U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

National Institute of Justice 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness 

Literature Synthesis 

July 2017 

Frank Valentino Ferdik 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of West Florida, Pensacola 

Hayden P. Smith 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia 

This paper was prepared with support from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

U.S. Department of Justice, under contract number 2010F_10097 (CSR, Incorporated). The opinions, 

findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors 

and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Justice. 

NCJ 250484
 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Howard Spivak 

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products of the National Institute of Justice can be found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

Strengthen Science • Advance Justice 

http://www.NIJ.gov 

Office of Justice Programs 

Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justice 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

The National Institute of Justice is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ’s 

mission is to advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. 

Opinions or conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Correctional Officer Safety and
 

Wellness Literature Synthesis
 

Introduction 

Correctional Officer Job Responsibilities 

Correctional officers (COs) play a pivotal role within the wider prison system as they are 

tasked with numerous responsibilities designed to ensure that their respective facilities 

are operating efficiently. As the front-line bureaucrats of the prison institution (Lipsky, 

2010), COs are charged with supervising the activities of inmates, enforcing rules and 

regulations, affording offenders access to social services, and perhaps most importantly, 

maintaining order (Crawley, 2004; Kauffmann, 1989). They are also tasked with responding 

to administrative demands; searching cells for drugs, weapons, and other contraband; 

and intervening to resolve potentially violent disputes among inmates (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2013). COs play such a fundamental role in the functioning of any prison system 

that Archambeault and Archambeault (1982) remarked that officers “represent the single 

most important resource available to any correctional agency” (p. 72). 

Recent scholarship has suggested that COs work under dangerous conditions that can 

threaten their general safety and wellness. Following several legislative reforms that 

started in the 1970s and included “get tough on crime” policies such as mandatory 

minimum sentences and habitual offender laws (Mackenzie, 2001), correctional institutions 

experienced dramatic changes in the composition of the inmate population. Not only did 

the total number of incarcerated offenders skyrocket from roughly 300,000 to more than 

1.5 million between 1975 and 2013, but the percentage of offenders imprisoned for violent 

crimes increased from about 40 percent in 1985 to more than 60 percent by 2013 (Walmsley, 

2013). Although incarceration rates have declined in recent years, the modern-day CO is still 

required to interact with and supervise individuals in a dangerous environment (Glaze & 

Kaeble, 2014). 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 1 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Officers are further responsible for 

maintaining safety in a setting with 

significant numbers of gang members 

(Lombardo, 1989), offenders with mental 

illness (Kupers, 1999; Turner, 1975), drug 

addicts (Ross, 1981), and even terrorists 

(Crawley, 2004), all of whom pose elevated 

safety and health risks to COs. Further 

compounding these issues is that prisons 

have long been described as “total 

institutions,” defined as places “where a 

large number of like-situated individuals, 

cut off from the wider society for an 

appreciable period of time, together lead 

an ... enclosed life” (Goffman, 1961, p. xiii). 

As a result, officers are required to interact 

with and supervise potentially dangerous 

offenders in relatively unsafe and 

secluded surroundings. Collectively, these 

observations have prompted correctional 

scholars and practitioners to characterize 

prisons as dangerous environments that 

carry increased risk of harm to the people 

working in them (Beck, Harrison, & Adams, 

2007; Crawley, 2004; Hensley, Koscheski, & 

Tewksbury, 2005). 

Correctional Officer Health 

Outcomes 

The position of CO carries with it the 

intrinsic danger of physical injury and 

mental stress. In terms of the former, 

figures from Harrell (2011) revealed 

that between 2005 and 2009, the rate of 

sustained nonfatal workplace injuries 

per 1,000 COs was 33.0, which, among 26 

different professions, ranked third only 

to police officers and security guards 

(77.8 and 65.0, respectively). Harrell 

(2011) further found that in 2011, COs 

experienced 544 work-related injuries or 

illnesses that required absences from work 

per 10,000 full-time officers — the third 

highest rate of nonfatal workplace injuries, 

again surpassed only by police officers and 

security guards. Additional reports from 

Brower (2013) and the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2013) noted that between 1999 

and 2008, a total of 113 U.S. COs lost their 

lives in the line of duty — a fatality rate of 

2.7 per 100,000 full-time employees — the 

22nd highest among 115 professions. 

Concerning mental health, there is 

evidence that COs experience high levels 

of stress, burnout, and a variety of other 

mental health-related consequences as a 

result of their employment (Brower, 2013; 

Stack & Tsoudis, 1997). According to the 

Management and Training Corporation 

(2011), between 22 percent and 33 percent 

of COs report high stress levels. Other 

studies (Lambert et al., 2005; Ferdik, 

Smith, & Applegate, 2014a) found that 

more than 35 percent of officers in 

the sample recorded high stress levels. 

Together, the impact of negative physical 

and mental health outcomes for COs 

can have deleterious effects on the wider 

prison institution. Staff shortages and 

officer absences from work can create a 

cycle whereby low officer-to-inmate ratios 

and high turnover in officer staffing 

threaten the effective implementation of 

a correctional facility’s security mandates 

(Brower, 2013; Crawley, 2004; Ferdik, Smith, 

& Applegate, 2014a). 

Literature Search Strategy 

As previously mentioned, the intent of 

this report is to offer a comprehensive 

synthesis of the literature so as to highlight 

any inherent limitations and offer 

recommendations for future research 

and policies designed to enhance the 

overall well-being of COs. Information 

from published and peer-reviewed journal 

articles, state and federal government 

reports, university and academic thinktank reports, and commercially published 

books was retrieved and summarized. 

Emphasis was placed on collecting 

research conducted since 2000 to account 

for current safety and wellness concerns 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 2 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

confronting COs, although some earlier 

research is referenced to provide a baseline 

understanding of the various issues 

related to CO safety and wellness. The 

search phrase “correctional officer” was 

cross-referenced with the words “safety,” 

“wellness,” “risk,” “stress,” “burnout,” 

“depression,” “danger,” “health,” “wellbeing,” “injury,” and “fatality” in the 

following literature search engines: JSTOR, 

Social Services Abstracts, Sociological 

Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, 

EBSCOHost, Academic Search Complete, 

MEDLINE with full text, Applied Social 

Sciences Index and Abstracts, Hein 

On-Line, ProQuest Dissertations and 

Theses, and Google Scholar. 

This initial search led to the dual findings 

that (1) COs are exposed to unique 

workplace dangers that can jeopardize 

their general welfare and (2) exploring 

CO perceptions of workplace safety and 

risk is an important and emerging area of 

research. Using the same search engines, 

a specialized literary search of specific 

dangers to which COs are exposed as well 

as officer judgments of workplace safety and 

risk was conducted by cross-referencing the 

search phrase “correctional officer” with 

“gang,” “disruptive inmate,” “riot,” “mentally 

ill inmate,” “contraband,” “disease,” “risk 

perception,” and “safety perception.” Each 

resulting citation was reviewed by both 

authors to determine its eligibility for the 

literature synthesis. Reference pages of all 

obtained reports were scanned to exhaust 

all pertinent literature related to the topic 

of CO safety and wellness. 

Several themes emerged that form the 

basis of discussion for this synthesis. 

These themes include the dangers and 

risks confronting COs, CO perceptions of 

workplace safety and wellness as well as the 

consequences of their exposure to risk, the 

policies designed to enhance officer wellbeing, and finally considerations for future 

research. This report will conclude with a 

discussion of how the safety and wellness 

issues of law enforcement personnel 

compare with those of COs and an overview 

of the salient findings from this literature 

synthesis and how they can be used to 

inform decisions regarding CO well-being. 

Dangers and Risks 

Confronting Correctional 

Officers 

Before proceeding to a discussion of the 

unique workplace dangers and risks that 

COs face, it is important to note conceptual 

differences between these terms. Reichman 

(1986) distinguished risks from dangers 

in the following manner: “The concept 

of risk should not be confused with that 

of danger; dangers are the causes of risk” 

(p. 151). Reichman added that risks entail 

the “uncertainty of loss, or the probability 

that loss will occur,” and that “dangers 

are those conditions which contribute to 

the probability of loss” (p. 152). This is a 

key distinction as this report identifies the 

risks confronting COs and the dangers that 

contribute to them. 

COs are exposed to a number of safety and 

wellness-related risks. Most notable are 

the risks of death or physical injury, but of 

equal concern are mental health-related 

risks such as stress and burnout (Dowden & 

Tellier, 2004; Lambert et al., 2005). These 

risks can accumulate and place significant 

pressure on a correctional administration, 

particularly when a fatigued staff and 

high turnover rates limit the degree to 

which officers can effectively engage in 

the surveillance of inmates. Expanding on 

Brower’s (2013) typology, the categories 

of dangers contributing to officer safety 

and wellness-related risks can be broadly 

described as work-related, institutionrelated, and psycho-social. Using this 

tripartite schema, this report examines 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 3 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

the most salient workplace dangers that 

threaten CO safety and well-being and their 

consequences. Exhibit 1 summarizes the 

identified dangers under their respective 

categories and the multiple mental and 

physical health-related risks connected 

to each danger as identified in extant 

literature. 

Work-Related Dangers 

Work-related dangers are directly 

connected to officer safety and well-being. 

Under the work-related category are the 

dangers of infectious and communicable 

diseases (Macalino et al., 2004); the 

presence of prison gangs, disruptive 

inmates, and contraband (Bouchard & 

Winnicki, 2000; Fleisher & Decker, 2001; 

Garcia, 2008); working alongside inmates 

with mental illness (Adams & Ferrandino, 

2008); and riots (Carrabine, 2005). Each of 

these dangers presents an elevated risk of 

harm to COs in terms of both physical and 

mental health issues. These dangers are 

examined in greater detail below. 

Inmates with Infectious Diseases 

There is ample evidence that inmates 

disproportionately suffer from infectious 

and communicable diseases (e.g., Hepatitis 

B and C; Human Immunodeficiency 

Virus, or HIV; and tuberculosis) (Alaird & 

Marquart, 2009; Bick, 2007). For example, 

Ruiz and colleagues (2002) found that in 

2000, of the 5,730 inmates from a random 

sample of California prisons who received 

intake physical examinations during a twomonth period, 1.4 percent tested positive 

for HIV, 3.5 percent tested positive for 

Hepatitis B, 33 percent tested positive for 

Hepatitis C, and 7 percent tested positive 

for tuberculosis. According to a report from 

the World Health Organization (2013), 

these estimates far surpass those for the 

general population. Moreover, Alaird and 

Exhibit 1: Summary of Dangers and Risks Confronting Correctional Officers 

Work-Related 

Dangers 

Institution-Related 

Dangers 

Psycho-Social 

Dangers 

Mental Health 

Risks 

Physical Health 

Risks 

Inmates with Infectious 

Diseases 

Prison Gangs 

Disruptive Inmate 

Behavior 

Contraband Presence 

Inmates with Mental 

Illnesses 

Riots 

Role ambiguity/role 

conflict 

Demanding work 

obligations 

Poor leadership/trust/ 

support 

No input into 

decision-making 

Inadequate resources 

Inadequate 

employment benefits 

Extended hours 

Co-worker conflict 

Understaffing 

Work/family conflict 

Media/political scrutiny 

Stress 

Burnout 

Injuries 

Death 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 4 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Marquart (2009) noted that, as of 2008, 1.7 

percent of the total U.S. custody population 

was infected with HIV and that between 

12 percent and 35 percent had either 

Hepatitis B or C. Similarly, a 2006 report 

issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

found that the rate of confirmed Acquired 

Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) cases 

was between three and five times higher for 

prisoners than for the general population, 

with 0.55 percent of inmates and 0.10 

percent of the general public having 

contracted the disease. This represents a 

serious challenge to daily operations for 

COs. 

COs are susceptible to the risk of 

contracting potentially fatal diseases 

on account of occupational mandates 

that require them to routinely perform 

pat-down and cell searches, intervene 

in offender altercations, and respond to 

medical emergencies, accidents, and other 

“situations where they may encounter 

sharp objects, blood, and bodily fluids” 

(Alaird & Marquart, 2009, p. 441). Highrisk behaviors engaged in by inmates, such 

as unprotected sex, intravenous drug use, 

and tattooing, make officers particularly 

vulnerable to risk. Although there are little 

empirical data on the rates at which COs 

contract any of the above-noted illnesses, 

practitioners and scholars consider 

infectious and communicable diseases 

among inmates to be a significant threat to 

the health and safety of COs. 

Prison Gangs 

Across correctional institutions, officers 

must interact with noncompliant and 

potentially violent inmates on a one-to-one 

basis to ensure adherence to institutional 

regulations. When inmates merge into 

groups, such as prison gangs, the threat 

to security can become even more severe. 

Fleisher and Decker (2001) opined that 

“prison gangs are a ... prison manager’s 

biggest nightmare” (p. 2). A report from the 

FBI’s National Gang Intelligence Center 

(2011) further stressed that gangs are 

increasing in number across correctional 

facilities (particularly those found in the 

southeastern U.S.), and that gang affiliates 

are escalating in their level of violence and 

criminal sophistication. 

Lyman (1989) defined a prison gang as “a 

violent organization that operates within 

the prison system as a self-perpetuating 

criminally oriented entity, consisting 

of a select group of inmates who have 

established an organized chain of 

command and are governed by a code of 

conduct” (p. 48). Prison gangs share many 

similarities with their counterparts on the 

outside, as one person is usually designated 

as a leader, and that person oversees 

the other members and their criminal 

operations. Gangs have been described as 

violent, secretive, and abiding by a creed, 

motto, or constitution that dictates member 

behavior, and further as organizations 

that adopt unique symbols to define 

membership status (Fleisher & Decker, 

2001). Several major gangs have been 

identified as being most problematic or 

influential in the prison system, including 

the Mexican Mafia (La Eme), the Aryan 

Brotherhood, Black Panther groups (e.g., 

the Black Liberation Army), the Symbionese 

Liberation Army, the Weatherman 

Underground Organization, the La Nuestra 

Family, and the Texas Syndicate (Skarbek, 

2014). These groups are motivated by a 

desire to earn money and exploit oftenovercrowded and understaffed prisons, 

thereby further threatening the safety of 

COs (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). 

Disruptive Inmate Behavior 

Disruptive inmate behavior is viewed as 

violent conduct against staff or other 

inmates (Rocheleau, 2014). Examples of 

this type of behavior include, but are not 

limited to, successful or attempted physical 

and sexual assault, murder, suicide, and 

even rape (Byrne, Hummer, & Taxman, 

2008). Disruptive inmate behavior has been 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 5 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

shown to increase the rate of CO turnover 

(Patenaude, 2001), the rate of injury and 

death sustained by COs (Crawley, 2004), 

and the prevalence of self-destructive 

behavior, such as officers resorting to 

drugs and alcohol as coping mechanisms 

(Crawley, 2004). 

Although Byrne and colleagues (2008) 

noticed a decline in the national rate of 

inmate-on-inmate fatalities from 3.2 to 2.4 

per every 1,000 offenders between 1995 

and 2000, they noted that these rates of 

violent death remained a major concern 

for correctional institutions. Between 

1995 and 2000, these researchers noted an 

increase from 27.0 to 28.0 in the national 

rate of inmate-on-inmate assault per every 

1,000 incarcerated offenders. Rates of 

inmate assault against COs also increased 

during this period, from 14.1 to 15.6 per 

every 1,000 officers (Byrne, Hummer, & 

Taxman, 2008). More recent figures from 

Wolff and colleagues (2007) showed that 

across a nationally representative sample 

of U.S. prisons, the rate of inmate-oninmate assault ranged from 129 to 346 per 

1,000 offenders, and inmate-on-officer 

assault ranged from 83 to 321 per 1,000 

COs. Variability in these rates was largely 

attributed to variance in institutional 

characteristics (i.e., some prisons housed 

more violent offenders than others) and 

to differences in reporting systems across 

correctional facilities. 

Prison sexual assault has been a topic of 

considerable importance for correctional 

administrators and researchers over 

the past few decades. In their study of a 

maximum-security prison in the southern 

U.S., Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury 

(2005) found that 18 percent of inmates 

reported inmate-on-inmate sexual threats 

and 8.5 percent reported that they had 

been sexually assaulted by another inmate 

while incarcerated. Moreover, Beck and 

colleagues (2007) documented 3.75 alleged 

inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults per every 

1,000 inmates in state-run prisons. Younger 

inmates and offenders serving longer 

sentences initiated the majority of these 

assaults (Beck, Harrison, & Adams, 2007). 

The role of place is also important to 

inmate behavior, suggesting that there are 

important differences both between and 

within prisons. Garcia (2008) noted that 

maximum-security facilities and facilities 

populated by a higher percentage of 

younger offenders are more likely to report 

higher rates of disruptive inmate behavior. 

Hensley and colleagues (2005) echoed 

some of these findings by revealing that 

maximum-security facilities are statistically 

more likely to report higher levels of inmate 

sexual assault than are lower security 

agencies. Since COs are responsible 

for controlling any type of disruptive 

inmate behavior and for ensuring that all 

individuals within the prison are protected, 

they become more susceptible to the 

violence in these facilities, thus elevating 

their risk for physical and mental harm. 

They must also intervene in incidents 

that involve disruptive inmate behavior, 

noncompliance, physical and sexual 

violence, and aggression. Combined, these 

issues further compromise the safety and 

wellness of COs and increase their risk of 

victimization. 

Contraband Presence 

Although prison administrators attempt 

to remove or reduce the presence of 

contraband, a system of illicit contraband 

circulation has developed in many 

institutional facilities, which has led to 

increased concern among correctional 

practitioners about the potential for harm 

associated with this illegal enterprise. 

Contraband can include weapons, 

fermented alcoholic beverages, drugs, 

narcotics, restricted medications, and stateowned equipment, tools, and other supplies 

(Burke & Owen, 2010). Cellular telephones, 

a more modern form of contraband in U.S. 

prisons, have also raised safety concerns 

for correctional officers and practitioners 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 6 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

(Fitzgerald, 2010). In recent years, inmates 

have even coordinated the use of drones to 

import contraband into prisons (Fitzgerald, 

2010). Somewhat surprisingly, especially 

considering the potential for harm 

associated with contraband, some COs 

have been found to import contraband 

items into the prison in the form of 

cigarettes, drugs, and weapons (Jurik, 

1985; Tracy, 2004). According to nationally 

representative data from 101 U.S. prisons, 

contraband distribution was connected 

with more than 200 inmate injuries and 

30 CO injuries (Biermann, 2007), further 

reinforcing the point that contraband 

circulation represents a considerable health 

risk to COs. 

Inmates With Mental Illnesses 

A notable rise in the incarceration rate 

of people with mental illnesses has been 

observed across the U.S. over the past 

several decades. As early as 1972, Abramson 

coined the phrase “criminalization of 

the mentally ill” (p. 101) to describe 

the growing number of individuals 

with mental illnesses serving time in 

custody. McLearen and Ryba (2003) 

attributed much of that increase to the 

deinstitutionalization movement of the 

1970s, which saw large numbers of patients 

released from psychiatric facilities. Upon 

their release back into the community, 

many former patients found themselves 

under the control of the criminal justice 

system. These authors commented that this 

occurred because individuals afflicted with 

mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder 

or schizophrenia often suffer an inability 

to restrain their behaviors and practice 

self-control. Sometimes, they unknowingly 

perpetrate acts such as assaults that are 

classified as legal transgressions, thereby 

landing them under criminal justice system 

supervision. Combined with widespread 

closures of mental health institutions and 

inadequate services to address the needs 

of this particular population, this has 

contributed to a drastic explosion of the 

number of individuals with mental illness 

under custodial control (McLearen & Ryba, 

2003; Robertson, 2013). Significant growth 

in the population of inmates with mental 

illness made the Los Angeles County Jail 

(15,000/23,000), New York Rikers Island 

(5,500/10,000), and Cook County Jail in 

Chicago (5,000/10,000) the “three largest 

psychiatric institutions in the country” in 

2007 (Adams & Ferrandino, 2008, p. 913). 

Parenthetical figures reflect the average 

daily number of diagnosed mentally ill 

inmates per the average total daily inmate 

population of all three jail facilities. James 

and Glaze (2006) further noted that in 

2005, 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 

percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent 

of those in jail reported symptoms of at 

least one mental health problem. 

COs are often ill prepared to address 

the complex symptomology presented 

by inmates with mental illness. These 

vulnerable inmates require expensive 

medical services such as therapy, 

detoxification, and medication. They are 

more likely than other inmates to have 

histories of drug and alcohol dependency 

and to suffer from a chronic physical 

health condition. Research has found that 

inmates suffering from mental illnesses 

are more susceptible to physical and sexual 

assault (Robertson, 2013), present a greater 

physical threat to themselves and others 

(McLearen & Ryba, 2003), and are more 

likely to recidivate than inmates who do 

not experience mental illness (Robertson, 

2013). 

Prison administrators and staff are severely 

limited in their ability to meet the needs 

of these inmates because of budgetary 

constraints and insufficient resources 

(McLearen & Ryba, 2003). COs will typically 

assist inmates with mental illness when 

possible; however, officers rarely receive 

specific training in this area. These inmates 

may be considered a challenge to the safety 

and wellness of officers because of the 

multiplicity and complexity of their needs. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 7 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Riots 

A prison riot is the most serious threat 

to the safety and well-being of COs. 

Fortunately, they are relatively rare 

occurrences. From 1774 to 1990, the United 

States witnessed 300 prison riots, 90 percent 

of which took place during the mid-tolate 20th century (Martin & Zimmerman, 

1990). Two of the most notorious examples 

of inmate rioting in the United States are 

the 1971 Attica (New York) and 1980 New 

Mexico prison riots (Carrabine, 2005). 

Together, those riots resulted in more than 

100 officer and inmate casualties, numerous 

reported physical injuries, and a complete 

breakdown of state control. The riots 

also resulted in more than $30 million in 

structural damage to the prisons themselves 

(Carrabine, 2005). 

Adams (1992) described a prison riot 

as “part of a continuum of practices ... 

that involves dissenting and/or protesting 

activities by individuals or groups of 

prisoners that interrupt their imprisonment 

by means of which they take over all or part 

of the prison resources and either express 

one or more grievances or a demand for 

change, or both” (pp. 13-14). Post-hoc 

analyses of prison riots typically find similar 

causes, such as retaliation against inhumane 

conditions, prison overcrowding, economic 

factors, racial tensions, the disproportionate 

presence of young, violent offenders, and 

poor building design (Carrabine, 2005). 

Although prison riots are rare, they can 

quickly become highly consequential and 

produce numerous physical and mental 

health concerns for COs. 

Institution-Related Dangers 

Institution-related dangers pose greater 

mental health-related risks than physical 

risks. Many of the institution-related 

dangers discussed here have been linked 

to increases in officer stress and burnout, 

with the former conceptualized as “a 

particular relationship between a person 

and an environment that is appraised 

by the individual as taxing ... and ... 

endangering his/her well-being” (Lazarus 

& Folkman, 1984, p. 19). Job burnout 

has been defined as a “gradual loss of 

caring or emotional exhaustion about a 

job, co-workers, or clients” (Thompson 

& Prottas, 2006, p. 100). Included in the 

list of institution-related dangers are role 

conflict and role ambiguity (Lambert et 

al., 2005); demanding workloads, a lack of 

administrative leadership and officer input 

into institutional decision-making, and 

inadequate benefits and resources (Brower, 

2013; Finney et al., 2013); prolonged work 

hours, understaffing, and poor recruitment, 

selection, and training of officers (Hessl, 

2001; Lambert, Hogan, & Allen, 2006); and 

finally co-worker conflict (Morgan, 2009; 

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

Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity 

Lambert and colleagues (2005) defined 

role stress as “the degree of incongruity of 

expectations associated with the role of the 

employee and the results from work roles” 

(p. 35). Two variations of CO stress analyzed 

in this report are role conflict and role 

ambiguity. Lambert and colleagues (2005) 

explain role conflict as a situation in which 

“compliance with one set of pressures makes 

compliance with another set difficult” 

and define role ambiguity as “uncertainty 

or a lack of information in carrying out 

the duties and responsibilities of a given 

position” (p. 35). For several decades, 

prisons across the United States have 

shifted among correctional philosophies, 

including treatment/rehabilitation, 

retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation 

(Lambert et al., 2005). 

Fluctuations in punishment ideologies 

have been shown to negatively impact COs, 

as they are frequently left questioning 

their occupational role. Literature has 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 8 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

shown that role conflict and ambiguity 

significantly impact several outcomes. 

Lambert and colleagues (2013) found that 

higher levels of role conflict significantly 

and negatively affect correctional staff job 

commitment, which, in turn, increases 

officer stress. Occupational and general 

stress measures were significantly increased 

by higher levels of both role conflict and 

ambiguity in Castle and Martin’s (2006) 

study. Researchers have linked heightened 

stress as a result of role conflict and 

ambiguity to increased officer turnover 

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

Minor et al., 2010). Magnified officer stress 

levels as well as elevated rates of turnover, 

in turn, can jeopardize the security of 

correctional facilities by resulting in higher 

inmate-to-officer ratios and a reduced 

sense of safety for COs (Leip & Stinchcomb, 

2013). 

Other Occupational Dangers 

A National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study 

(Finn and Kuck, 2005) reported that high 

caseloads, combined with demanding 

paperwork and deadlines, constituted 

the greatest institution-related dangers 

affecting CO stress levels. Scholars have 

found that demanding shift work, extended 

work hours, poor pay and benefits, elevated 

perceptions of workplace danger and risk, 

and insufficient staffing and resources 

each contributed to increased stress levels 

(Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Garcia, 2008; 

Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lambert, 

Hogan, & Barton, 2002; Morgan, 2009; 

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

officers are asked to perform additional 

tasks with limited resources, mostly because 

of widespread budget constraints that 

have financially handcuffed correctional 

administrative officials. As reported 

by Summerlin and colleagues (2010) 

and Brower (2013), hiring freezes and 

terminations have forced many COs to 

work with outdated equipment and limited 

training. 

These problems have subsequently 

contributed to higher officer stress and 

burnout levels as well as low morale. 

According to Brower (2013), budgetary 

problems can also lead to strained 

relationships between COs and correctional 

administrators. Adding to these issues, 

Paoline and colleagues (2006) found 

that officers who perceived American 

Correctional Association (ACA) directives 

as confusing, and those who believed 

that inmates were afforded more social 

services than COs, were significantly more 

likely to report higher levels of job-related 

stress. COs’ negative perceptions about 

managerial decision-making practices can 

create friction between both sides and 

contribute to higher levels of CO stress 

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

Hogan, & Allen, 2006). Lambert and 

colleagues (2012) found that officer stress 

and burnout could be predicted by their 

distrust of the prison administration. 

Other institution-related dangers include 

a lack of administrative leadership and 

an absence of officer input into decisionmaking (Lambert, Cluse-Tolar, & Hogan, 

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

Brower (2013) explained that mistrust 

can have deleterious effects on the wider 

prison system, as officers may become more 

disengaged from their jobs, which can, 

in turn, increase inmate violence levels 

as well as the general level of danger in a 

facility. If administrative officials desire to 

maintain harmony with correctional staff, 

it is imperative, according to Brower (2013), 

that they forge trusting and long-lasting 

partnerships with their subordinates. 

One final institution-related danger that 

can contribute to CO stress involves the 

relationships they forge with co-workers. 

Paoline and colleagues (2006) found that 

positive relationships with co-workers 

significantly reduced officer stress and 

improved officer evaluations of job 

satisfaction. Dowden and Tellier’s (2004) 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 9 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

meta-analysis of CO stress found that 

strained co-worker relations predict 

increased stress, and their aggregated 

findings support many of the results 

reported in this section. 

Psycho-Social Dangers 

Psycho-social dangers are issues and 

challenges that COs encounter as they 

move between work and community 

surroundings, including their home 

environments. These dangers include 

work-family conflict, public misperceptions, 

and political scrutiny from individuals 

possessing limited knowledge of the daily 

challenges faced by officers. 

Work-Family Conflict 

The most pressing issue related to workfamily conflict for COs is the fact they must 

balance what is termed “dual role conflict” 

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

lives, COs are surrounded by and required 

to supervise potentially violent individuals 

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

mental and physical health care and drug 

rehabilitation). Few other professionals 

work under such demanding conditions. 

Officers’ daily tasks include using unique 

communication strategies designed to 

reinforce behavioral boundaries and 

compliance when interacting with inmates. 

The communication style required by the 

prison environment may be described as 

assertive, direct, and unemotional. However, 

this communication style may have no effect 

or a negative effect on family members at 

home. What works for communicating in 

prison may not work at home. 

When COs experience dissonance between 

work and family environments, their 

level of well-being decreases dramatically 

(Brower, 2013). This can manifest in 

the form of “chronic fatigue, cynicism, 

pessimism, sarcasm, flattened drama/stress 

response and exposure to trauma and other 

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

Finn (1998) suggested that this pattern can 

be cyclical, as at-risk COs may direct their 

frustrations at family members who, in 

turn, redirect more frustration toward the 

CO. Obidoa and colleagues (2011) add that 

work-family conflict can also manifest as 

depressive symptoms. 

Of course, the challenge for COs is to 

balance family demands with the stressors 

of working in a correctional facility. 

This requires adaptation to two often 

incompatible milieus — the prison context 

versus the family. One of COs’ most 

common reactions to this incompatibility is 

to become withdrawn and isolated (Brower, 

2013). COs may experience difficulties in 

discussing daily work events with spouses 

and loved ones (Crawley, 2004). Devoid of 

outlets for expressing their work-related 

frustrations and concerns, COs may 

experience elevated levels of emotional 

stress and burnout (Brower, 2013; Crawley, 

2004). These issues can contribute to days 

missed from work, job-related apathy, 

and increased security risks in their work 

environments (Crawley, 2004; Lambert et 

al., 2005). 

Public Misperceptions and Political 

Scrutiny 

Apart from an inability to discuss work 

experiences with loved ones, COs are 

also often reluctant to discuss their 

work with the general public because of 

misconceptions about their profession. 

The misconceptions are often rooted in 

the frequently negative characterizations 

of COs by the news media (Crawley, 2004; 

Moon & Maxwell, 2004), which often 

involve negative events such as inmate 

escapes, inappropriate staff-inmate 

relationships, and violations of inmate 

rights. The portrayals of COs in other 

forms of media, such as movies and music, 

can be even more damaging. COs are 

often depicted as brutal, cruel, racist, and 

educationally deficient. Moreover, because 

the general public has very little experience 

with corrections and correctional 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 10 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

employees, they are apt to believe these 

stereotypes (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). 

These misguided characterizations of COs 

can influence political figures who are 

responsible to the public and its concerns. If 

the public typecasts COs in a stereotypically 

negative way, the same political figures 

who are responsible for ensuring that 

officers conduct themselves appropriately 

may express little to no support for those 

officers (Brower, 2013). Absent public or 

political support, COs may experience a 

lack of respect and appreciation for their 

important work, resulting in higher stress 

levels, isolation, and reduced self-esteem 

(Brower, 2013). The isolated nature of 

prisons and jails may exacerbate this 

negative state of affairs by reinforcing the 

stereotypes and further amplifying mental 

health-related consequences for COs. 

Correctional Officers’ 

Perceptions of Workplace 

Safety and Wellness 

Given the harms to which COs are exposed, 

it is surprising that little research has 

been conducted on their perceptions of 

workplace safety and wellness. Scholars have 

discovered that employee perceptions of 

the work environment can fundamentally 

shape outcomes such as job performance, 

co-worker and supervisor treatment, and 

the intention to voluntarily resign (Ferdik, 

Smith, & Applegate, 2014a; Konovsky & 

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

such a crucial role in establishing and 

maintaining order in their institutions, it 

is vital to understand how they perceive 

safety. A literature search produced eight 

studies on this topic. A detailed discussion 

of each study is provided below, with the 

accompanying table in the appendix 

providing a comprehensive breakdown of 

each study’s methodology and findings. 

COs were surveyed on a variety of safetyrelated issues, including their general 

perceptions of danger (Garcia, 2008), the 

risk of contracting an infectious disease 

(Alaird & Marquart, 2009; Dillon & 

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

risk of injury from specific prison-based 

dangers (Ferdik, 2014), and their fear and 

risk of victimization by both inmates and 

co-workers (Gordon, Moriarty, & Grant, 

2003; Gordon, Proulx, & Grant, 2013; 

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

surveyed worked in a variety of correctional 

institutions, including juvenile detention 

facilities and minimum-, medium-, and 

maximum-security adult prisons. In the 

studies that surveyed officers’ perceptions 

of their risk of contracting an infectious 

disease, respondents perceived those risks 

as moderate to high. Specifically, Alaird 

and Marquart (2009) reported that 54 

percent of respondents believed that they 

were at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, and 

Dillon and Allwright (2005) found that an 

overwhelming 92.2 percent to 95.2 percent 

of their sample believed that they were 

at risk of contracting either Hepatitis B 

or C, or HIV/AIDS. Another study found 

that a majority of COs judged their entire 

work environment to be dangerous, with 

many officers reporting that they felt 

physically threatened by both inmates and 

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

and colleagues (2012) also found that more 

than half of their respondents perceived an 

elevated risk of contracting an infectious 

disease while on the job. Several statistically 

significant covariates of officer risk 

perceptions surfaced among the studies, 

including findings that greater knowledge 

levels about HIV/AIDS and additional years 

of formal education reduced perceived 

risk (Alarid & Marquart, 2009), and older 

and male officers perceived statistically 

significant increased levels of risk as 

compared to their counterparts (Dillon & 

Allwright, 2005). 

Other studies examined COs’ perceptions 

of either fear or risk of victimization by 

inmates and co-workers, but found lower 

levels of perceived risk when compared 

to the aforementioned investigations. For 

example, Gordon and colleagues (2003) 

and Lai and colleagues (2012) found that 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 11 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

less than half of the officers sampled 

feared victimization by either inmates 

or co-workers. Furthermore, only a few 

officers in Gordon and colleagues’ (2003) 

study perceived a risk of such victimization. 

Authors of both studies attributed these 

comparatively lower rates of perceived 

risk and fear to the types of inmates that 

officers were responsible for supervising. 

For example, whereas officers in Alaird 

and Marquart’s (2009) and Dillon and 

Allwright’s (2005) examinations were 

employed in higher-security facilities, COs 

in the latter studies worked in juvenile 

detention and minimum-security, adult 

prisons. Those officers worked among 

inmates who posed reduced health and 

safety threats as opposed to officers 

employed in higher-security facilities 

populated by more dangerous offenders. 

Even considering this point, however, 

Gordon and colleagues (2003) and Lai and 

colleagues (2012) argued that despite being 

employed in lower-security facilities, officers 

were still cognizant of the fact that health 

risks were a part of their job. 

In Gordon and colleagues’ (2013) 

investigation, for which COs employed 

across predominantly medium- and 

maximum-security facilities were surveyed, 

between 57 and 73 percent of respondents 

expressed moderate to high degrees of 

risk of victimization by inmates. Gordon 

and colleagues (2003, 2013) and Lai and 

colleagues (2012) found that statistically 

significant predictors of officers’ risk 

perceptions held across gender, race, 

and education levels. Women perceived 

additional risk, as did non-white COs and 

those with more formal education. 

Two final studies examined COs’ 

perceptions of job-related danger and risk 

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

used multi-level modeling techniques 

and secondary data from the Prison 

Social Climate Survey to assess federal 

COs’ perceived levels of danger using an 

inventory measure of this outcome. Roughly 

half of all officers across Garcia’s sample 

expressed some perceived job-related 

danger. Statistically significant predictors 

of this outcome, at both the individual and 

institutional levels, included race, gender, 

and security level, with non-white, female, 

and officers employed in higher-security 

facilities perceiving greater danger levels 

than their counterparts. 

Ferdik (2014) asked a statewide population 

of COs in maximum-security facilities to 

rate their risk of injury from six specific 

workplace dangers, which included the 

presence of gangs and contraband. Not only 

did a majority of the sample perceive a high 

degree of injury risk from each danger, but 

additional years of job-related employment 

positively predicted officers’ perceived risk 

of injury. 

Assessments of COs and their general 

perceptions of workplace safety and 

risk carry a number of important 

considerations. When COs perceive high 

levels of any type of risk in their work 

environments, this perception can adversely 

influence their job performance and 

even contribute to high levels of turnover 

and a poorly managed prison facility 

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

heightened risk perceptions can also 

elevate their stress and job dissatisfaction 

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

engender hostile interactions between 

officers and offenders, thereby leading to 

mismanagement of the inmate population 

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

Proulx, & Grant, 2013). Since COs play 

perhaps the most important role in 

successful prison management, gathering 

insight into their levels of perceived 

workplace risk can aid interested audiences 

in better understanding the specific threats 

to officer safety and wellness which, in turn, 

can lead to policies and programs directly 

related to enhancing the overall well-being 

of COs. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 12 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Consequences of Risks to 

Correctional Officer Safety and 

Wellness 

Numerous consequences have been 

linked to the safety and wellness risks 

confronting COs. For example, contentious 

relationships between officers and their 

co-workers and supervisors as a result 

of increased stress levels were revealed 

in various studies (Finney et al., 2013; 

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

many COs reporting decreased work 

performance and even being distracted 

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

Griffin and colleagues (2009) found that 

higher levels of stress were significant 

predictors of three variations of officer 

burnout: depersonalization, emotional 

exhaustion, and job ineffectiveness. 

Lambert and colleagues (2002) and Hogan 

and colleagues (2006) found that stress 

adversely and significantly impacted the 

level of commitment of officers to their 

work. In a rare study that evaluated the 

influence of stress levels on perceived 

danger, Garcia (2008) found that higher 

individual and institutional stress levels 

significantly increased perceptions of 

danger in a sample of federal COs. 

Many studies have found safety and wellness 

risks within the correctional environment to 

significantly influence officers’ desire to use 

administrative sick leave (Lambert et al., 

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

as well as their desire to resign (Ferdik, 

Smith, & Applegate, 2014b; Patenaude, 

2001; Udochukwu et al., 2007). The 

Management and Training Corporation 

(2011) estimated that between 2000 and 

2008, 16.2 percent of all American COs 

resigned from their posts after only three 

years on the job. More troubling figures 

were reported in individual corrections 

departments, most notably those of 

Vermont and South Carolina, where each 

respectively reported that 35 percent of 

their COs voluntarily resigned in 2009 

alone (South Carolina Department of 

Corrections (SCDC), 2013; Vermont 

Department of Corrections (VDC), 2013). 

Fiscal problems have been recorded by 

various correctional administrative officials 

as a result of losing so many officers, with 

the SCDC operating at a $45.5 million 

deficit in 2009. Budget constraints 

subsequently forced remaining officers to 

work with inoperable weapons, radios, and 

other necessary equipment (SCDC, 2013). 

Deprived of the most essential resources 

with which to successfully perform their 

jobs, COs often find that their health 

and safety come under additional threat. 

Elevated rates of officer turnover and 

absenteeism can lead to higher inmateto-officer ratios and greater numbers of 

inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff 

assault (Lambert, 2004; Steiner, 2008). 

Researchers have also found that COs 

experience disproportionately higher 

rates of physical health problems such as 

chronic neck, back, and knee injuries, 

heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, 

and hypertension, as compared with other 

professionals such as crisis counselors, 

teachers, and law enforcement personnel 

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

Much of this can be attributed to the 

demanding nature of this line of work, 

including prolonged work hours, irregular 

sleep patterns due to constantly changing 

shift assignments, and being tasked with 

extra duties that extend beyond their 

traditional responsibilities (Brower, 

2013). Previously referenced dangers such 

as role conflict and ambiguity, public 

misconceptions about the CO’s job, and 

work-family conflict also exacerbate 

physical health problems for COs (Morgan, 

2009; Swenson, 2008). Even life expectancy 

rates are lower for officers. One seminal 

study (Cheek, 1984) noted that the average 

lifespan of individuals in this line of work 

was 59 years, some 16 years below the 

national average of 75. A more recent 

study by the New Jersey Police Suicide Task 

Force (2009) also found an average 59-year 

lifespan among COs. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 13 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Crawley (2004) and Swenson (2008) 

expanded on the above findings, noting 

that the physical demands of this profession 

can disrupt officers’ biological clocks and 

sleeping patterns; impair their cognitive, 

emotional, and motor functions; and 

compromise their eating habits. These 

problems can manifest as multiple 

psychological and emotional disorders. 

For example, Morse and colleagues (2011) 

found that 31 percent of COs reported 

serious psychological distress, twice the 

rate of the general public. Spinaris and 

colleagues (2012) found in a study of more 

than 3,000 corrections professionals that 

27 percent of officers reported symptoms 

of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 

which surpassed rates of PTSD experienced 

by combat veterans, who reported just 

14 percent. PTSD symptoms among COs 

have been further linked to memory 

impairment, depression, obesity, and a 

higher prevalence of substance abuse 

(Spinaris, Denhof, & Kellaway, 2012). 

Intensive interviews with COs conducted 

by Crawley (2004) revealed that high levels 

of stress led more than half of interviewees 

to resort to self-destructive behaviors 

such as alcohol and drug consumption to 

cope with their jobs. The effects spilled 

over to families, as many officers brought 

work-related problems home. This led 

to increased levels of tension between 

domestic partners and, in some cases, 

officer suicide. Stack and Tsoudis (1997) 

found the suicide rate for COs to be 39 

percent higher than that of the general 

working-age population. This finding was 

supported by research by the New Jersey 

Police Suicide Task Force (2009), which 

found the rate of suicide for COs to be 

double that of police officers and the 

general population. 

Health and safety concerns, as 

demonstrated by the empirical literature 

referenced thus far, appear to be attendant 

consequences of employment as a CO. 

Officers are tasked with demanding and 

often conflicting work responsibilities that 

increase their risk for physical and mental 

health problems such as injuries, stress, and 

even death. Officers must interact with and 

supervise potentially dangerous individuals 

such as gang members, inmates with mental 

illness, and those with communicable 

diseases, which further complicates officers’ 

health issues. According to the research 

cited above, officers, regardless of security 

assignment, recognize the danger to 

which they are subject as a result of their 

profession. Many scholars conclude that 

employment as a CO is among the most 

dangerous and life threatening of all 

professions, including law enforcement. 

Given how COs are heavily relied upon 

to supervise inmate behavior, establish 

order in their facilities, and maintain wider 

institutional security, it is paramount that 

correctional practitioners, researchers, 

administrative officials, and other 

interested stakeholders begin developing 

more effective and widely used strategies 

for enhancing the general well-being of this 

critically important workforce. 

Fortunately, changes have begun. Policies 

that include employee assistance and peersupport programs have been implemented 

across some prison systems. Despite the wellintentioned purposes of these programs, few 

have come under scientific scrutiny, meaning 

little evidence attesting to their effectiveness 

exists. These programs are few and far 

between, implemented in only a few prisons. 

Although for several years researchers have 

extensively documented the numerous 

dangers and health risks associated with 

CO employment, relatively little is known 

about how to best address these problems. 

Moreover, with the exception of a handful 

of studies, little is also known about how 

COs judge the dangerousness of their jobs 

and the steps they take to protect themselves 

from workplace dangers and risks. 

The next section of this report describes 

the policies and programs designed to 

assist officers from a wellness standpoint, 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 14 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

the empirical literature (or lack thereof) 

related to their effectiveness, and an 

argument for why more research on CO 

safety and wellness is needed. Although 

much is known about why and how the 

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

a foundational understanding of what 

can be done to enhance their safety — a 

critical area of research, given the essential 

role officers play in the functioning of any 

prison system. 

Correctional Officer Wellness 

Policies and Considerations 

for Future Research 

Policies That Support Correctional 

Officer Safety and Wellness 

Because COs are exposed to many 

occupational dangers, correctional 

practitioners, researchers, and administrative 

officials must develop methods for 

enhancing officers’ well-being. Such efforts 

have been slow to develop (Armstrong & 

Griffin, 2004; Brower, 2013). Although some 

prison facilities have begun to institute 

mental health counseling and other 

measures designed to improve the general 

welfare of COs, many of these programs are 

in their infancy, have not been evaluated 

using scientific methods, and exist in only a 

handful of correctional facilities (Armstrong 

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

2011). Many pundits have remarked that to 

better address the safety and wellness threats 

to COs, it is perhaps best to examine the 

broader law enforcement profession and 

what it is doing to ensure the well-being of 

police officers (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; 

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

2000; Roland, 2011). 

Some scholars have discouraged applying 

police research and policies to the 

correctional context because police officers 

and COs are employed in dramatically 

different working conditions (Brower, 2013). 

For example, although police officers are 

exposed to many occupational dangers 

such as gangs and physical retaliation from 

community members (Anson, Johnson 

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

when compared to the dangers confronting 

COs, marked contrasts exist. Brower 

(2013) suggests that the daily dangers 

and pressures “faced by COs far exceed 

those experienced by police officers” 

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

enforcement personnel are periodic, those 

faced by COs are constant. In fact, COs 

experience continued exposure to violent 

and dangerous offenders throughout the 

entirety of their work shifts. In addition, 

although police officers must interact 

with unpredictable citizens who may pose 

a risk of harm, they also have multiple 

opportunities to forge partnerships with 

prosocial community members who can 

help law enforcement maintain community 

harmony (Brower, 2013). For COs, these 

opportunities are largely absent as they 

are responsible for overseeing offenders 

who may be frustrated with their current 

conditions and may express those 

grievances against the very individuals 

charged with monitoring their behavior. 

Other differences exist as well. Police 

officers are permitted to carry lethal and 

less-lethal devices for protection, whereas 

COs are not (Farkas & Manning, 1997). 

In addition, although there are negative 

portrayals of the police in mainstream 

media, they are often counterbalanced by 

positive images of law enforcement officers 

engaging in heroic acts (Chermak & Weiss, 

2005). The same cannot be said for COs, 

with many media depictions stereotyping 

them as inhumane figures who have a 

fundamental disregard for human suffering 

(Crawley, 2004). All these issues can 

predispose correctional officers to greater 

levels of stress, injury, and even fatality 

when compared with law enforcement 

(Garland, 2002). 

Specific occupational differences aside, it is 

widely recognized that both police officers 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 15 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

and COs are exposed to various dangers 

that can threaten their welfare, and some 

experts have noted the potential benefits to 

corrections agencies of learning more about 

law enforcement strategies to protect their 

officers (Brower, 2013). Police departments 

are frequently staffed by psychiatrists and 

other mental health professionals trained 

to assist law enforcement personnel. 

Moreover, the mental health field now 

recognizes police psychology as a discrete 

area of academic study. The American 

Psychological Association (APA), for 

example, now issues board certification 

to individuals specializing in this field 

(Brower, 2013). A variety of policies 

specially designed to protect officers 

from physical and mental threats, such as 

peer-support programs, have also been 

implemented on a mass scale across police 

agencies (Brower, 2013; Chermak & Weiss, 

2005). It appears that the broader policing 

profession has received the required 

attention from counselors and other mental 

health professionals who have been trained 

and certified to help police officers cope 

with the dangers inherent in the job. 

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for 

the corrections field. 

Currently, no psychological discipline 

focused on corrections exists. Many prison 

institutions lack the resources (whether 

monetary or otherwise) that could be used 

to introduce mental health counseling 

for COs, and no established professional 

organizations address the unique 

psychological and physical needs of COs 

(Brower, 2013; Delprino, 2001; Roland, 

2011). Much of this deficit can be attributed 

to difficulties in locating adequately 

trained treatment providers who are 

knowledgeable about best practices related 

to correctional psychology. Additional 

impediments include mental health 

treatment providers’ lack of awareness of 

psychological selection strategies and laws 

specific to corrections, PTSD treatment 

for COs, and how family matters interact 

with work problems for COs (Brower, 

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

white paper notes, not only is corrections a 

dangerous field of employment, but some 

studies have found that COs experience 

disproportionately higher levels of injury 

and stress as compared with other workers 

such as law enforcement officers (Brower, 

2013; Harrell, 2011). Programs and policies 

designed to address these issues are critical 

to improving the health conditions of COs, 

and perhaps lessons can be borrowed from 

law enforcement. 

Despite the professional differences 

between police and COs outlined above, 

lessons for the corrections field can be 

learned from the literature on police officer 

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

enforcement personnel are exposed to 

physically demanding work conditions, 

constantly rotating work shifts, inconsistent 

sleep patterns, trauma, and a host of other 

dangers (Anson, Johnson, & Anson, 1997; 

Jones & Newburn, 2002). These problems 

can contribute to increased stress levels, 

physical problems such as heart disease and 

diabetes, and even the risk of suicide (Stack 

& Tsoudis, 1997). Because corrections and 

police officers experience similar problems, 

an argument can be made that the 

corrections field needs to begin to borrow 

ideas from the policing discipline. Brower 

(2013) remarked that the policing literature 

potentially has much to offer in terms of 

improving health conditions for COs, and 

that prison systems do not necessarily need 

to “reinvent the wheel in order to do this” 

(p. 13). This report describes some specific 

strategies, largely borrowed from policing, 

that correctional agencies can implement 

to improve officer safety and wellness. 

Also referenced are health improvement 

recommendations provided by correctional 

scholars, with critical insight into whether 

policies are effective and should be 

adopted. 

Some corrections departments have begun 

instituting employee assistance programs 

(EAPs) that are borrowed directly from 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 16 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

policing (Sauter, 2001). EAPs are designed 

to offer specialized services to assist 

organizations in addressing front-line 

worker productivity and in identifying 

and resolving the personal concerns and 

problems of subordinates. According to 

Brower (2013), essential components of 

EAPs include providing consultations to 

organizational leaders to help manage 

troubled employees, active promotion 

of assistance services, confidential and 

timely provision of services, and referral 

of employees to treatment providers. 

Significant numbers of law enforcement 

agencies across the United States have 

implemented EAPs for troubled officers, 

but this has not been observed in 

corrections departments. A 2013 report 

issued by the ACA noted that of the more 

than 4,000 prisons in operation across the 

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

Moreover, very few of these programs have 

been scientifically evaluated to determine 

their effectiveness in improving CO 

well-being. 

Finn (2000) identified another strategy 

that could be used to ameliorate officer 

stress, and noted that a number of 

correctional agencies nationwide have 

adopted this technique, which includes the 

establishment of peer-support programs. 

Peer-support programs recruit workforce 

colleagues who can offer emotional and 

social support to those who may have 

undergone traumatic experiences while 

on the job. Peers offer counseling and 

recommendations to their colleagues to 

help them cope with the consequences of 

their job-related experiences. Successful 

implementation of peer-support programs 

involves the provision of social support 

through colleagues, experiential 

knowledge, trust, confidentiality, and easy 

access (Roland, 2011). Examples of these 

programs can be found in Pennsylvania, 

which instituted the Critical Incident Stress 

Management Program, and Massachusetts, 

which established the Peer Stress Unit 

Program (Finn, 2000). Military and 

policing organizations that have adopted 

this strategy reported high levels of success. 

Although some correctional institutions 

have recently incorporated peer-support 

programs, those programs have yet to 

undergo scientific evaluation. Like EAPs, 

little is known about whether peer-support 

programs work in the correctional context 

(Finn, 2000). 

Other recommendations for improving CO 

health have been scientifically evaluated. 

Two such evaluations come from McCraty 

and colleagues (2009) and Farbstein and 

colleagues (2010), who each evaluated 

mental health treatment programs for 

officers in four correctional institutions. 

The first study randomized 88 officers from 

three prisons into either an experimental 

stress-reduction program (HeartMath’s 

Power to Change Performance Program) 

or a waitlist control group. Following 

program intervention, treatment recipients 

experienced statistically significant 

reductions in stress, cholesterol, heart rate, 

and blood pressure levels when compared 

to a similarly matched control group. In 

the second study, after a prison installed a 

mural depicting a nature scene, significant 

reductions in CO stress and heart rate 

levels were observed when compared to 

the period before the mural was installed. 

With only two such studies in existence 

that have empirically assessed these types 

of stress-reduction programs, additional 

confirmatory research is needed. 

Although limited in scope, studies by Finn 

(1998, 2000) noted that some prisons and 

jails across the U.S. have incorporated 

critical incident stress-reduction units 

that specifically address the needs of 

officers who have experienced traumatic 

events while on the job, including hostage 

takeovers, riots, or the murder of fellow 

officers and inmates. Such units provide 

debriefings and counseling for officers 

who may have mental health consequences 

because of these experiences. However, 

reports from NIJ (Finn and Kuck, 2005) 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 17 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

and Finn (1998, 2000) noted that these 

programs are not seen on a massive scale 

across correctional facilities, largely because 

of correctional administrators’ failure to 

recognize the health concerns of officers as 

well as inadequate funding to support these 

programs. 

Elliot and colleagues (2015), noting high 

stress levels present within corrections, 

recommend the following strategies 

to officers to improve their well-being: 

maintain a healthy body weight, exercise 

for at least 30 minutes per day, consume 

five servings of fruits and vegetables 

daily, and visit physicians twice annually. 

Of course, correctional administrative 

officials cannot oversee and regulate the 

dietary intake and exercise regimens of 

their officers, but they can recommend 

that officers adopt these lifestyle habits 

to promote health. An investigation by 

Triplett and Mullings (1996) that directly 

questioned officers about the measures 

they take to improve their health uncovered 

some interesting information: COs often 

use a variety of coping mechanisms in 

response to stress, including seeking 

social support from others and selectively 

ignoring stress-inducing stimuli. 

Moreover, the study found that officers 

who used these coping strategies reported 

reduced stress when compared with their 

counterparts. According to the ACA 

and Keinan and Malach-Pines (2007), 

prison administrative officials can follow 

certain recommendations to increase 

officer wellness. The study suggested that 

administrative officials promote greater 

teamwork among line staff, reduce role 

ambiguity, improve officers’ job satisfaction 

by rotating their shifts to make them less 

physically taxing, screen incoming officer 

applicants to determine their susceptibility 

to stress, increase officer pay and benefits, 

better prepare officers to confront 

workforce dangers, and offer positive 

reinforcement to productive line staff. 

Summary of Policies on 

Correctional Officer Safety and 

Wellness 

Correctional researchers, administrative 

officials, and prison systems in general 

have largely neglected the health and safety 

concerns of COs, which is a crucial area of 

focus given the important role that officers 

play in maintaining order in correctional 

facilities. Recently, some programs designed 

to improve CO health, borrowed largely 

from the broader policing discipline, have 

been instituted in some prison facilities, 

but few have been systematically evaluated 

using social science research methods. 

More concerted efforts must be undertaken 

across the correctional field to improve CO 

health and safety, as a result. 

An important first step is recognizing that 

this field of employment is perilous and 

accompanied by many threats to CO health. 

Brower (2013) remarked that policies and 

programs designed to improve officer 

health have not been instituted in many 

prison facilities because administrative 

officials fail to recognize the dangers 

attached to the job. Improvement of CO 

health starts by changing this mindset 

among not only administrative officials 

but also other relevant stakeholders in the 

correctional field. Keinan and Malach-Pines 

(2007) identified an additional impediment 

to successful implementation of safety 

and wellness programs: the widespread 

attitude known as “machismo” among COs. 

Machismo prevents officers from requesting 

any type of assistance because they 

perceive such requests as a sign of inherent 

weakness. It is imperative that we begin to 

change the cultural mindset in corrections 

and recognize that this is a dangerous field 

wherein external sources of assistance are 

sometimes required to improve officer 

well-being. 

Psychiatrists, counselors, and other 

mental health professionals have made 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 18 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

considerable strides in improving police 

officers’ health, but similar efforts for COs 

have not been observed. Further study 

must be undertaken of the sources and 

consequences of CO stress and other harms 

to which these front-line prison personnel 

are exposed. Knowledge of these subject 

areas can help improve our understanding 

of CO health and inform policies designed 

to enhance their overall well-being. On 

this point, Brower (2013) noted that the 

American Board of Professional Psychology 

has begun to consider the idea of creating 

a subspecialty in correctional psychology. 

Such a subspecialty could contribute 

significantly to the development of 

educational and training programs that 

are specifically designed to address COs’ 

physical and mental health needs. 

Police agencies have incorporated a number 

of programs focused on improving officer 

health, including peer-support programs 

and EAPs. These programs are not seen 

across correctional facilities, and the 

few that exist have not been evaluated 

to determine their effectiveness, so few 

definitive conclusions can be drawn about 

whether these programs are applicable to 

the correctional context. Researchers are 

strongly encouraged to apply rigorous social 

science research methodologies to examine 

whether these programs are effective, which 

in turn, will help determine whether they 

should be adopted on a broader scale. 

Although much has been written about 

the mental health risks associated with 

employment as a CO and some policies 

have been designed to address these 

concerns, very little, if any, literature 

exists on policies tailored to address COs’ 

concerns about physical health. Researchers 

have noted that dangers such as prison 

gangs, the presence of contraband, and 

inmates with mental illness, among others, 

pose considerable threats to the physical 

health of correctional officers (Burke 

& Owen, 2010; Fleisher & Decker, 2001; 

McLearen & Ryba, 2003). Administrative 

officials of the correctional system are 

therefore encouraged to consider policy 

interventions designed to minimize the 

injurious risks connected to such dangers. 

If these are the very dangers most likely 

to inflict harm upon correctional officers, 

then strategies aimed at mediating their 

threats must be implemented on a mass 

scale across penitentiaries. Policies could 

include heightened intake procedures to 

identify problematic inmates, improved 

communication channels between 

correctional line staff so they can discuss 

potentially threatening offenders and 

what can be done to handle them, 

separation of gang members to limit their 

ability to correspond with one another, 

ensuring officers always have back-up 

support when dealing with troublesome 

offenders, instruction/training for officers 

on mediation tactics that de-escalate 

volatile situations, and provision of 

additional therapeutic services, where 

possible, for offenders afflicted with 

mental disorders (Burke & Owen, 2010; 

Fleisher & Decker, 2001; McLearen & Ryba, 

2003). Implementation of such policies 

targeted at decreasing and addressing 

correctional-based dangers could have the 

dual benefits of enhancing officer wellness 

and establishing wider institutional order. 

With all of this information in mind, what 

follows is a discussion of what scholars 

and researchers can do in terms of future 

research on the broad topic of CO safety 

and wellness. 

Considerations for Future 

Research 

A considerable body of research on CO 

safety and wellness has been amassed over 

the past several decades. Findings have 

provided important insight into the working 

conditions of officers and what can be 

done to improve their general well-being. 

Although this research is informative, a 

number of limitations restrict our ability 

to draw definitive conclusions regarding 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 19 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

officer safety and wellness. This section 

identifies inherent weaknesses in this 

literature and recommends directions for 

future research. 

A variety of sources have shown that COs 

frequently fall victim to workplace injuries 

and even fatalities (Finn, 1998; Konda 

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

are the contextual factors that influence 

these phenomena or the specific types of 

injuries befalling officers. Lacerations, 

cuts, bruises, and head trauma are some 

of the many types of harm that COs 

can experience while on the job, yet 

researchers have not specifically explored 

this issue. Furthermore, officers of the 

prison system are forced to work alongside 

dangerous offenders such as gang members 

and inmates who create and distribute 

contraband. Some officers are assigned 

to more dangerous units of the prison 

(e.g., administrative segregation), which 

can increase their risk of physical and 

mental health problems (Crawley, 2004). 

Researchers are therefore encouraged to 

ask the following questions: What are the 

specific factors that contribute to fatal and 

nonfatal workplace injuries experienced by 

COs? Are there individual and institutional 

differences in the rates of injury and fatality 

experienced by COs? Are officers employed 

in more overcrowded prisons more likely to 

experience injury and fatality? Are officers 

who work alongside inmates who have 

infectious and communicable diseases as 

well as those with mental disorders more 

likely to fall victim to physical harm? From 

a broader institutional standpoint, what are 

the consequences of officers experiencing 

injury and fatality while on the job? What 

specific types of policies, training regimens, 

or programs can address these dangers? 

We know from the extant studies on CO 

safety and wellness that dangers such as 

the presence of contraband pose physical 

threats to officers, but we need to better 

understand how to address them. 

The psycho-social dangers inherent 

in employment as a CO have not been 

adequately studied. This category includes 

problems such as work-family conflict and 

public misperceptions about the CO’s 

job (Crawley, 2004). Researchers should 

consider the following questions: Is this 

danger an actual threat to officer wellbeing? What are the potential consequences 

of exposure to psycho-social dangers? 

If this is determined to be of significant 

concern, what can be done to address the 

consequences of exposure to psycho-social 

dangers? 

Research has noted that COs experience 

high rates of stress and other mental 

health problems because of role conflict 

and ambiguity, work-family conflict, 

poor co-worker relations, and other 

factors (Ferdik, 2014; Lambert et al., 

2005). Less known are the strategies that 

correctional agencies can implement to 

address these mental health concerns. 

Future scholars should consider asking 

the following questions: What policies and 

programs work best to address the mental 

health consequences associated with CO 

employment? Although there is some 

information regarding the correlates of 

officer stress, there has not been sufficient 

research into what can be done to resolve 

this issue. Applying what is known about 

the correlates of stress can help answer this 

question. 

Researchers have noted that COs 

experience significantly higher rates of 

suicide than both police officers and the 

general public (Morgan, 2009). Brower 

(2013) remarked that “much more research 

is needed to develop a better understanding 

of the prevalence and causes of suicide 

among correctional officers” (p. 11). Future 

researchers should ask: What factors lead to 

increased suicide rates among COs? What 

can be done to prevent officer suicide? 

What impact does officer suicide have on 

the wider correctional facility? 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 20 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Various programs and policies designed 

to enhance officer well-being have been 

introduced by correctional systems, but few 

have been empirically assessed (Brower, 

2013). Some prisons offer peer-support 

programs, EAPs, and in some cases, trained 

mental health professionals, but the greater 

scientific community still lacks a clear 

understanding of whether these programs 

are worthwhile. Rigorous social science 

research methods (e.g., experimental and 

quasi-experimental designs) should be 

used to better understand the efficacy of 

these programs. Future research questions 

might include: Do peer-support programs 

and EAPs help improve CO well-being? 

What other programs, policies, and larger 

preventive measures that can effectively 

address the broader health concerns of COs 

should be implemented? 

Other areas of research that should be 

explored include the physiological effects of 

this line of work. Some scholars have noted 

that CO work can lead to physical health 

problems such as diabetes, heart disease, 

and chronic neck, back, and knee injuries 

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

Only a handful of studies have investigated 

this issue, and more research into this area 

is recommended. Because COs experience 

high rates of stress and other mental health 

problems, researchers should also ask 

whether officers hold negative outlooks 

on life and humanity as compared with 

individuals not employed in this field. 

These negative outlooks could have 

harmful effects on social relationships, and 

more research into this area is needed. 

Although scholars have devoted 

considerable effort to exploring the 

harmful effects of correctional employment 

on officers (Crawley, 2004; Finn, 1998; 

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

little is known about the deleterious effects 

that this line of work can have on the family 

environment. Domestic partners’ reactions 

to their spouses’ employment in the prison 

industry and the effects such employment 

can have on family cohesion are just some 

of the many research questions that future 

scholars could explore as we attempt to 

better understand the intersection between 

correctional employment and the home 

environment. 

Another area requiring additional 

scholarship is COs’ perceptions of 

workplace safety and wellness. To date, only 

eight studies have questioned officers about 

their perceptions of the correctional work 

environment; clearly, much more research 

is needed in this area. For example, we do 

not have a fundamental understanding of 

the factors that contribute to the disparate 

levels of fear and risk reported by officers. 

Also absent from the correctional literature 

is a solid understanding of the variables that 

officers’ risk perceptions could influence, 

such as the intention to voluntarily resign, 

stress levels, and relationships with inmates. 

Perceptions of the workplace have been 

shown to influence a variety of outcomes 

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

this research has been restricted to noncorrectional settings. Scholars interested 

in these issues are encouraged to ask: 

What are officer judgments regarding 

workplace safety and wellness? What 

factors influence officers’ perceptions of 

their jobs? What variables are influenced 

by officers’ perceptions of the workplace? 

With the exception of one identified study 

(Triplett & Mullings, 1996), no researchers 

have asked correctional officers for their 

input about strategies designed to improve 

their welfare. Triplett and Mullings (1996) 

discovered that COs use coping strategies, 

and these strategies are quite effective at 

reducing stress levels. Future researchers 

could employ mixed methodologies of 

data collection in the form of surveys 

and structured interviews to expand our 

understanding about CO stress-reduction 

efforts. 

In addition to soliciting COs’ input about 

their jobs, it would also be beneficial 

to understand what correctional 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 21 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

administrative officials believe needs 

to be done to address officer safety and 

wellness. Some scholars have noted that 

administrative officials have largely 

neglected the safety issues of their officers 

(Brower, 2013). Future researchers are 

encouraged to gather more information 

about and insight into the viewpoints 

of administrative officials about CO 

health. Questions might include: How 

do correctional administrative officials 

perceive the dangerousness of the CO’s job? 

Do the officials believe that measures need 

to be instituted to address officer safety 

and wellness? If so, what strategies do they 

recommend for improving CO health? 

Countless individual studies on the 

correlates of CO stress have been 

conducted, but only one meta-analytic 

synthesis of this research has been 

performed, and even that is somewhat 

dated (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). 

Approximately 13 years have elapsed since 

the publication of that study; therefore, 

another quantitative synthesis of this 

literature would be a welcome addition to 

the scholarship on CO safety and wellness. 

Conclusion 

Synthesis of the Report on 

Correctional Officer Safety and 

Wellness 

COs are employed under stressful and 

dangerous conditions that are distinct 

from other occupational milieus (Ferdik, 

2014). Being employed alongside inmates 

who may be violent, manipulative, or 

mentally and physically ill requires a 

strong focus on institutional safety and 

security (Crawley, 2004). However, over 

time, correctional employment has been 

shown to have negative effects on officer 

safety and well-being. For prison facilities to 

operate efficiently, it is important that they 

be staffed with officers who are physically 

and mentally sound and able to respond 

to the numerous challenges that this line 

of work presents. This report highlighted 

the high rates of injury and fatality that are 

inherent in CO work and some strategies 

designed to enhance their welfare. The 

report concludes by summarizing its 

major findings and offering additional 

suggestions for how these results can be 

used to improve officer well-being. 

This synthesis of the literature on CO 

safety and well-being revealed three distinct 

dangers confronting officers: work-related, 

institution-related, and psycho-social. To 

date, work-related dangers have received the 

most attention in the research literature, 

because these issues are intrinsic to the 

correctional context. These dangers include 

exposure to infectious and communicable 

diseases, prison gangs, disruptive inmate 

behaviors, the presence of contraband, 

inmates with mental illness, and riots. 

The second category of dangers related 

to CO safety and well-being encompasses 

institution-related dangers, which 

are largely influenced by the prison 

administration. Examples include role 

conflict and ambiguity, as well as low pay, 

extended work hours, and insufficient 

staffing and resources. In today’s 

correctional environments, as documented 

by the research on institution-related 

dangers, officers are being asked to 

accomplish more with fewer resources, 

which elevates their mental health risks. 

A final category of work-related dangers 

threatening officer well-being comprises 

psycho-social dangers, which are arguably 

the most understudied and underappreciated 

aspects of correctional work. Researchers 

know relatively little about the impact of workfamily conflict on COs. Some studies have 

explored this phenomenon (Crawley, 2004), 

but there is a need for greater academic 

attention in this area. 

Another objective of this literature synthesis 

was to identify studies that have questioned 

COs specifically about their perceptions 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 22 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

of workplace safety and wellness. A review 

produced eight empirical investigations, 

suggesting that more research is needed in 

this area. Overall, this research indicates 

that officers of the correctional system are 

aware of the perils that accompany this 

line of work, as even low-level security and 

juvenile detention facility officers expressed 

some degree of concern about their general 

safety and wellness. Given that increased 

perceptions of harm can elevate officers’ 

stress and burnout levels (Armstrong & 

Griffin, 2004; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; 

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

that future researchers continue to expand 

on this body of work to contribute to a more 

refined understanding of how officers judge 

the dangerousness of their profession. 

Two final objectives of this report were 

to evaluate the literature on CO wellness 

programs and identify gaps in the overall 

body of knowledge on officer well-being. 

Although some policies to enhance officer 

safety have been introduced, few have 

been subjected to empirical scrutiny. It is 

strongly advised that researchers begin 

exploring this area through the application 

of rigorous research methods. 

Prisons function efficiently when they 

are staffed with healthy officers, and 

understanding ways to improve officers’ 

overall well-being can contribute to safer 

and more orderly correctional facilities. 

Given the gaps in the wider scholarship on 

CO safety and wellness, several unresolved 

questions remain. Researchers interested in 

expanding the knowledge base concerning 

CO safety and wellness are encouraged to 

explore some of the focus areas identified 

in this report. The policing discipline 

and research on law enforcement officer 

well-being can provide a starting point for 

correctional agencies. Although police 

and COs are employed under different 

occupational conditions, both are exposed 

to dangers that can threaten their welfare. 

Police departments have taken important 

steps to enhance officer well-being. 

Although these initiatives (e.g., peersupport programs and EAPs) have yet to 

be comprehensively evaluated within the 

corrections context, they offer a stepping 

stone for better understanding how to 

address issues that threaten CO safety and 

wellness (Brower, 2013). 

Only within the past few years has attention 

been directed at examining issues of CO 

safety and wellness. This report provides 

a comprehensive synthesis of the most 

recent and salient studies that explore 

this topic. Although this review does not 

constitute the final word on all issues 

related to officer well-being, it does 

offer a general perspective of the threats 

confronting officers and the strategies 

required to improve their safety. Scholars 

and practitioners who read this report are 

encouraged to learn from the research of 

others, institute best practices designed 

to enhance officer well-being, and further 

study the major issues related to CO safety 

and wellness. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 23 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Works Cited 

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

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

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

and Behavior, 35, 913-927. 

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

Publishing. 

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

in prison: A two-state comparison. The Prison Journal, 89(4), 440-459. 

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

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

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

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

Rehabilitation, 25(2), 103-113. 

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

Principles of Organization, Policy and Law. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

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

among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577-592. 

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

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

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Bick, J.A. (2007). Infection control in jails and prisons. Healthcare Epidemiology, 45, 1047-1055. 

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

of Justice. 

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

prison library. Library & Archival Security, 16(1), 47-61. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 24 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

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

Programs. 

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

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

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

Bulletin. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

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

Pearson Education. 

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

of Criminology, 45(6), 896-913. 

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

correctional officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 65-80. 

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

VA: American Correctional Association. 

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

strategies: An analysis of police-media relations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(5), 501-512. 

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

OR: Willan Publishing. 

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

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

Programs, National Institute of Justice. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ 

grants/192292.pdf. 

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

infections. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 29-40. 

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

meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31-47. 

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

Addressing the safety and well-being of correctional officers. Corrections Today, 77(4), 40. 

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

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

American Institute of Architects. 

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

officers. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 51-68. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 25 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

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

Ferdik, F. (2014). Examining the Correlates of Correctional Officer Risk Perceptions and DecisionMaking. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina. Proquest Dissertations and 

Theses Abstracts. 

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

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

Corrections. 

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

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

DOI: 10.1080/1478601X.2014.938741. 

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

Probation, 62(2), 65-74. 

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

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

Institute of Justice. 

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

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

Institute of Justice. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205620.pdf. 

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

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

BMC Public Health, 13(1), 82-94. 

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

warrants federal legislation to allow jamming technology. Wisconsin Law Review, 10, 1269. 

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

Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 1-9. 

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

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

University. Proquest Dissertation and Theses Abstracts. 

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

Corrections Today, 64(7), 116-120. 

Glaze, L.E., & Kaeble, D. (2014). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013. 

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

Statistics. 

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

Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 26 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

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

two juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 62-84. 

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

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

Criminal Justice, 38, 245-265. 

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

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

correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), 239-255. 

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

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

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

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

satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 323-340. 

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

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

20(6), 667-679. 

Hessl, S.M. (2001). Police and corrections. Occupational Medicine, 16, 39-49. 

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

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

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22(1), 44-62. 

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

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

Statistics. 

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

trends in policing systems. British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 129-146. 

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

correctional officers in men’s prisons. Social Problems, 32(4), 375-388. 

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

Press. 

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

Sources, outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 380-398. 

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

or injured on the job. Corrections Today, 75, 122-125. 

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

Management Journal, 37, 656-669. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 27 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

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

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

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

Applied Criminal Justice, 36(1), 1-23. 

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

Prison Journal, 84(2), 208-227. 

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

job characteristics on correctional staff job stress. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3(2), 

117-142. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29(2), 115-143. 

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

relationship between supervisor and management trust and job burnout among correctional 

staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(7), 938-957. 

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

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

model. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(1), 19-38. 

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

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

Security Journal, 18(4), 33-50. 

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

Publishing. 

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

turnover intent of jail staff throughout the United States. Criminal Justice Review, 38(2), 

226-241. 

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

York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. 

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

Anderson Publishing. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 28 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

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

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

among males in Rhode Island prisons. American Journal of Public Health, 94(7), 1218-1223. 

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

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

Abstracts. 

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

Retention. Centerville, UT: Management and Training Corporation. 

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

analytical extension to the 1986 West Virginia riot. Justice Quarterly, 7(4), 711-737. 

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

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

organizational commitment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(2), 115-131. 

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

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

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

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

jails comply with detection standards? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(1), 25-34. 

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

among juvenile correctional facility staff. Criminal Justice Review, 36(1), 58-75. 

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

Korean sample. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(4), 359-370. 

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

Jails, 23(2), 33-34. 

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

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

Environmental Medicine, 53(9),1037-1045. 

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

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

org/xmlui/handle/10929/25070. 

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

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

53(11), 1294-1301. 

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

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

satisfaction of correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 86(2), 182-205. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 29 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

Arkansas Department of Correction. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 49-67. 

Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decisionmaking: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605-628. 

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

control. Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control, 8, 151-172. 

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

Reporter, 3, 23-32. 

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

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

Practice, 9(2), 149-177. 

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

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

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

Prisons. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworth Publications. 

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

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

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

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

employees. Corrections Today, 63(6), 110-115. 

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

officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(1), 19-48. 

Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 2109-2119. 

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

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

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

Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Corrections. 

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

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

Waters Correctional Outreach. 

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

regression analysis. Archives of Suicide Research, 3(3), 183-186. 

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

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

Proquest Dissertation and These Abstracts. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 30 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

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

violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20(6), 762-777. 

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

adjustment. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 14(4), 299-310. 

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

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

Review, 17(3), 290-301. 

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

organizational and emotional influences. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 247-266. 

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

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

Psychology, 11(1), 100-118. 

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

bars. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 509-533. 

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

officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(4), 

291-308. 

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

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

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

its correlates. Public Personnel Management, 36(3), 247-268. 

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

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

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

Prison Studies. 

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

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

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

Health Organization. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 31 
National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

About the Authors 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in journal outlets such as Journal of Criminal Justice and Psychology, Crime and Law. In 2015, 

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

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

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

officer-based research projects. 

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

Justice at the University of South Carolina. His research interests consist of inmate selfinjurious behaviors, the intersection between mental health outcomes and criminal justice 

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

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

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

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

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

most of his publications on the topics of inmate self-injury and correctional officer decisionmaking. His work has appeared in journal outlets such as Justice Quarterly and Criminal 

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

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

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 32 
 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

Appendix 

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

Study Citation Methodology 

Safety and 

Wellness 

Concern Results 

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

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

risk of contracting HIV/AIDS in and maximum-security • Significant predictors: Greater HIV/AIDS 

prison: A two-state comparison. officers in two U.S. knowledge led to reduced perceptions. Higher The Prison Journal. states (Missouri and 

Texas) 

• N = 553 

• Logistic regression 

prisoner contact increased perceptions. Older and 

more formally educated officers were less likely 

to perceive risk, and those working in higher level 

custody prisons perceived greater risk. 

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

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

blood borne viral infections. maximum-security HIV • 95.2% believed they were at risk of contracting Howard Journal of Criminal officers in four Dublin, • Worry of Hepatitis C. Justice. Ireland prisons 

• N = 272 

• Logistic regression 

contracting 

Hepatitis B, C, and 

HIV 

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

• Significant predictors: Lower ranking and 

less seasoned officers perceived greater risk of 

contracting any disease. Older and male officers 

also perceived increased risk of contracting any of 

the diseases. Younger and male officers worried 

more about contracting any of the diseases. 

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

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

risk perceptions and decision- of maximum-security (gangs, disruptive • Significant predictors: Longer tenured officers making. Doctoral dissertation, correctional officers inmates, riots, perceived increased risk of injury. Officers who University of South Carolina. (South Carolina) inmates with expressed greater fear and anxiety about dangers Proquest Dissertations and • N = 559 mental illness, perceived increased risk. Theses Abstracts. 

• OLS models physically 

ill inmates, 

contraband) 

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

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

and organizational climate federal correctional mean of 0.01). 

correlates of perceived danger officers • Significant predictors: Individual level: Non-white 

among federal correctional • N = 2,954 and female officers perceived greater danger; officers. Doctoral dissertation, 

Temple University. Proquest • Multi-level modeling higher security-level officers perceived greater 

danger. Institutional level: Institutions with higher Dissertations and Theses percentages of non-white and female officers Abstracts. perceived increased danger; higher security-level 

institutions recorded greater perceptions of danger. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 33 
 

 

National Institute of Justice | NIJ.gov 

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

Study Citation Methodology 

Safety and 

Wellness 

Concern Results 

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

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

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

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

Examining individual and received surveys • Risk of • Significant predictors: Men less likely to perceive collective levels of victimization • N = 100 victimization risk. Non-white officers and those with additional 

in two juvenile correctional 

centers in Virginia. Criminal • OLS models from officers and 

inmates 

years of formal education were more likely to 

perceive risk. Justice and Behavior. 

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

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

among the “keepers”: Gendered employed in all adult • Risk of inmate of inmate victimization. 

perceptions of fear and risk of prison facilities in an victimization • Between 85% and 90% of officers perceived low victimization among corrections 

officers. American Journal of 

unidentified U.S. state 

received self-report • Fear of staff fear and risk of staff victimization. 

Criminal Justice. surveys 

• N = 1,273 

• OLS models 

victimization 

• Risk of staff 

victimization 

• Significant predictors: Female, more formally 

educated officers and officers employed in higher 

security-level facilities perceived greater fear and 

risk of inmate victimization. 

• Higher security-level officers perceived greater risk 

of staff victimization. Older and non-white officers 

perceived less risk of staff victimization. 

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

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

(2012). Fear is a disease: The to medium- and perceived • Officers perceived moderate levels of fear of impact of fear and exposure maximum-security dangerousness of contracting an infectious disease, with a range of 0 to infectious disease on officers across Texas the job to 5 and mean of 2.80. 

correctional officer job stress • N = 2,999 • Fear of contracting and satisfaction. American infectious disease 

Journal of Criminal Justice. 

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

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

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

Taiwan: A study of correctional medium-security • Perceptions of fear to 4 and mean values of 2.53 and 2.06. 

officers’ perceptions. correctional officers of victimization • Significant predictors: Older officers perceived International Journal of received self-report from co-workers reduced fear of inmate victimization. Officers 

Comparative and Applied surveys exposed to both physical and vicarious victimization Criminal Justice. • N = 348 

• OLS models 

perceived increased fear, and officers who reported 

greater trust in administration perceived less fear of 

co-worker victimization. 

Note: OLS = ordinary least squares. 

Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis 34