020 and included questions about work experiences and perceptions of restrictive housing and incarcerated persons. It also included questions about emotional responses to work in ERH and GPH, respectively.
Prior to the survey administration, approval for the study was obtained from the University's Institutional Review Board. Participants did not receive an incentive for participating in the study. In total, of the 19,166 potential participants, 10,211 personnel consented to and completed the survey, resulting in a 53.3% participation response rate. However, due to anomalies in the survey administration at one facility, the data from that facility were dropped and not included in the final sample (n = 9656). The response rate is similar to that of other studies of prison personnel. For example, in two of the largest extant corrections surveys, response rates were 42% (Lerman, 2017) and 58% (Vickovic and Griffin, 2014).
As shown in Table 1, the average age of respondents was 39. One-third had a high-school degree, 51% had some college education, and 16% had a bachelor's or graduate degree. Respondents had, on average, almost 10 years of experience. Over 15% were senior officers (wardens, lieutenants, majors, colonels, or classification staff), 73% were sergeant or correctional officers, and 12% were medical or other staff. Finally, 48% had worked in ERH and almost all (94%) had worked in GPH. To assess the representativeness of the sample, we compared characteristics of respondents to those of the personnel population, based on data provided by the FDC. We examined sex, race, and occupational role because the data permitted comparisons along these dimensions. Fifty-nine percent of the sample was male, while 60% of the personnel population was male. Sixty-one percent of the sample was white, compared with 62% for the prison system. And 73% were corrections officers or sergeants versus 77% for all personnel. Based on these comparisons, the sample appeared to be similar to the overall personnel population, though there may have been differences with respect to other characteristics.
Personnel characteristics from the corrections personnel survey.
N = 9656. ERH: extended restrictive housing; GPH: general population housing; SD: standard deviation.
Dependent variables
Emotional numbing of ERH work
To examine emotional numbing from ERH work, four survey measures were used. Before being asked questions that related to emotional numbing, participants were told: “The next set of questions ask about your experiences working with FDC inmates.” The questions included reference to close management (CM) housing, which is similar to ERH in other states. After being primed to consider their “experiences working with FDC inmates,” they were asked: (1) To what extent does work in close management housing desensitize staff to their family members’ feelings? (2) To what extent does work in close management housing desensitize staff to their friends’ feelings? (3) To what extent does work in close management housing desensitize staff to seeing violence? (4) To what extent does work in close management housing desensitize staff to the unfair things that happen to others? The question wording sought to have respondents’ comment, based on their direct or indirect knowledge about ERH, on how ERH work affected staff in general. Participants were provided with the following options: 1 = not at all, 2 = moderately, or 3 = extremely (range = 1–3).
Emotional numbing of GPH work
To examine emotional numbing from work in GPH, four survey measures identical to those listed above but referencing GPH were also included in the analyses (e.g. “To what extent does work in a general population prison desensitize staff to their family members’ feelings?”). Here, again, participants could respond with 1 = not at all, 2 = moderately, or 3 = extremely (range = 1–3).
Independent variables
The main independent variable for the study is work in ERH versus GPH. In the analyses of the survey data, we examine ERH versus GPH housing by restricting our focus solely to respondents who had experience with both types of housing and by comparing their responses to what they perceived as the effects of each type of housing. For the qualitative analyses, we draw on insights from personnel who had direct or indirect experience with each type of housing and who therefore had an empirical, or experiential, foundation on which to contrast what work is like in ERH and GPH, respectively, and how it affects personnel at work and in their personal lives.
Focus groups and interviews
The focus group and interview data were collected as part of the same broader NIJ-funded study on the impacts of ERH. The data was collected from 10 Florida state prisons between November 2017 and February 2020. The FDC has three levels of ERH, which are referred to as CM1, CM2, and CM3, with CM1 being the most restrictive (e.g. persons are housed alone in a cell, and have fewer privileges). At the beginning of the study, Florida used ERH at five prisons, including one women's facility, across multiple regions of the state. Because the focus of the broader study was ERH, all five of these facilities were included.
In contrast to the ERH facilities, four of the prisons were classified as GPH facilities and did not have ERH on site. Three of the GPH facilities were included because they were identified through administrative records as sending and receiving a high number of incarcerated persons to or from ERH facilities. One GPH facility had nearly identical demographics to the other GPH facilities (e.g. prison size and security levels) but sent few incarcerated persons to ERH. The facility was included to gain understanding about the potential differences in management styles that could help explain the contrasting numbers of persons sent to ERH. In addition to the ERH and GPH facilities, one prison that served as a step-down facility for individuals newly released from ERH was included to gain insight about transition challenges among such individuals.
Upon arriving at each study site, the researchers were first provided a tour, focusing on housing units, recreation areas, visiting areas, and medical and mental health offices. Observations during the tours provided the researchers opportunities to ask questions and learn more about ERH. During our observations, we noted that most of the ERH cells were covered by a thick steel door with a small window. Inside of each cell was a small twin-size metal bed topped with a thin plastic mattress, one blanket, and a pillow. The ERH cells that held two individuals were similar in size to the single-bed cells but contained bunkbeds attached to the wall. Each cell was also equipped with a metal desk and toilet-sink combination and a window to allow for some natural light. Incarcerated persons who are placed into ERH typically spend a minimum of 6 months in the housing. Because of what was described as challenging work conditions, ERH personnel are typically rotated to other areas of the prison after 18 months.
After each tour, 2 focus groups (n = 20) with 5 to 10 personnel per group (n = 133) were conducted. Ten focus groups were conducted with personnel who worked in ERH and the other 10 with personnel who worked in GPH at the time of the study. Many of the GPH respondents were found to have previously worked in ERH or had experience working with personnel who worked in ERH. Thus, respondents could speak to direct or indirect experiences with ERH. Personnel included senior (n = 32) and junior correctional officers (n = 59), medical and mental health personnel (n = 23), programming staff (n = 4), and classification officers (n = 15). To mitigate the potential biasing effect of power differentials among personnel, the focus groups were further divided by occupational role, with front-line officers and sergeants in one group and more senior personnel in the other. Each focus group lasted between 1 and 2 h in length. Interviews with wardens (n = 9) and other high-ranking administrators (n = 2) were conducted separately; these typically lasted 45 min in length. Data collected from the interviews were combined with the focus group data.
In total, 144 personnel participated in the focus groups and interviews. Respondents were not asked to report on their personal characteristics; rather, this information was obtained based on observations or what respondents reported during the focus groups and interviews. Respondents ranged from 19 to approximately 60 years in age and their length of experience ranged from a few months to more than 30 years. Most focus groups respondents were male (83%), which is partly due to the FDC's gender-specific policy, in which male personnel can only manage male individuals in ERH. Respondents were also observed to be racially and ethnically diverse. Due to the security protocols of the prisons, electronic devises could not be used to record focus groups and interviews; thus, written notes were taken to capture comments and, where possible, quotations. Three or more researchers attended each focus group and interview. One researcher served as moderator and the others took detailed notes. Focus groups took place in the break area or a conference room; interviews took place in offices. After each focus group or interview, the researchers compared notes. Within 24 h of visits, the notes were transcribed and synthesized into one document. Each team member then individually reviewed the document for accuracy and met collectively for a final line-by-line review.
Methods
To examine the numbing effects of work in ERH, we analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data. To test hypothesis 1, we analyzed the survey data using descriptive and paired sample t-tests. All statistical analyses were conducted using the Stata version 17. To test hypotheses 2 and 3, we employed thematic analysis, a widely used method for identifying, organizing, and reporting themes from qualitative data (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017). To do so, we created a document with tables for ERH and, separately, for GPH, with the relevant site visit focus group and interview notes placed in each. Within each, we searched for instances where the reported notes related thematically to emotional numbing, ERH work, or GPH work. For hypothesis 2, we identified themes that shed light on the sources of emotional numbing in ERH work (e.g. instances where statements from the focus groups and interviews related to factors that contributed to emotionally numbing impacts of ERH work) and compared them to the reported sources of emotional numbing in GPH work. For hypothesis 3, we identified themes about the consequences of emotional numbing from ERH work on personal relationships and work performance. In doing so, we noted when observations that related to a particular theme were isolated (e.g. there was only one instance where the theme surfaced) versus those where it arose several times or where it frequently arose. We noted as well when comments engendered substantial reactions or responses from participants, or when the group seemed to be in consensus about an issue. As we note in the conclusion, there are clear risks of misgeneralizing prevalence estimates or causal relationships from qualitative data, and so statements about prevalence or that suggest causation should be interpreted with due caution.
Findings
Quantitative analysis
We begin with hypothesis 1, which anticipates greater emotional numbing effects from work in ERH as compared to work in GPH. To test it, we examine the subsample of personnel who reported that they had worked in both ERH and GPH (n = 4299) because they could speak directly to, and base their assessment on, experiences of working in each type of housing.
Table 2 compares officer views of ERH and GPH, respectively, and includes the t-test results of this comparison for each of four dimensions of emotional numbing. As shown in Table 2, the results support the hypothesis: in each case, emotional numbing was perceived to be somewhat higher for ERH work. There was, for example, a statistically significant difference in the mean for emotional numbing to family members’ feelings. For ERH work, the mean was 2.03 while for GPH it was 1.92, where higher values indicate greater numbing (t(4298) = 14.99, p < 0.001).
Personnel-reported emotional numbing from work in ERH versus work in GPH.
N = 4299 (personnel with experience working in ERH and in GPH). ERH: extended restrictive housing; GPH: general population housing; SD: standard deviation.
Similar differences surfaced for perceptions of emotional numbing to friends’ feelings (ERH work = 2.02, GPH work = 1.91) and to seeing unfair things happen to others (ERH work = 2.10, GPH = 1.99). The largest difference was for perceptions of emotional numbing to seeing violence (ERH work = 2.33, GPH = 2.13). Effect sizes, using Cohen's d, ranged from 0.17 to 0.31. For example, for the emotional numbing measure, “family members’ feelings,” the effect size was 0.17 ([2.03–1.92]/0.64, SDpooled); this indicates a modest effect according to Cohen's (1992, p. 157) criteria.
In short, based on the perceptions of personnel who had experience working in the two types of housing, ERH work is associated with higher levels of emotional numbing across multiple life domains. The effects extend to impacts on views about or feelings toward family members, friends, and, more generally, to others they see or with whom they come into contact.
Qualitative analysis
Causes of emotional numbing in ERH
To investigate hypothesis 2, we turn to the qualitative data. The results from the survey analysis indicated that ERH work is associated with somewhat higher reported levels of emotional numbing. The focus group and interview data echoed this view, and, if anything, suggested that the relationship was much more pronounced, indicating further support for hypothesis 1. Importantly, these data, unlike information from the survey, provided a foundation for examining potential reasons for the differences and were based on both direct experiences with ERH work and indirect experiences with it (e.g. knowing or working with others who had worked in ERH). As we discuss in what follows, the respondent accounts highlighted how unique aspects of ERH work contribute to emotional numbing. The accounts identified that sources of emotional numbing typically centered around three areas: interactions with difficult individuals in ERH; the violence in ERH; and witnessing disturbing incidents that involved personnel or other persons incarcerated in the housing.
Interactions with individuals incarcerated in ERH
Work in ERH was reported to be challenging in part because personnel interact with individuals who are out of control or have been classified as such, and thus not manageable in any other way. Personnel who had worked in ERH readily expressed the view that they dealt with individuals vastly different from what personnel in GPH encounter. One ERH staff member reported, for example, that ERH houses the “worst of the worst people in the Florida correctional system.” Indeed, personnel across all focus groups reported that ERH was a last resort for individuals who do not adhere to prison rules and pose a threat to the security of the prison. Many of these individuals were reported to exhibit extreme behaviors, ones that personnel with ERH experience described as unlike any other that they have encountered. As one officer reported, personnel who work in ERH are “exposed to the worst human behavior,” adding that the incidents that personnel witness would “shock” others. We frequently heard other personnel echo the officer's sentiment. Examples of “shocking” incidents included witnessing ERH incarcerated persons self-mutilate, engage in extreme violence against personnel, or throw biohazards at personnel. Several ERH personnel also described witnessing ERH incarcerated persons “play” with their own excrement. Almost all study participants, including those who worked in GPH, said that ERH work entails exposure to behavior that is far more extreme that what arises in other types of prison housing.
Almost all personnel also reported that the potential for violence and abuse is greater in ERH than in GPH and those who had worked in ERH described the environment as unpredictable and war-like. For example, when asked to describe the day-to-day experience of work in ERH, one officer stated, “working in [ERH] is like fighting a war every day. You never know what to expect.” Another officer described ERH as a “high-risk environment for violence.” They explained that when violent incidents occur in ERH, the potential for serious injury is great. Thus, in their view, ERH personnel must mentally approach their work much like the ways in which military members prepare for the battlefield—they hyper focus on the mission and suppress their emotions.
Verbal abuse, we were told, also occurs frequently. Most personnel who had worked in ERH across almost all focus groups reported being called expletives, having their lives and those of their family threatened, and facing persistent and extreme forms of manipulation. When verbally assaulted, personnel must be able to continue to adhere to ERH protocols without exhibiting any emotional reaction. As one ERH officer explained, “[I]f an inmate threatens an officer, the officer has to have the nerve to continue to walk in front of the inmate's cell and check in on the inmate. Officers cannot let the threat bother them.” Almost all ERH personnel explained that officers who are unable to maintain their emotional center risk being viewed as weak by those in ERH and by other officers. What differed from accounts of GPH work was the greater frequency and intensity of these types of interactions, which could be seen in the responses of those who had experience working in both types of housing as well as those who had primarily worked in GPH.
To mitigate or survive the challenges of these types of interactions, personnel who had worked in ERH, reported that they become “numb” to the abuse. Many personnel reported that emotional numbing is a byproduct of all corrections work, but emphasized, too, that it becomes a necessary tool to adapt to and survive working in ERH. Indeed, many respondents said that personnel in ERH who cannot master the ability to become emotionally numb are unlikely to last long or to fare well in this housing.
Violence in ERH
As discussed above, ERH is designed to house the most dangerous individuals in the prison system. By extension, personnel who work in the housing presumptively—and as reported by participants—are at a higher risk of witnessing violence and being injured or even killed. ERH personnel across almost all site visits reported that, although violence is a part of prison life, it occurs more frequently in ERH and is more serious or deadly. Individuals incarcerated in ERH “have nothing but time” and reportedly spend much of their time “plotting” ways to harm personnel. Respondents in GPH and ERH facilities added that, given the opportunity, “inmates will attack officers.” They highlighted that, as compared to individuals in GPH, those in ERH have more time to find ways to manipulate or harm others.
Personnel highlighted, too, that the conditions of the housing may contribute to such behavior. However, understanding that this latter possibility exists did not appear to offset the reported need to be in a constant state of vigilance or the effects of frequently seeing extreme violence, including personnel injuries or death. The situation was said to be amplified by not having time during shifts to emotionally process incidents. Stopping to do so would, we were told, impede one's ability to effectively perform work responsibilities. The solution for personnel was to develop the ability to become emotionally detached. Respondents who had worked in ERH reported that this ability was both a result of work in ERH but also a necessity for performing their duties and navigating the aftermath of what they experienced daily.
Witness to self-harm and suicide
In addition to acts of violence against others, persons in ERH reportedly are more likely to engage in self-harm and suicide. Many personnel, across all focus groups, stated that there are a large number of people with mental illness (PMIs) who are housed in ERH, which accords with findings from prior research (Siennick et al., 2022). Some PMIs reportedly deteriorate emotionally during their time in ERH and turn to self-harm or suicide. Officers are responsible for the lives of these individuals until medical personnel arrive; some reported that they may have to perform lifesaving first aid on individuals who have attempted suicide. We frequently heard that self-mutilation occurs more often in ERH. Some individuals reportedly will “bang their head on the wall until it bleeds” or use items in their cells to cut themselves. The self-injuries are sometimes severe and result in “bloody messes.” Across study sites, the frequency and intensity of such incidents were reported to be greater in ERH and highly stressful, and to be especially traumatic for new personnel or those who have difficulty adapting to ERH work.
As with participants’ accounts about other unique aspects of ERH work, such as the challenges in interacting with persons in the housing and the extreme violence, emotional numbing surfaced as a consequence of, and adaptive tool for, surviving ERH. Many ERH respondents said, for example, that self-injury or even suicidal incidents “no longer shock” them because they “see a lot of crazy stuff in [ERH].” One officer stated that after working in ERH, he came to view self-harm incidents as normal. The officer reported that, as a result, if he were to witness self-harming behavior outside of the prison environment, he would “remain calm” because the incident “would not bother” him. A more extreme illustration of the emotionally numbing effect of work in ERH can be seen in an account from another respondent, who, in describing ERH, reported, “If an officer were standing in line at Walmart and saw someone stab themselves, the officer would probably just walk around them and continue to check out.”
Consequences of emotional numbing from ERH work
The qualitative data also provided a foundation for testing hypothesis 3—that emotional numbing would adversely affect the work performance of ERH personnel and their interpersonal relationships. Respondents reported that it did, and described several ways in which it did so.
Adverse effects on work performance
Respondents who had worked in ERH presented a nuanced account of emotional numbing and its effects, noting that in some ways it can help with navigating ERH work but that in other ways it harmed their ability to relate to individuals who are incarcerated. In this sense, their responses both contradicted and supported the hypothesis.
On the one hand, many personnel with whom we spoke reported that that the use of emotional numbing—or what they typically referred to as becoming desensitized—enabled them to survive the difficult and frequently traumatic events that they witnessed or experienced while working in ERH. In this view, emotional numbing developed in response to ERH work but then came to be embraced as a strategy or skill for reducing the challenges of this work. It enabled them to respond to incidents in a more even-keeled manner and to be less emotionally or psychologically affected by what they saw. Emotional numbing, thus, may create a feedback loop—it results from ERH work, is embraced by personnel as a way to navigate ERH work experiences, and can contribute to a more entrenched or intense form of emotional numbing.
In the focus groups and interviews, both ERH and GPH personnel reported that emotional numbing, or desensitization, resulted from prison work but also became a useful tool. However, personnel—including those with experience working in each type of housing—across all study sites reported emotional numbing to be especially crucial when working in ERH. They described it as the equivalent of an unfortunate necessity for doing well at, or at least surviving, work in this housing. And they emphasized that it truly was a skill, one that could be and had to be developed to be effective. As a respondent stated, “Desensitization is an important skill that only the best staff can master.” Even so, in response to the comment, another respondent emphasized, “It is one of the biggest downsides to working in ERH.” Other respondents echoed these views. They could see emotional numbing as obviously constituting a less-than-ideal outcome, but they could see its benefits as outweighing its costs.
There was, however, a caveat. Across almost all site visits, respondents drew attention to the concern that desensitization could negatively affect their work performance and, as we discuss below, personal relationships. Some ERH officers reported that, as result of the inability to “turn it off,” they had become increasingly “callous and jaded” in the workplace. Friends and family reportedly could recognize a “cold sense” in them, as one respondent said. The callousness, we were told, affected how they viewed the individuals incarcerated in ERH. But it also affected how they viewed individuals in prison more generally. For example, many respondents reported that they had come to liken incarcerated persons to, as one person said, “manipulative children” who constantly complain. They noted as well that after working in ERH, they became apathetic to the complaints of those incarcerated in ERH. As several respondents reported, it is too difficult to discern which incarcerated individuals actually need help and which ones are “just playing” as way to manipulate the prison system rules or personnel.
Harm to interpersonal relationships
Another theme that surfaced among many ERH personnel during focus groups was the feeling of shame that they associated with emotional numbing, the latter of which they described as substantially greater than what GPH personnel experience. In the discussions with us, ERH personnel at several sites described feeling abnormal because of their inability to feel a wide range of emotions, and therefore worked to conceal this situation from family and friends. Many respondents reported that they “wall off” the emotional numbness when with family to avoid being judged or viewed in a negative light.
A related theme that surfaced during the focus groups was that ERH personnel also viewed their ability to become numb to violence as abnormal. Although violence may occur in any area of the prison system, respondents across the sites emphasized that it is more extreme in ERH. We were told that ERH personnel must be able to become emotionally numb to avoid being overwhelmed by the violence and bizarre behaviors, such as making incarcerated persons making figurines out of dried feces. At the same time, respondents recognized that the ability to be unaffected to witnessing violence was not healthy for their mental health or wellbeing. One respondent expressed the problem succinctly: “There's something not right about that.”
Indeed, across all site visits, emotional numbing was reported to have a negative effect on personnel mental health and interpersonal relationships. ERH personnel reported that they no longer felt joy the way that they did prior to their assignment in ERH. Some said that they or their colleagues turned to alcohol as a way of dealing with emotional numbness and that many turn to a reclusive lifestyle. For example, several ERH personnel reported that they prefer to stay home during their time off rather than to go out and spend time with family or friends. They explained that activities that previously felt enjoyable no longer did. As one responded stated, “I usually tell my wife and kids to go on without me. I don’t want to ruin things for them.”
Conclusion
The aim of the study was to contribute to scholarship on the impacts of the punitive turn on contemporary correctional systems by testing hypotheses about one of the most extreme management strategies within the criminal justice system, ERH, and how it may affect personnel. Analyses of the survey data lent some support to the hypothesis that work in ERH, as compared to GPH, was perceived to be associated with greater emotional numbing toward the feelings of family and friends, seeing violence, and to the unfair things that happen to others. The effects sizes were considered small, based on Cohen's D, and so should be viewed with caution; even so, small effects sizes can have meaningful consequences (Lakens, 2013). For example, a slight increase in emotional numbing might have profound repercussions on personnel mental health. It also might contribute to greater apathy toward incarcerated persons that, in turn, may have rippled effects on compliance, safety, and order. Analysis of the focus group and interview data echoed the survey findings and lent support to the second hypothesis that there were unique or more intense aspects of ERH work, such as managing manipulative individuals and being exposed to traumatic incidents, that may give rise to numbing effects. As anticipated by the third hypothesis, consequences included adverse effects on work performance and interpersonal relationships. Numbing, seen as a coping mechanism for the day-to-day rigors of ERH work, was described as contributing to desensitization and detachment from individuals in the housing and to other aspects of work and personal life.
Before discussing implications of the study, several limitations warrant discussion. First the data in this study were collected from a single state and may not generalize to others. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of the data did not permit causal assessments of the ERH–emotional numbing relationship. Second, the survey relied on self-reported personnel perceptions about, not objective measures of, the effects of ERH and GPH work. Third, the two sources of data suggest different magnitudes of effect, with the quantitative data suggesting a relatively small effect of ERH work on emotional numbing and the qualitative data suggesting one that is much larger. This appraisal is based on our impression of what personnel in the focus groups and interviews reported, not a comparison using identical measures from the survey questionnaire. As noted above, the respondents in the focus groups and interviews expressed consistently strong views that ERH work substantially and adversely affects personnel across a range of dimensions, including ones that align with what the literature terms emotional numbing.
One reason for the differences may be that the survey asked respondents to reflect on ERH work impacts in general. By contrast, the focus groups and interviews provided a setting for in-depth exploration of ways in which ERH work directly affected the individuals who participated in the qualitative study. They also provided a setting for participants to elaborate on the nature of ERH work and its influence. This setting may have allowed personnel to more fully reflect and accurately comment on the impacts of the work on themselves and colleagues. It is possible that the focus groups and interviews led respondents to over-emphasize aspects of ERH work and its consequences; if so, that might mean that the survey results provided a more accurate appraisal of the impacts of the work. There is an alternative possibility that respondents both in the survey and in the qualitative study might have felt defensive about ERH work, and so understated the extent to which they view it as having harmful effects. That said, across almost all focus groups and interviews, respondents appeared to have little reservation in identifying ways in which ERH may be harmful to persons who are incarcerated or to others.
We now turn to implications of the study for research and policy. First, it highlights that the punitive turn has not only affected individuals and families directly involved with correctional systems, but also those who work within it. Prior research has found that personnel may detach from their emotions when faced with the potentially traumatic aspects of prison work (Ricciardelli and Gazso, 2013). The findings in the current study align with this research, as well as studies that identify ERH as entailing uniquely challenging conditions for personnel (Garcia, 2016; Mears and Watson, 2006; Rudes, 2022). The analyses suggest that personnel develop emotional numbing in response to unique aspects of ERH work and come to rely on it as a way to survive, adapt to, and navigate the work. Personnel described this as a feedback loop, where ERH results in emotional numbing, which then leads them to increasingly rely on it. They also reported that, over time, ERH work leads personnel to become increasingly numb to the feelings of others, which may negatively affect their interpersonal relationships and lead to feelings of isolation. These findings suggest a need for a better understanding of personnel experiences and how work in and effects of ERH compares to work in and effects of other types of housing.
Second, the study illuminates the potential consequences of the punitive turn, ERH, and emotional numbing on prison system order. The rise of mass incarceration may have led to a decrease in meaningful interaction between personnel and incarcerated individuals. This study highlights this as a potential mechanism that undermines social order in prisons. Specifically, emotionally numb personnel may be less able or willing to help those who are incarcerated, which can lead to an “us versus them” dynamic that erodes the perceived legitimacy of the prison system and its personnel. Legitimacy is a crucial component of prison order (Bottoms, 1999); without it, compliance with rules declines and violence and disorder increase. The punitive era in criminal justice and corrections may produce unintended effects, including the possibility that some changes undermine rather than support the goals associated with particular policies. As one example, studies have shown that control-oriented approaches may have the opposite effect of what is intended (e.g. Aranda-Hughes et al., 2021; Laws, 2021), which, may not only extend to corrections, but also to other arenas, such as policing.
Third, the study suggests that the impacts of ERH work may extend to family and friends outside of prison settings. Prior research has found that poor work–family balance among correctional workers can lead to strained relationships (Lambert et al., 2015). Recently, Rudes (2022) reported that work in restrictive housing adversely affected their ability to parent, be a present partner, or a friend (p. 72). To our knowledge, few other studies have systematically investigated the impact of ERH work on personal relationships and life outside of the prison walls. Our analyses echo Rudes’ (2022) work in finding that personnel may face substantially more challenging work conditions than what they face in other facilities, that these conditions are perceived to contribute to emotional numbing, and that this numbing is perceived to have negative effects on their relationships with other people, including family and friends.
Fourth, building on these observations, there are a number of directions for future research to pursue. Studies are needed to determine if the identified patterns in this study surface across different prison systems. Also, research is needed to determine whether ERH work exerts a causal effect on emotional numbing and, in turn, other outcomes, such as mental health and interpersonal relationships. Future research should also examine whether personnel who have no direct experience working in ERH differ in their views of ERH and its effects compared to those who have direct experience with ERH work. There is, too, research needed to determine how the duration of work in ERH, or if ERH-specific procedures, protocols, staffing levels, and officer culture, may influence personnel recourse to emotional numbing, and how any such effect may influence officer and staff work performance and health. Not least, there is the need, more generally, to explore the potential adverse effects of get-tough policies on the lives of family members and friends of those who work throughout criminal justice and corrections. Studies of the police, for example, typically find that rates of domestic violence are higher among officers as compared to the general population (Blumstein et al., 2011). Such studies, along with this one, point to the need to take stock of the potential impacts of the punitive era more systematically.
Fifth, results from the study reinforce calls to rely on mixed-methods approaches (Wilkes et al., 2021). Here, for example, the quantitative data provided a basis for examining whether ERH work is perceived to be associated with greater emotional numbing, while the qualitative data provided a rich source of information for exploring the mechanisms through which ERH work might contribute to this relationship, as well as the consequences of emotional numbing. Although the former data provide a more generalizable basis for estimating potential relationships, the latter provide a foundation for investigating more nuanced or difficult-to-measure patterns (Niaz, 2006). Similar work that augments this approach by collecting information from personnel colleagues and families, will be an important way to shed further light on work in ERH and, more generally, on work in corrections.
Sixth, analyses of the survey data found that personnel perceived emotional numbing toward violence to be greater due to work in ERH, a finding echoed by the qualitative data. These personnel, therefore, likely would benefit from trainings that helped to prepare them for ERH work and its potential effects on their personal lives. Trainings ideally would be supplemented with mental health and counseling services, as well as support for personnel families, to help appreciate and navigate the stress of ERH work. Not least, the trainings likely should include education about working with PMIs (Parker, 2009). Doing so might help incarcerated persons to receive needed interventions. It might also help personnel to work with these individuals more effectively and to reduce trauma and violence that occurs in ERH.
Finally, the study's findings provide a basis for at least raising questions about the benefits of relying on ERH. Prison systems use ERH in part to create greater order. Yet, as some scholars have highlighted (e.g. Mears et al., 2021), reliance on it may compromise this very goal or create unintended harmful effects. For these reasons, prison systems at the least may want to assess the impacts of their use of ERH and to consider possible effects not only on incarcerated persons and prison order but also on personnel and their families.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
We thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for constructive guidance in strengthening the article.
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: This work was supported by the National Institute of Justice, (grant number No. 2016-IJ-CX-0014 )