“The job changes you”: a reflexive thematic analysis of Australian correctional officer mental health

ABSTRACT

Correctional officers (COs) work under stressful conditions and experience high rates of potentially psychologically traumatic critical incidents, and yet understanding of their mental health is limited. Therefore, the current study aimed to explore how correctional work impacts CO mental health. Twenty-two Australian COs (12 men, 10 women) working predominantly in high security prisons (91%) with male prison residents (50%) were interviewed about their mental health and workplace experiences. Reflexive thematic analysis of these interviews generated three key themes: the job changes you, it’s a stressful job, and coping strategies. Officers showed both positive and negative changes to their sense of self, daily functioning, and mental health which were generally consistent with experiences of psychological wellbeing, posttraumatic growth, and burnout. These changes were impacted by a variety of operational and organizational stressors and were managed through adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies like social support, humor, and alcohol consumption. The findings support existing theories of the non-dichotomous nature of mental health and mental illness. Along with deepening understandings of CO mental health, this study provides guidance on how COs can be supported to be healthy and productive in the workplace.

KEYWORDS:

• Wellbeing
• correctional officers
• mental health
• prison

Correctional Officers (COs) work under stressful and potentially psychologically traumatic conditions and frequently experience critical incidents (Ricciardelli et al. 2023). They work under paramilitary structures, respond to emergencies, and are required to care for people who may be highly distressed or exhibiting aggressive behaviours. As such, COs are trained to act as proxy counsellors, paramedics, firefighters, police officers and emergency first responders. Given this overlap between correctional work and emergency service work, it may be thought that research can translate across frontline occupations. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. For example, rates of mental illness differ significantly across frontline emergency service occupations (e.g., Carleton et al. 2018; Violanti et al., 2013). Despite conducting similar work, working under similarly stressful conditions, and experiencing similarly high rates of critical incident exposure (Carleton et al. 2018, Carleton et al. 2019), COs have often been overlooked as a frontline group in need of research attention.

There are unique qualities to correctional work that justify research focused on this population. For example, while many frontline occupations are tasked with caring for clients, COs are also distinctively tasked with maintaining order and security, and these paradoxical tasks can create emotional strain (e.g., Frost et al. 2022). Further, COs typically care for people within a closed environment (a prison) while other frontline groups care for clients in a changing environment. The existing research on CO health has focused on symptoms of mental illness (see Regehr et al. 2021 review), and limited research has explored mental health beyond disorder absence (Miller, Bruenig, and Shakespeare-Finch 2022) or explored the health of Australian COs. Therefore, the current study aimed to explore mental health in Australian COs.

CO Psychopathology

Psychopathology is the study of abnormal cognitions and behaviours (Jaspers 1997) typically categorised according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (American Psychiatric Association, 2022) or the International Classification of Diseases (World Health Organisation 2019). COs have exhibited high rates of mental illness including symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and anxiety disorders like generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder (Carleton et al. 2019; Regehr et al. 2021; Ricciardelli et al. 2023). Moreover, COs are at higher risk of experiencing any mental disorder and attempting death by suicide compared to the general population and other frontline groups (Carleton et al., 2018; Milner et al. 2017). Such outcomes have caused concern, and correctional departments around the world have subsequently developed and implemented initiatives designed to reduce risk of CO mental illness with limited efficacy (Evers et al. 2020).

Experiences of CO mental illness appear to be related to numerous individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors with varying effect sizes. For example, demographic factors like age and sex have limited effect (Butler et al. 2019; Dowden and Tellier 2004); but individual factors like coping strategies and personal resilience have a stronger effect and can reduce risk for pathology (e.g., Hughes-Taylor and Swartz 2021; Klinoff et al. 2018). Interpersonal factors including the role of supervisor, manager, peer, and personal social support have moderate effects on CO mental illness (Butler et al. 2019; Konyk et al. 2021). Moderate to large effects on mental illness stem from organizational experiences like perceived workplace danger, role conflict, and critical incident exposure (Carleton et al. 2019; Dowden and Tellier 2004; Ricciardelli et al. 2023). Indeed, COs have demonstrated a higher level of perceived workplace adversity than the general population and other high-risk workers (Trounson, Pfeifer, and Critchley 2016), which has been linked to distress (Trounson, Pfeifer, and Skues 2019).

Mental health versus mental illness

Most research on COs has been pathogenic meaning it has focused primarily on mental illness symptoms (see Regehr et al. 2021 review). This pathogenic approach has failed to consider health outcomes other than mental illness. The term mental health is often used synonymously with mental illness, however, the two are distinct constructs (Keyes 2005). Mental health is a state of wellbeing that extends further than disorder absence (World Health Organization 2004), while mental illness is a diagnosable mental disorder with clinically significant impairments to functioning. Keyes (2005) defined mental health as comprising experiences of psychological wellbeing (PWB), emotional wellbeing, and social wellbeing. PWB refers to positive psychological functioning including a sense of self-acceptance, autonomy, purpose in life, personal growth, environmental mastery, and positive relationships (Ryff 1989). Emotional wellbeing refers to positive emotions including the presence of life satisfaction and positive affect, and the absence of negative affect (Diener, 1984); and social wellbeing refers to positive social functioning (Keyes 2005). Clearly, physical, social, and psychological health are interrelated and inform each other.

Limited research has considered CO mental health and most studies claiming to have done so have operationalised mental health as disorder absence (e.g., Bierie 2012). A recent mixed method systematic review found COs experienced facets of mental health including life satisfaction and personal growth; however, the existing literature was scant and suffered from methodological issues (Miller, Bruenig, and Shakespeare-Finch 2022). Nevertheless, research is beginning to acknowledge protective factors and the potential for COs to experience positive mental health outcomes. For example, quantitative research suggests COs demonstrate resilience and that social support, hope, and optimism enhance CO resilience (e.g., Klinoff et al. 2018). Qualitative explorations suggest co-worker support, a sense of purpose, self-care practices, life balance, prayer/meditation, positive attitudes, morale, somatic health, and support from mental health professionals, friends, and family enhance CO resilience, growth, and wellbeing (Gist, Ferdik, and Smith 2023, Konyk & Ricciardelli, 2022; Trounson et al. 2022).

Symptoms of mental illness and mental health can co-occur as demonstrated in other high-risk occupations like policing (McCanlies et al. 2018). However, mental illness and mental health are yet to be simultaneously and comprehensively explored in the CO population. The salutogenic model of health (Antonovsky 1996) argues that both health and ill-health must be explored to adequately assess and promote health. Therefore, the salutogenic model was the theoretical foundation of the current study.

Moreover, most research on CO mental health has been quantitative. For example, a mixed method systematic review of CO wellbeing reviewed 20 quantitative studies and only nine qualitative studies (Miller, Bruenig, and Shakespeare-Finch 2022). While quantitative research provides a basis for understanding CO experiences, it fails to explore variables that have not been pre-determined by the researcher/s. Therefore, factors related to CO mental health may remain unexplored. While some excellent qualitative research has been conducted with prison staff, it has typically not focussed on CO mental health and instead focused on the ‘dirty’ nature of prison work, correctional subcultures, and emotion management (e.g., Crawley 2004; Eriksson 2021; Garrihy 2021; Higgins, Smith, and Swartz 2022; Tracy and Scott 2006). Such research provides an important foundation for understanding CO mental health.

The Australian context

In Australia 19,861 people (70.1% male) are employed as prison officers (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2021). Approximately 10% of these officers’ self-report a mental illness, suggesting that nearly 90% of Australian COs can remain mentally well (or that mental illnesses are under-reported). Australian COs care for over 40,000 prison residents¹ (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022, 2023) across 115 prisons, the majority of which are government operated and secure (i.e., high security; Australian Government Productivity Commission Australian Government Productivity Commission 2022). Currently, most Australian prisons are at or exceeding capacity (Australian Government Productivity Commission 2022; Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research 2022) which can impact prison conditions and therefore working conditions for officers.

Most people experiencing incarceration in Australia are male (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022, 2023) and many have been diagnosed with a mental illness prior to or during their incarceration (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2022). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are incarcerated at a disproportionately higher rate in comparison to the non-Indigenous population (Australian Government Productivity Commission 2022). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prison residents (and Indigenous peoples more broadly) experience high rates of disadvantage, intergenerational trauma, and physical and psychological health issues which can impact their pathway toward prison and experiences whilst in prison (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2022). Given the high rates of prison resident mental illness, Australian COs are responsible for prison resident rehabilitation, health, and education in addition to maintaining security (Australian Government Productivity Commission 2022).

The research into the health and wellbeing of Australian COs is limited in comparison to other international jurisdictions like America, Canada, and the United Kingdom. However, the available research tends to have been pathogenic and supports the findings of international research. For example, Australian COs report high rates of critical incident exposure, mental illness, and deaths by suicide; and experience similar risk and protective factors like role conflict and social support (Brough and Williams 2007; Eriksson 2021; Milner et al. 2017; Trounson et al. 2022; Trounson, Pfeifer, and Critchley 2016).

Current study

Understanding the spectrum of potential mental health outcomes for COs is important, as CO mental health or illness can impact officers, their families, their employers, and the people under their care (Gist, Ferdik, and Smith 2023). However, most existing research has been pathogenic and focused on symptoms of mental illness meaning CO mental health remains relatively under-researched (Miller, Bruenig, and Shakespeare-Finch 2022). While some research has qualitatively explored facets of CO mental health and protective factors, this research tends to have been conducted outside of Australia (e.g., Gist, Ferdik, and Smith 2023; Konyk and Ricciardelli 2022).

Given that under 10% of Australian COs self-report a mental illness (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021), the current study was interested in how most Australian COs remain mentally well. Understanding this is important because staff who are mentally well are usually able to better support others (e.g., Alhalal, Alrashidi, and Alanazi 2020). Therefore, the current study aimed to qualitatively explore CO mental health across the health continuum to address the following research question: how does correctional work impact CO mental health? This left room to explore risk and protective factors for CO mental health and mental illness. The intention of exploring the impacts of correctional work was to provide new insights into CO mental health that could be used to provide practical recommendations on how to best support COs and subsequently promote positive carceral outcomes.

Method

Participant recruitment

Participants were 22 COs (12 men, 10 women) who worked in Australian prisons, had frequent direct contact with prison residents, and worked in a custodial capacity. They ranged in age from 25–64 years (M = 42.4, SD = 9.6) and had between 2 months and 16 years’ experience working in corrections (M = 4.9 years, SD = 4.7 years). Most participants (n = 20) worked in high security prisons or units. Approximately half of the participants worked with male prison residents (n = 11) and had previous frontline work experience (e.g., police, armed forces; n = 10).

Participants were recruited through a combination of purposeful and snowball sampling procedures. The study was advertised via email by the managers of four prisons selected by the correctional department. Prison 1 was a high security centre for male offenders, prison 2 was a high security centre for female offenders, prison 3 was a low security centre for female offenders, and prison 4 supervised high and low security male and female offenders. Across these four prisons, approximately 1200 staff were employed as COs. Upon receipt of the recruitment email, interested parties contacted the researcher directly. Participants were also asked to encourage their co-workers to participate, and some participants stated they heard about the study from colleagues. A total of 32 COs contacted the researcher and 22 participated in interviews. Of the 10 that did not participate, one did not wish to be audio recorded and nine failed to respond to subsequent emails. This high refusal rate could reflect fear of workplace reprisals despite assurances of anonymity and/or a prison masculine culture which stigmatizes emotional disclosures. No incentives were offered for participation. The large sample of participants with diverse workplace experiences met analytic requirements (Braun and Clarke 2022).

Procedure

Approval was obtained through the university human research ethics committee and the correctional department’s research committee. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews (approximately 30–90 minutes). Interviews were audio recorded and conducted external to the workplace by phone (n = 20) or online video call (n = 2) to protect participant anonymity from their employer and because data collection commenced during the pandemic. Interview questions were based on the literature and were guided by Liebling et al.’s (2011) appreciative inquiry approach which focuses on lived experiences and searching for meaning in painful incidents. Therefore, officers were asked (among other questions): ‘what are the things you enjoy about your job?’, ‘what sort of challenges have you experienced at work?’, and ‘what do you do to maintain your wellbeing?’. As interviews were semi-structured, participant responses were flexibly followed up and questions adapted to each participant. As a result, participants were often encouraged to elaborate on the impacts of the challenges they experienced and the meaning they attributed to these experiences.

Data analysis

The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive and semantic approach to reflexive thematic analysis (RTA; Braun and Clarke 2022). RTA was selected for use over other qualitative approaches like interpretative phenomenological analysis or grounded theory because the focus was on generating themes across the data rather than searching for unique idiographic features or developing theory. In using RTA, an experiential orientation, a critical realist ontology (Maxwell 2016) and contextualist epistemology (Madill, Jordan, and Shirley 2000) were embraced. This meant the study aimed to explore how participants experienced mental health within the context of their social world, and meaning was co-constructed by the researchers and participants.

As the name suggests, reflexivity is a core component of RTA and researchers must be open about their assumptions and potential influence on the research (Braun and Clarke 2022). The researchers acknowledge they have no lived experience of incarceration or correctional work and therefore approached the research as outsiders. They recognized they may hold unconscious bias about prison spaces and those within, and thus used appreciative inquiry to direct their reflections on the prison workspace, for example, by journaling and engaging in supervision to recognise their assumptions. The researchers hold an interest in salutogenesis and positive health outcomes, and this may have influenced the way questions were asked and/or what data was attended to during analysis.

RTA followed the iterative six phase process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2022). The first author conducted data analysis and first familiarized themselves with the data by (re)listening to interviews, (re)reading transcripts, and writing observational notes. Following this familiarisation phase, initial codes (analytic units capturing one observation) and analytical notes were systematically generated by hand and then in NVivo 12QSR International Pty Ltd (2020). Codes were then clustered, collapsed, or combined to generate provisional themes and thematic maps. Themes draw together multiple codes/observations and are underpinned by a shared meaning. When generating provisional themes several different variations of thematic maps were drawn and discussed by the research team. Provisional themes were then reviewed against the coded data and the entire dataset. Once reviewed, themes were defined and named so the central concept of each theme was apparent.

Results

RTA generated three interacting themes, each with their own sub-themes (see Figure 1). Each theme is described and supported below with verbatim quotes. Some quotes have been edited to redact confidential information that would potentially enable identification of specific prisons, prison residents, or COs. Any edited segments are presented in square brackets, and italics represent emphasis as stated by participants.

Figure 1. A thematic map of CO mental health.

The job changes you

Participants felt ‘the job changes you’ (Participant 15). Variations of this phrase were used by COs to reflect personal changes they recognized to their sense of self, daily functioning, and mental health that they attributed to their work. This theme comprised two sub-themes including positive changes and negative changes. These positive and negative changes could co-occur, meaning officers had to manage the tensions between them.

Positive changes

Participants recognized changes to themselves they considered to be positive or that added value to their lives, including a sense of personal growth and purpose in life. They directly attributed these positive changes to their work in corrections. Personal growth tended to be borne from potentially psychologically traumatic or stressful work experiences: ‘I think being in a stressed environment can stimulate people positively’ (Participant 22). From such experiences, officers derived an opportunity to ‘self-reflect’ (Participant 14) and learn. This active language suggests personal growth was not a passive process, but one requiring cognitive effort. Areas of personal growth aligned with domains of posttraumatic growth (PTG; Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, and Calhoun 2018) including an enhanced appreciation for life and freedom, a stronger recognition of personal strengths, and an improved ability to relate to others.

Frequent exposure to people who had many of their freedoms removed and to dangerous critical incidents, forced officers to confront the fragility of their life and freedom which they had previously ‘taken for granted’ (Participant 15). This caused officers to contemplate the meaning of their existence and the fragility of their freedom, leading them to develop a heightened appreciation for their life as it was. For example, Participant 19 demonstrated an enhanced appreciation for their life following a critical incident which forced them to confront the fragility of their health and how different their life could have been had they sustained a serious illness:

I had an [injury] at work […] I thought I was going to get a [serious illnesses] because of it. So, I appreciated my life a little bit more. I feel like I’ve grown in that respect. Uh appreciation for life. Appreciation for family.

Many officers came to better recognise their personal strengths after struggling and subsequently learning to cope with the stressful nature of the work. Often, these personal strengths were not only used to enhance their work experiences but also their personal lives. For example, Participant 14 felt they were better able to stand up for themself after having to do so at work:

I’m much more … comfortable and capable with standing up for myself now. And standing up against … (chuckling) angry [prison residents] … I left my ex-partner after working at the prison for about a year […] I think that the reason I was able to leave them and able to stand up for myself is because of the skills that I gained at work.

Others felt they had grown in their capacity to understand and relate to people due to their workplace experiences. In learning to support prison residents who often presented with complex needs participants developed their knowledge and skills in empathic communication. This growth in the ability to understand and relate to others also translated into their personal lives:

I definitely think I’ve become a very different person … I’m a lot more … I don’t know, open-minded to a lot of things […] I was always understanding, but I think I’m a lot more understanding and I’ve got a lot more people that come to me now asking [for] advice and asking questions because of the job that I do.

(Participant 17)

Here Participant 17 directly attributed their growth to their work experiences (‘because of the job that I do’) and alluded to a positive change to identity (‘I’ve become a very different person’).

Working in corrections helped officers to realize a newfound purpose in life – to support the health and rehabilitation of prison residents. For example, when asked what motivated them to work in corrections officers expressed a desire to help people: ‘[I was] looking for a um … more fulfilling role […] I like engaging people and helping people’ (Participant 7). Although this sense of purpose oscillated, officers demonstrated persistence in their desire to help others and ‘make a difference’ (Participant 14). In doing so, participants endeavoured to embody a person-centred and rehabilitative approach involving empathic communication that enabled them to connect with prison residents ‘as a human and not as a criminal’ (Participant 6). Enacting this human-centred and supportive role was perceived to be ‘rewarding’ (Participants 8, 18, 20), ‘fulfilling’ (Participants 7, 19), and instilled a sense of pride: ‘not many other people can do what we do’ (Participant 3).

These positive changes were embodied by officers in different ways and impacted their identity – they now saw themselves as caring, ‘resilient’ (Participant 2), or ‘tough’ (Participants 3, 17) people able to withstand hardship. This was particularly the case when they compared themselves to others who they felt had not made a conscious effort to grow and learn. For example, Participant 15 felt that their self-awareness of, and ability to speak about their emotions was a significant strength which they felt other COs lacked.

Negative changes

While positive changes were acknowledged, many officers also recognized changes to themselves – their functioning, emotions, and sense of self – which they considered to be negative and attributed to their work. As correctional work was so closely entangled with officers’ personal identity, these negative changes fundamentally altered their sense of self such that they felt different or abnormal in comparison to their civilian counterparts. This sense of difference was implied through their othering language (e.g., CO vs ‘normal’ people), comparison between officers and civilians, and comparisons between ‘inside’ (prison) and ‘outside’ (public) life. These negative identity changes co-occurred with, and were in tension with, the positive identity changes described above suggesting officers could experience cognitive dissonance about who they were as a person.

For example, officers sometimes struggled with symptoms of burnout like ‘pure physical and mental exhaustion’ (Participant 16) and depersonalization which directly challenged their positive self-concept as a ‘helper’. Embodying a helping role and having ‘full-on conversations’ (Participant 16) was described as draining leading to a need to distance themselves from prison residents. This therefore negatively impacted their ability to fulfil their sense of purpose to support prison residents and function as they would like to in the workplace. Participant 13 explained this cognitive dissonance between their desire to support prison residents and the need to distance themselves to protect their mental health:

It’s kind of a given that the less invested you are in your job, so the less you care is kinda how we all sort of say it, the easier the days are there. And the easier it is to get on with doing what you need to do.

Note that Participant 13 did not suggest that officers do not care about supporting prison residents but instead implied that officers found it easier to do their jobs if they were ‘less invested’. This suggests officers oscillated in the way they saw themselves: ‘caring’ versus ‘caring less’ when exhausted. The phrase ‘it’s kind of a given’ infers that this experience was common and even expected amongst COs.

Perceived negative changes not only affected officers’ functioning at work, but also spilled into their personal lives. For example, officers described becoming emotionally ‘closed off’ (Participant 16) and engaging in ‘paranoid’ (Participant 8) or ‘overprotective’ (Participant 17) behaviors like driving circuitous routes home to confirm they had not been followed, watching entries and exits in public spaces, not trusting others to care for their children, and believing the intentions of others were malicious. Officers described being disconnected from their emotions (or the emotions they felt they were supposed to have) furthering their sense of difference. While this could be helpful at work it negatively impacted their functioning outside of work because they no longer had the emotional reactions expected of them by civilians. For example, Participant 8 said:

I’m hard or I’m numb. Uh it concerns me every day when I come home to be a normal person and to have the same human emotions that people in the civilian world do have […] I feel bad that I don’t feel bad. There’s so many things that are a big deal for people on the street that I don’t have the same emotional responses to.

Due to their work experiences, including frequent exposure to critical incidents and violent ‘crims’ (Participants 3, 8, 21), officers had come to see the world and hence themselves in a different way. The world was now a dangerous, hostile, and ‘scary’ (Participant 17) place which they had to protect themselves from by being a ‘hard’ (Participant 8) person. For example, ‘you really change your view on the world after working there [in prison]’ (Participant 6).

It’s a stressful job

Officers described correctional work as ‘a stressful job’ (Participant 12). Variations of this phrase were used by COs to paint their work as challenging on several fronts. In particular, operational or organizational stressors seemed to impact officers’ mental health in both positive and negative ways.

Operational stressors

Operational stressors refer to stressors related to work tasks and the work environment (McCreary and Thompson 2006). Essentially, they are stressors inherent to the job. These included a high workload, shift work patterns, and perceived danger. The operational stressor officers attributed the most meaning to was the perceived dangerousness of the work. Due to frequent exposure to critical incidents and prison residents perceived to be ‘violent’ (Participants 3, 5, 11, and 12) and ‘dangerous’ (Participant 4), COs felt that their job placed them at risk of physical and mental harm. For example, participants described direct and/or indirect exposure to workplace critical incidents including assaults, riots, and confronting self-harms. Such incidents were described as ‘harrowing’ (Participant 1), ‘traumatising’ (Participant 4), ‘graphic’ (Participant 5), ‘shocking’ (Participant 6), ‘confronting’ (Participants 12, 17), ‘gruesome’ (Participant 13), ‘upsetting’ (Participant 16), and ‘horrendous’ (Participant 20). Some officers had also been subject to verbal abuse from prison residents including threats to kill, injure or sexually assault officers or members of their family. The unpredictability of these incidents only served to increase the danger associated with the work, leading to a state of hypervigilance:

The overwhelming amount of violence that I see, um, it comes, obviously, with the job, um … but the- also the anxiety of not knowing when the next person or, you know, who’s the next prisoner that’s gonna act up and take on a staff member.

(Participant 12)

Organizational stressors

Organizational stressors refer to stressors related to the interpersonal aspects of the work and the organizational culture (McCreary and Thompson 2006). Organizational stressors recognized by participants included a perceived lack of support and training, staff friction, and a masculine culture. Participants sometimes felt unsupported by supervisors and management, describing incidents of micromanagement, having their authority usurped by superiors, being unable to participate in decision-making that affected them, and feeling as though their mental health was disregarded. This sentiment was summarised as, ‘they just don’t give a shit about us’ (Participant 17) and ‘prisoners often come before us [COs]’ (Participant 4).

Some officers felt they were under-trained in certain areas, meaning they lacked confidence to perform certain aspects of their job. Typically, this was in relation to adequately supporting residents living with mental illness. This was particularly difficult for officers who felt their purpose was to support prison residents and left them feeling ‘helpless’ (Participant 3):

I guess in a way, you feel that you’re letting them [prison residents] down because obviously you’re not sure how to manage them. But you’re also feeling let down, because no one’s given you that training to help you manage them.

(Participant 18)

Friction or conflict amongst staff was described as stressful, including incidents of bullying, gossip, and hazing of new employees. Participant 9 summed up this shared sentiment as: ‘you probably have more problems with officers than you do offenders.’ Given that officers perceived prison residents as dangerous and manipulative, it is telling that they expected to have more problems with their colleagues, suggesting that staff friction was widespread. These experiences of conflict negatively impacted officers’ sense of safety as they were reliant on each other in the event of critical incidents:

I come across that camaraderie probably … five times out of 10. So, I’d say 50% of the time, that camaraderie is not present in my role … when it’s [camaraderie] not there, when it’s absent, it’s very absent. And it’s very amplified in that job because you are so reliant on other people.

(Participant 4)

Some participants felt that a ‘masculine’ (Participant 3) or ‘misogynistic’ (Participant 4) culture pervaded the workplace. Such a culture stigmatized traits traditionally considered effeminate including the display of emotion. This meant officers were hesitant to seek support when feeling distressed. For example, Participant 7 did not seek support because, ‘people will talk and gossip about me, sayin’ I’m a nut- I’m a weirdo, I’m a nut, I’m crazy.’ Similar stigmatizing language was used to describe officers who did display emotion or the anticipated reaction of others if they were to show emotion, for example, ‘poof’ (Participant 8), ‘sook’ (Participant 14), ‘soft’ (Participant 17), or ‘weak’ (Participants 2, 5, 10, 14, 16). Moreover, some participants displayed stigmatizing behaviors, while simultaneously suffering due to such stigma, suggesting this masculine culture was pervasive and insidious. For example, Participant 8 stigmatized staff members who displayed emotion at work whilst also recognizing negative emotional changes in themselves which they did not want to seek support for: ‘I had this crim [prison resident], [they] [self-harmed] […] I remember looking at the staff, they were all traumatised and crying and stuff and I was thinking “you fairies. Like what the fuck’s wrong with you?”’

Coping strategies

Officers endeavoured to support their mental health through coping strategies which enabled them to manage stressors and challenges. These coping strategies included self-reported maladaptive and adaptive strategies.

Maladaptive strategies

Some officers described engaging in coping strategies they recognized as unhelpful, ‘destructive’ (Participants 1, 7) or ‘unhealthy’ (Participant 13) including alcohol consumption and social withdrawal. Officers who recognised their use of maladaptive coping strategies often also used adaptive strategies. COs consumed alcohol (or knew others who did) to forget work or numb their work-related anxieties. For example, Participant 16 said, ‘I drink everyday now – with this job – which is … just wrong … but it’s a relaxant, it’s almost like my medicine. And then I can sort of sleep and … not be anxious.’ Some participants emotionally and/or physically withdrew from their civilian friends and family, and sometimes this resulted in divorce or separation. This desire to withdraw stemmed from their sense of otherness or difference because they felt as though they no longer fit in, were misunderstood, and/or could not relate to civilians:

When you first start in the job you have a great scope of friends […] because of the nature of the job you tend to sort of narrow that down […] the longer I’m in the job the less and less … of a people person I’m becoming- I’m a little bit, I suppose, withdrawn? I purposefully withdraw from those social aspects.

(Participant 3)

Adaptive strategies

Officers most commonly found adaptive ways to manage stress and maintain their mental health including through social support and humor. Social support was perceived as helpful by all officers in managing their stress. While many found talking with their friends and family helpful, others were hesitant to share their experiences with loved ones out of fear of worrying them: ‘I wouldn’t speak to my [partner] about it because I don’t wanna worry them.’ (Participant 11). This meant participants largely relied on co-worker support and a sense of ‘camaraderie’ (Participants 4, 8, 9, 12, 15) to cope with work-related stress. Colleagues were able to understand work-related stressors better than civilians: ‘The only people that we can debrief to or between, ah it’s- it’s people at work, the workers, because they will understand, you know, your struggle or they will understand what you’re going through.’ (Participant 6). This notion that civilians could not understand their workplace experiences only added to their perceptions of difference or abnormality. While participants described instances of support from their colleagues, very rarely did they describe actively seeking out support from (and conveying emotion to) their colleagues. Rather, the receipt of social support was reliant on their colleagues recognizing their distress and offering support. This aligns with a masculine culture which stigmatizes emotionality and help-seeking.

The use of humor as a coping and sense-making strategy was both explicitly recognized and implicitly displayed by participants. On several occasions participants unconsciously demonstrated humor as a coping strategy by laughing or making jokes about critical incidents or negative changes they recognized in themselves. This use of ‘dark’ (Participants 1, 3, 12) humor built a sense of camaraderie and support amongst officers who were the only ones who understood their ‘black’ (Participants 11, 13) humour. This provided them with a shared reprieve from the stressors of the work: ‘If you can just find something to laugh about sometimes it’s … it uh helps break the seriousness down that we all face.’ (Participant 11).

Discussion

COs work under challenging conditions and are frequently exposed to critical incidents (Carleton et al. 2019). These working conditions can impact health in both positive and negative ways. Therefore, the current study aimed to understand how correctional work impacts CO mental health by interviewing 22 Australian COs. Reflexive thematic analysis generated three key themes: the job changes you, it’s a stressful job, and coping strategies. Such research extends prior pathogenic literature and supports existing theories which suggest mental health and illness can co-occur (Keyes 2005).

The job changes you

Officers recognized both positive and negative changes to their sense of self, functioning, and mental health which they attributed to their work. Positive changes included personal growth and a sense of purpose which are components of PWB (Ryff 1989). A desire to support prison residents has been acknowledged in prior research (Frost et al. 2022; Gist, Ferdik, and Smith 2023; Kauffman 1981; Konyk and Ricciardelli 2022; Lombardo 1981). However, as found in the current study, a masculine culture tends to prevent officers from publicly displaying such desires and/or warping this desire into a ‘heroic’ endeavour whereby the importance of their work (i.e., supporting prison residents) is heightened (Ashforth et al. 2007; Eriksson 2021; Higgins, Smith, and Swartz 2022; Ricciardelli 2017). The domains of personal growth recognized by participants mirrored those of posttraumatic growth (PTG; Tedeschi, Shakespeare-Finch, and Calhoun 2018). PTG is beginning to be recognized in COs but is yet to be comprehensively examined. For example, Tatebe et al. (2020) studied PTG in emergency responders and found COs showed significant levels of PTG (but did not explore predictors), and Konyk and Ricciardelli (2022) qualitatively identified elements of PTG including an enhanced compassion and personal strength in CO recruits. Nonetheless, the available data suggests PWB and PTG may be possible for COs.

While recognizing positive changes, officers also acknowledged negative changes consistent with symptoms of mental illness. Prior research has identified high rates of mental illness in COs, including PTSD, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders (e.g., Regehr et al. 2021). Experiencing such symptoms led participants to feel ‘abnormal’ in comparison to civilians. Prior qualitative research has reflected this changed sense of identity in COs who tended to feel alienated, cynical, and ‘dirty’ in comparison to civilians (e.g., Garrihy 2021). It is notable that participants recognized both positive and negative changes within themselves which may seem contradictory. For example, some officers felt they had grown in their capacity to understand and communicate with others (and hence saw themselves as helpers) while also recognizing depersonalization symptoms. These seemingly contradictory experiences support the notion that mental health and illness are not mutually exclusive and can co-occur (Keyes 2005), and represent the identity work COs undergo in managing multiple and sometimes conflicting identities (e.g., Compton and Brandhorst 2021; Tracy 2003). Identity work, where people attempt to define themselves and manage potentially conflicting identities, is also common across other frontline occupations (e.g., Dick 2005; Scott and Tracy 2007).

It’s a stressful job

Workplace stressors impacted participants’ mental health. As found previously, COs reported both direct and/or indirect exposure to critical incidents and perceptions of prison residents as dangerous (Carleton et al. 2019; Dowden and Tellier 2004). Similarly, studies of correctional subculture suggest COs use ‘us-them’ ideologies and othering behaviours to present prison residents as dangerous to cope with the violence they experience and neutralise the taint associated with prison work (Eriksson 2021; Higgins, Smith, and Swartz 2022; Spencer and Ricciardelli 2017). This perception of danger has been linked to CO symptoms of mental illness (Dowden and Tellier 2004) and reduced wellbeing (Trounson, Pfeifer, and Critchley 2016; Trounson, Pfeifer, and Skues 2019).

The current study recognized organizational stressors such as a perceived lack of support and training, staff friction, and a masculine culture. Experiences of organizational stressors like this have been acknowledged by COs in prior research and found to have a negative impact on officer health (McKendy and Ricciardelli 2022; Tracy and Scott 2006). The masculine prison culture which prioritizes hypermasculine behaviors and therefore stigmatizes effeminate traits like caring and emotionality has been widely recognized (e.g., Crawley 2004; Ricciardelli 2017; Tracy and Scott 2006). This led participants to delicately balance the stigmatized caring role with the hypermasculine behaviors expected in such an environment. Ricciardelli (2017) suggests COs balance these conflicting roles by emphasizing caring behaviors as being necessary to achieve the masculine goal of custody and security.

Coping strategies

Officers used a variety of coping strategies to manage stressors including maladaptive strategies like alcohol consumption and social withdrawal. Alcohol consumption was used to numb work-related stress and has been recognized as a common coping strategy for COs and other frontline groups (Carleton et al. 2019). In support of the current findings, Shepherd et al. (2019) showed the relationship between CO drinking and burnout symptoms was moderated by recovery experiences. That is, when COs showed low recovery behaviours and high levels of burnout, they were more likely to drink to cope with the emotional demands of the job. Some officers withdrew from civilians due to their sense of otherness. This social withdrawal (termed social buffering) has been echoed in prior literature focused on the dirty nature of prison work, whereby dirty workers withdraw from non-dirty workers and instead create strong relationships with colleagues (Ashforth et al. 2007; Eriksson 2021).

Participants more commonly utilised adaptive strategies like humor and social support. Humor has been widely recognized as a coping strategy and sense-making process used by frontline groups (Ashforth et al. 2007; Tracy, Myers, and Scott 2006). Humour not only enables COs to cope with the stressors of their work but supports a shared identity (Tracy, Myers, and Scott 2006). Both personal and work-related social support was important for cultivating mental health and has previously been recognized as a protective factor for CO health (Butler et al. 2019; Misis et al. 2013). Some officers were reluctant to seek support from loved ones out of fear of worrying them, supporting prior literature where peer or supervisor support has been shown to be more protective than support from loved ones when dealing with work-related stress (Misis et al. 2013). Moreover, peer relationships were precarious – sometimes support was given, and other times judgment (underpinned by the masculine culture) was conveyed. Fraught workplace relationships like this have been seen in other Australian prisons (Eriksson 2021) and other frontline occupations (Evans, Pistrang, and Billings 2013). This suggests that workplace support can improve mental health, however, only when peers are perceived as safe. The use of adaptive strategies like humor and social support has been linked to lower levels of CO mental illness (Gould et al. 2013) and improved CO wellbeing (Piotrowski, Sygit-Kowalkowska, and Hamzah 2020). Therefore, adaptive coping strategies may simultaneously reduce symptoms of mental illness and improve mental health.

Practical implications

The findings of the current study highlight practical implications regarding how to support CO mental health. Officers emphasized workplace support as important for their mental health, however, were hesitant to seek support due to a masculine culture. This meant receiving support relied on the ability of others to recognize when support was needed. Therefore, training staff on recognizing signs of distress and support strategies may be helpful. Similarly, additional training on supporting prison residents living with mental illness may be helpful for officers who had difficulty fulfilling their self-identified purpose of supporting prison residents. This could help staff feel more confident in the job and find the work even more fulfilling. Such training should be mandatory to reduce the stigma associated with participating, be tailored to the corrections context (e.g., cover commonly encountered incidents like prison resident self-harms), be skills-based meaning officers can practice the skills they learn, and be offered regularly as benefits can wear off over time (e.g., Laurene et al. 2023). Skills-based programs like mental health first aid training have shown good outcomes in other frontline populations (e.g., Moffitt, Bostock, and Cave 2014). This could be complemented by practices that develop staff trust (e.g., team building activities).

Researchers have previously suggested psychoeducation programs on stress management for COs (e.g., Senol-Durak, Durak, and Gencoz 2021). The findings of the current study suggest that such training could be expanded to include psychoeducation on mental health and potential positive changes. This could provide COs with a sense of hope and develop skills to support their mental health. However, any such program would need to adequately address the corrections context as previous programs have lacked efficacy due to failing to consider corrections-specific stressors (Evers et al. 2020). As above, such training could be mandated and offered regularly to reduce the stigma related to participation.

Social support from loved ones was cited as supporting CO mental health. Given that a masculine culture can discourage formal help-seeking in the workplace, organizations may benefit from mobilizing informal support networks. For example, friends and families of staff could be provided with resources (e.g., psychoeducation, online information) on how to best support their loved one. Other strategies may support CO mental health including increased managerial support (Claringbold et al. 2022), increased participation in decision making, rostering changes, and greater access to psychological services (Johnston et al., 2022).

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

Most prior research into the CO population has been quantitative and pathogenic in nature. Therefore, the current study addressed a gap in the literature by using a salutogenic framework and qualitative methods. The findings extend pathogenic literature by suggesting positive changes are attainable for COs. The results provide support to, and expand upon, previous findings regarding CO mental health. Therefore, the current study contributed to a more comprehensive picture of CO mental health that allows informed recommendations to be made for supporting COs. The current study additionally provided updated data on the health of Australian COs who have been under-researched in comparison to international officers.

Limitations of the current study must also be recognized. The sample comprised COs who worked predominantly in high security areas and with male offenders meaning results may not transfer well to low security officers or officers working with women. Approximately half of the participants had previous frontline work experience which can include exposure to critical incidents. Therefore, it is possible the negative changes experienced by these participants were influenced by their prior work experience. However, this was considered during analysis and the assertion that negative changes were only due to prior work experience was unsubstantiated. The current study was cross-sectional, so participant wellbeing was not explored over time in response to changing stressors.

While COs are experts on their own lives and have invaluable information to share, some experiences may be difficult to articulate or be outside of conscious awareness. Given the reportedly masculine culture and recruitment through the workplace, it is possible participants under-reported negative changes/workplace stressors. Therefore, the current study may not have captured all relevant factors impacting CO mental health. And finally, like all qualitative research, the current study was subjective and influenced by the researcher’s assumptions. For example, as the researchers are interested in salutogenesis they might have attended more to positive experiences compared to other researchers. However, these biases were recognised, and researcher reflexivity aimed to minimise their impact.

Future research should aim to replicate the current study and address these limitations. For example, a more diverse sample would allow for further exploration of mental health differences based on CO gender, prison resident gender, and jurisdiction (i.e., international differences). The current study found COs could experience positive changes consistent with PWB and PTG. These have been under-researched in COs (Miller, Bruenig, and Shakespeare-Finch 2022) and should therefore be studied further to better understand their prevalence and predictors. Further, the findings of the current study and the wider literature could be used to develop, deliver, and evaluate a mental health psychoeducation program for COs. Previous programs have been criticised for poor tailoring to the corrections context and low methodological quality (Evers et al. 2020). Therefore, a program should be co-designed with COs and be rigorously evaluated through a robust method such as a randomized controlled trial.

Conclusion

The current study developed a thematic model of CO mental health incorporating three themes: the job changes you, it’s a stressful job, and coping strategies. In support of existing non-dichotomous theories of mental health and illness (e.g., Keyes 2005), the current study found officers could simultaneously experience positive and negative changes to their mental health. Operational and organizational stressors and adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies influenced these positive and negative changes. While the current study suffers limitations relating to the diversity of the sample and recruitment procedure, the findings contribute to the broader literature by using a salutogenic approach, exploring mental health beyond disorder absence, and exploring the mental health of Australian COs who have been under-researched in comparison to international COs. Further research is needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of CO mental health, wellbeing and PTG, which will be vital in designing appropriate support interventions. Understanding and supporting CO mental health is important for COs themselves, their employers, prison residents, and the wider community.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Olivia Miller

Olivia Miller is a doctoral student in the School of Psychology and Counselling at Queensland University of Technology. Her research focuses on promoting wellbeing and understanding post-trauma responses in Correctional Officers. She has a keen interest in understanding post-trauma responses and promoting wellbeing and posttraumatic growth in high-risk groups including frontline emergency service workers and people experiencing incarceration.

Dagmar Bruenig

Dagmar Bruenig is a postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Biomedical Sciences, Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health. Dr Bruenig’s primary research interest is in psychological resilience and the interaction of biological markers, in particular epigenetics, and psychological trajectories after the experience of potentially traumatic events across a wide range of populations.

Jane Shakespeare-Finch

Jane Shakespeare-Finch is Professor of psychology and counselling who specialises in trauma. Starting her research with emergency service personnel 25 years ago, Jane continues to work with emergency services in the promotion of positive post-trauma outcomes and has also investigated the construct of trauma, post-trauma adaptation and posttraumatic growth in other populations including survivors of sexual assault, natural disasters, bereavement, and people from a refugee background.

Notes

1. The term prison resident refers to people residing in prison and experiencing incarceration. This term is used rather than terms like ‘prisoner’ or ‘inmate’ as it is considered more humanising (Tran et al. 2018). However, it is acknowledged that other (less-humanising) terms have been (and still are) used in research and correctional settings.