The New Age Worker: Morale and Strain Among Staff During a Correctional Staffing Crisis

Abstract

Correctional institutions have historically faced challenges in hiring and maintaining a workforce, which only increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Considerable turnover in staff in recent years has led some states to lower the age of hiring eligibility, which in turn increases the number of new and younger officers on the job. This study explores the challenges and opportunities that the unprecedented change in the workforce in one Midwestern prison has had on workplace morale and strain. This study uses data from semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of correctional employees. We find a considerable disconnect between “new” and “old” correctional officers and offer policy solutions for future staffing practices.

Introduction

In recent years, correctional agencies have suffered tremendous personnel losses due to staff burnout and stress, much of which was amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic (Felix et al., 2023). A recent report from the Colorado Department of Corrections found that some institutions have a turnover rate of over 100%, meaning that the number of correctional officers starting and resigning from these positions exceeds the number of those employed. Similarly, at the height of the pandemic, staff retention rates and positive COVID staff cases led the state of Ohio to deploy the National Guard in many of its state-run correctional facilities (Lartey, 2020), while the state of Florida had to temporarily shut down three facilities due to dangerously low staffing levels (Florida Department of Corrections, 2021b). Staffing declined for several reasons, including increased use of sick time, stress, burnout, staff quarantines, accelerated retirement rates, and declines in mental health and morale among staff (Felix et al., 2023).

As a result of the declining staff levels, several agencies have changed hiring practices to encourage more workers to apply and implemented additional efforts to retain workers. For example, many departments offered signing bonuses to encourage individuals to apply for entry-level positions (e.g., Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2022; Florida Department of Corrections, 2021a). Prisons in Colorado have started to enlist correctional teachers and case managers to work as correctional officers in an attempt to alleviate some of the burdens caused by the staffing crisis (Thrush, 2023). Many states have also passed legislation reducing the age requirement of correctional officers, often to age 18 years (see CS/HB 7057; S.B. 1092). It is unclear how reducing the minimum age of hire affects the culture and climate of the correctional workplace post-COVID.

The purpose of this study is to explore the challenges that the unprecedented change in the age and experience of the correctional workforce has had on workplace morale and strain. This work adds to the existing literature on correctional culture by exploring the dynamic nature of staffing and the consequences of change on the environment, particularly interactions among staff and between employees and incarcerated residents. Data for this study were collected from semi-structured interviews with correctional staff in one Midwest prison. The results suggest that there is often friction between the new and more experienced staff. Some participants attributed the strain to perceived generational differences and changes in hiring policies, including reducing the minimum age of hire. Policy suggestions focused on continued training and onboarding are presented.

Correctional Turnover and Effects on Safety

Although staffing levels in correctional facilities were at near-historic lows during and immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, respectively, staff recruitment and retention have been of great concern for the past two decades (Gondles et al., 2023). Facility administrators experience many barriers to correctional staff retention. One of the main concerns is the dangerous nature of the job and the stress involved. Correctional workers are regularly exposed to violence, threats, and workplace injury (Britton, 2003; James et al., 2017). Compared to more senior officers, these effects are magnified for younger, less experienced officers, as they appear more vulnerable to victimization (Jacobs, 1977). Corrections work can expose people to traumatic events and chronic stress, both of which can contribute to mental illness when untreated (Fusco et al., 2021). A 2018 study found that 19% of corrections employees met the criteria for diagnosable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rates equivalent to Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans (James & Todak, 2018).

In addition, rates of suicide (Peterson et al., 2018), depression (Obidoa et al., 2011), anxiety (Regehr et al., 2021), and alcoholism (Shively & Hagan, 2022) are higher for correctional staff than the general population, much of which was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic (Burhanullah et al., 2022). Emotional strain can also affect turnover rates, as officers with increased job stress expressed higher intent to leave (Griffin et al., 2014; Leip & Stinchcomb, 2013). The effects of turnover rates and staffing levels can influence the prison’s safety and climate in several ways. The constant turnover creates unfamiliarity among officers, thus hindering the creation of trust and support among coworkers (Liebling & Arnold, 2004). Concurrently, turnover can lead to a lack of perceived safety on the job since officers feel less inclined to depend on their coworkers (Liebling et al., 2010). Moreover, declines in perceived safety and reduced peer support (Liebling & Arnold, 2012) negatively affect the prison climate, which is also tied to poor officer well-being (Liebling & Arnold, 2004). Thus, these cumulative strains contribute to elevated levels of job stress and chances of burnout that can lead to correctional turnover.

Age, Generational Cohort Effects, and Employment Outcomes

Given the changes in workforce retention perpetuated, in part, by the COVID-19 pandemic, many public safety agencies were forced to find creative ways to entice new workers to join the ranks. Many corrections departments began lowering physical requirements and eliminating tests, a phenomenon that is also becoming increasingly common in other public safety agencies, like sheriff’s offices and law enforcement agencies (Klemko, 2023). Notably, some correctional departments began lowering the age requirements from 21 to 19 years and, in some cases, even 18 years (see Moore, 2023; Niezgoda, 2023). These new policies opened the doors to a younger cohort of workers who potentially bring unique backgrounds and experiences.

Lowering the hiring age also has the potential to change the prison culture. The research is mixed on the empirical effect of different age cohorts on outcomes and primarily focuses on the cohort differences between groups in terms of their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in the workplace (Dimock, 2019; Twenge, 2010). For example, Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) is said to be more career-oriented (Gibson et al., 2009), result-focused, and driven by a sense of accomplishment (Joyner, 2000) when compared with later cohorts. Generation Y, or “Millennials” (born between 1981 and 1996), are often characterized by their flexibility and desire to achieve work-life balance (Martin, 2005). Generation Z (1997 to present) entered a challenging workforce, interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant economic fallout (Benitez-Marquez et al., 2022). Literature suggests that this cohort seeks meaningful work (Schroth, 2019) and is more likely to change jobs frequently, and like Millennials, more concerned about job flexibility and balance (Benitez-Marquez et al., 2022). However, some scholars have suggested that the magnitude of the effects of these generational cohort differences is minimal (Wong et al., 2008), with some finding little evidence to support cohort differences in attitudes and work traits (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010). Others have even suggested that age cohort differences are less impactful than individual factors, such as age and life stage effects, such as marriage and parenthood (Arnett, 2010).

Criminological research that has explored generational differences in the field of corrections has been chiefly concerned with effects on job satisfaction (Cheeseman & Downey, 2012), role conflict (Hogan et al., 2006), organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 2006), and turnover (Lambert, 2006; Stinchcomb & Leip, 2013). Overall, this existing work has found very weak or null effects of age and generation cohort, and it appears that organizational factors, like a positive work climate, have a more significant impact on work outcomes. This study builds on extant work on the effect of age cohort differences by exploring perceptions among prison staff of how interactions between newer and more senior staff contribute to the overall prison climate and culture.

Method

Data and Sample

The study was conducted in one medium-security male facility in the Midwest. At the time of the study, the institution housed approximately 1,700 people and employed 225 correctional officers. The prison is located in a rural and predominantly White community in the state’s central region.

Data for this study come from a larger mixed-methods project on culture and climate in prison (Canada et al., 2022). The current research centers on data collected through semi-structured interviews with 56 staff persons employed at the prison during the study. All full-time staff were given the opportunity to participate. Staff were recruited in two ways: they were sent an email to their work account asking them to participate, and flyers were posted around the facility in common areas. Individuals were given the option to be interviewed over Zoom or phone, and participants chose the time and place of the interview. ¹ Interviews were completed between April and June 2020, and, on average, lasted 1 hr. We assigned pseudonyms to participants’ names, places, and other identifying information to preserve confidentiality. Individual incentives were not offered, but participants were entered into a drawing for an iPad, Fitbit, or $50 gift card.

There was substantial variation in the sample interviewed. All participants identified as White, including one person who identified as White and Hispanic, and a majority (57.1%) identified as male. Participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 68 years, with an average age of 42 years. Most participants are either Generation X (i.e., born between 1965 and 1980; 42.9%) or Generation Y (i.e., born between 1981 and 1996; 46.4%), although some participants are older than Generation X (i.e., born before 1965; 7.1%). Only 2 (3.6%) participants are part of Generation Z (i.e., born 1997 to present). Thus, participants were members of multiple generational groups, allowing us to parse apart perceptions of a multigenerational workforce within the correctional institution. Participant employment ranged from a minimum of 3 months to a maximum of 39 years. On average, staff spent 10 years employed at the facility. Most participants (55.4%) worked in a non-custody position in administrative, health care, educational, and programmatic roles. ² The remaining staff (44.6%) worked in a custody position in which they were responsible for overseeing and managing residents’ daily movements inside the facility. The variation in positions allowed for exploring the work experiences and roles that may relate to perceptions of cohort differences, workplace morale, and strain.

We followed a semi-structured interview protocol and advised participants that the study was designed to consider the factors and contexts (e.g., social and organizational) that shape the climate and culture within the prison and influence the working conditions for staff and the living conditions for residents. The interview protocol included questions related to relationships between staff, work environment, safety and security, work/life balance, and quantity and quality of staffing. We inquired generally about challenges with coworkers using several prompts, including, “How would you describe relationships between coworkers?” and “How would you describe the staffing at the prison?” The semi-structured nature of the interview process allowed participants to expand freely on areas important to them and allowed us to ask probing questions when appropriate.

Analysis

The analysis was conducted in several phases using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, the research team began with a careful read of all interviews in which we documented emerging themes (Charmaz, 2006). We then continued with a focused analysis of these topics, which included coding relevant themes and comparing narratives across and within interviews for evidence of patterns and deviant cases (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). ³ This approach aligns with the constant comparative method and allows researchers to reliably discern patterns within the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Memos were produced around prevailing themes, and we documented any counterfactuals (Charmaz, 2006). We conducted queries to compare narratives for individuals new to the job with more senior workers on key attributes, including retention rates, perceptions of culture and morale, and employment standards.

Findings

The following findings describe themes that emerged from the analysis. When looking at the intersection between new and more senior employees, tensions emerged in three primary ways: generational differences, work ethic, and preparedness. With this in mind, we have organized the results section into three themes: old versus new mentality, concerns about hiring requirements, and safety and institutional culture. Although analyses were conducted to compare staff new to the job and those more senior, study participants talked about “newer” staff and “younger” staff, at times, interchangeably. We do not assume these terms are synonymous and attempt to parse out perceptions that relate specifically to new versus senior staff and those perceptions that relate to younger versus older staff.

Old Versus New Mentality

Participants described two primary groups in prison—a cadre of more experienced staff who had worked in the prison for many years and staff who were new to the position. Participants did not identify a specific tenure of service or age when someone transitioned to a more senior employee. Given recent transitions in staffing, some people felt that they were a member of the “old guard” after a few years, while others felt that this group represented those who were older and had over a decade of service. Participants had varying definitions of what constituted “old” versus “new,” but they generally agreed that there were noticeable differences between the two groups. Participants mentioned generational differences as part of the chasm between more experienced and younger, newer staff, particularly around how they approach enforcement. Older or more experienced staff felt that younger employees had fundamental differences in how young staff approached even basic job duties. For example, Mike Taylor, who has been with the department for over 20 years and is now in a supervisory position, perceived that there was a lack of independence shown by the younger workforce:

We have . . . you know, the old, he has to come in, check-in, do your job, go home, you know, and the other ones where you gotta tell them where to go on, explain every little detail for the hundredth time. And they still act like it’s brand new information. And then you’ve got to hold their hand to go through it. I mean, it’s just we’re dealing with a difference in workforce from when I hired in to work, to now.

He felt that younger staff needed more help than when he joined the department. He recalls,

When I was hired in, they said this is what you gotta do, you go do it, and you went and did it. You didn’t ask you questions . . . and now they just ask why, why, why, and then if you don’t prove it, they might not do it.

In an already tense and fast-paced environment, Mike Taylor felt more stressed and frustrated when working with younger staff.

Perceived differences among groups also led to challenges to communication and teamwork. Amber, who has been with the department for 8 years and was promoted to case manager, felt that there was a lack of camaraderie and teamwork between the two groups:

When I started, it was, you could ask anybody a question, you could do anything, and they would do anything for you. Now it’s just not that way. And I don’t know if it’s the way they were raised, generation or anything like that.

She further elaborates: “so a lot of it is younger, newer staff, and I think it’s just the way that the generation lives and how the world kind of works in their domain.” Amber perceived that younger staff were less likely to take the initiative to connect with more experienced workers, which she believed would add to the overall perceived lack of independence displayed by younger staff. At the same time, the newer staff expressed frustration with the more senior staff, citing that they were reluctant to serve as mentors or even answer basic questions. Caleb, who has been an officer for 19 months, reports, “There’s a lot of older officers that completely ignore these younger ones . . . I find it, for lack of better terms, ignorant of them.” Moreover, he recalls, “There is a complete barrier between the senior officer and the younger officer.” The lack of trust between groups discouraged several younger officers from asking clarifying questions and, more importantly, developing relationships and building trust with their older colleagues. Bob Johnson, who has been with the department for 6 years and is now a supervisor, who identified himself as part of the “new” group, sums up this point by saying, “dealing with senior staff is probably the worst part about my job.” Some senior employees expressed that their younger colleagues have difficulties being independent, especially when taking on confrontational and authoritative roles. This perception may cause older staff members to distance themselves from younger or less experienced colleagues. However, younger staff members expressed a desire for more mentoring, which they feel is difficult to find from older staff. This further widens the gap between the two groups and creates the potential for conflict.

This circle of blame alienates older and younger staff, creating two camps regarding rule enforcement. For example, Jay, who has been employed for 6 years, suggests that the enforcement styles differ between older and newer staff members, which creates tensions. He argues,

Because a lot of these kids coming in are 19–21 years old and they have a badge now and authority and they don’t know how to talk to these [residents] and they treat them like they are pieces of shit with no respect and literally will just mess with them because they have nothing else to do.

Some participants suggested that newer staff lacked positive communication skills, which affected how they interacted with staff and the residents. The “pseudo-authoritarian image” that they try to display, as suggested by Jay, is another example of how this new worker may not be able to successfully carry out one of the most critical aspects of the job, which is communicating in a manner that is “firm, fair and consistent,” as suggested by David Banner, a 24-year employee. Furthermore, Jim elaborates that newer staff “err on the side of caution” as they seem too afraid to question the residents about their movements within the facility. Jim also feels that the newer staff’s difficulty understanding “what they can and can’t do” makes it harder for more senior staff to enforce the rules consistently. He notes:

They’re too afraid to question [the residents], “Hey, why are you up and moving?” . . . so they’ve [the residents] been getting away with it for two, three months and they bring me over to the work area and I’m like “what’s going on here?” . . . they [the residents] get mad because they’ve gotten away with doing this stuff for so long. It makes it hard on your veteran staff.

Erika, who has been with the department for 5 years and identifies as a more senior officer, also adds to this point. She suggests, “I do notice that a lot of the younger officers are visibly afraid to go in their wings, and not confident enough to talk to offenders and things like that.” Both Jim and Erika echoed other participants; they, too, perceived a lack of independence and communication skills among newer staff, who they explained were hesitant to approach the residents and enforce the institutional rules on their own. More senior staff felt that they consistently enforced the rules and were also tasked with overcorrecting mistakes made by the younger staff, which they perceived exacerbated workplace strain.

More senior employees also reported that age cohort differences brought about additional challenges in the workplace, particularly around perceived differences in general views regarding work. Rene, who has been with the department for 6 years, felt that newer staff had less of a commitment to the job. She explains, “I think some of what I see is just their attitudes sometimes are not committed because of being younger and also just that work ethic sometimes.” Similarly, Mike Taylor indicated that he perceived the differences to be quite apparent: “It’s just some people don’t have a work ethic anymore, to do anything.” When more senior staff mention the younger staff’s work ethic, they are primarily concerned with how they approach enforcement, their commitment to the job, and their attendance record. As Supervisor Scott, who has been with the agency for 4 years and considers himself as a senior officer, suggests,

for a while, it was just people would show up, work two, three months, and then they were gone. And the two, three months they worked, they might have only actually worked a month and a half because they were never there.

Thus, the perceived lack of effort from the new staff perplexes more senior employees, and the challenges in employee retention further exacerbate understaffing challenges and general tension in the facility.

Concerns About Hiring Requirements

Participants denoted that another point of contention is how more senior staff view how “these youngsters” view the profession. More senior staff were more likely to describe their work as a career, and as Jim suggests, “Most of them just don’t want to get in trouble. Most of your veteran staff just want to . . . they’re here for a career.” As Bob Smith noted, “It used to be people that were former police, security, military that we hired, now we’re getting people that . . . I think we just recently hired somebody that all he’s ever done is work on a pig farm.” For the more senior staff, the profession provides job security with the end goal of retirement. However, more senior staff explained that they felt that newer coworkers did not share this view. For instance, Damion described,

And they’re bringing in a lot of young people right now. These youngsters, they don’t see things the same way at all. This is just a job, it’s not a career. It’s not something they’re going to dedicate themselves to. This is just a quick stop for them, so they can figure out what they want to do next . . . They don’t try to apply themselves to working with the offenders or working with staff. It’s just an eight-hour shift to them.

Participants noted a recent change in hiring practices, including lowering the age requirement to 18 years and removing all written and physical tests as screening tools. It should be noted that at the time of the interviews, the hiring age in this correctional facility was 19 years, and has recently been reduced to 18 years. In addition to lowering the age, hiring practices also changed over the years in terms of physical testing requirements and previous work history. This has been a point of contention among staff. Hardhead, who had 25 years on the job, argued, “Should I have been working here at 19 years old? No.” Others, such as 10-year veteran staff member Allen, agree, saying that it seems to be a policy problem: “There’s no test now, there’s no physical test, there’s no interview . . . To me, if we had a stricter policy on getting people in there, we’d have better candidates.” Rebeca, who has been employed for 7 years, also suggests it is a matter of policy:

One of the biggest things I disagree . . . is how young we hire . . . You’re just dealing with a very particular group of people, and I just don’t agree with the age that they hire and the group of people that they have to work with.

Therefore, the concerns around the hiring requirements, whether it is the policy surrounding the age requirement or the removal of the written and physical tests, have left more senior staff worried and frustrated with the department’s hiring practices.

Similar to this notion, much of the senior staff perceived that these “young kids” were unprepared for this job. Senior staff perceive a gap between what the younger staff think the job is, and what the job entails. For instance, CO1, who has worked for the department for 2.5 years, and sees himself as a more experienced officer, suggested that individuals are not prepared for what work inside a prison is like: “We got a lot of young kids in there that don’t have a clue what they’re in the middle of.” Others expressed similar remarks, with David Banner, who has been in the department for 24 years, saying that the lack of life experience hinders one’s ability to do this job. “Part of that problem is hiring 18-year-old kids. Kids that never experienced any kind of life whatsoever get the badge and a little authority; it goes to their head.” Other staff members express similar sentiments, with Matthew, who has worked in the department for over 35 years, suggesting that this job is not for everyone:

Well, they’ve reduced to 19 in staff, and I’ve always said this job is just not for everyone. We have a lot of people come and apply that go through the basic training and the OJT[on-the-job training] and when they actually get on the shift . . . they realize, “Hey. I can’t deal with this. These people contaminate me, scare me.” Whatever the case may be, this job is just not for everyone.

Furthermore, Erika mentioned that individuals are not prepared for this line of work and even reflected upon herself and her own experience. “We’re hiring young people for custody that are just not prepared for what you deal with in a prison. If you put me in a prison at 18 years of age, there is no way I could’ve handled it.” In addition, for David Banner, having younger staff members can also create problems with respect between staff and incarcerated individuals. He denotes the challenges of having younger individuals managing a population of older incarcerated persons, many of whom have had substantial life experiences. He questioned, “How can you expect an offender to respect an officer who’s 18 years old, fresh out of high school, and giving you orders, who’s never had any life experiences whatsoever?” Thus, many older and experienced staff expressed that younger staff lack the life experience to prepare them for the complex social interactions they must encounter in this line of work.

Enforcement becomes even more challenging for younger staff, as residents may be accustomed to the patterns established by more senior employees, so they may be less accepting of change. However, as David Banner suggests, it is hard for an 18-year-old to hold an authoritative and strict role toward individuals who are much older than them and have more life experience. Furthermore, potential tension may arise between residents and younger staff as Damion reports, “The older inmates, they do not like the younger generation. It’s almost the same problem. They’re butting heads because they don’t see things the same way.” Similar remarks are expressed by Pastor Joe, who has been with the department for 20 years, “It makes it really stressed out and hostile. Offenders have animosity towards some of them.” Study participants perceive that newer and more senior staff members do not agree on the methods used to achieve order in the institution. The residents are used to the “traditional” methods the more senior staff employs. When the newer workers do not continue with the status quo, participants perceive that conflict may arise among staff and between staff and residents.

In addition to reducing the age of job eligibility, the organization removed the physical testing requirement and the in-depth interview component. Several employees believed that the lack of employment requirements led to a less qualified workforce. Amber pleaded,

They lowered our age limit to 19 and took away . . . physical tests. But if you have people that can’t (and we have people that can’t) even walk from our admin building to the housing units without losing breath, that does nothing.

Allen echoed similar remarks,

There’s no test now, there’s no physical test, there’s no interview. You have an interview process, but it’s very basic. You take one drug test and that’s it. To me, if we had a stricter policy on getting people in there, we’d have better candidates. You’re not going to get the quality people to come in. You have to play with all the competitors around.

Amber and Allen believed that the changes in workforce requirements limit the institutions’ ability to run efficiently and successfully.

Overall, participants perceived that newer staff members approached rule enforcement differently and had a notable difference in work ethic when compared to the more senior staff. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that fundamental differences exist in life experiences, hiring processes, and training that distinguish the younger and newer staff from the more senior staff. The changes in hiring standards and reduced age requirements only further the perceived discrepancies and inconsistencies between the actions of new and more senior staff.

Safety and Institutional Climate

While the generational differences may seem troublesome to many older or more senior staff members, some also perceive that the newer, young staff members pose a safety and security threat to the institution. For example, Jim, who has been employed in the facility for 17 years, suggests that the newer staff are more vulnerable to manipulation by the residents: “They’re getting caught up with the ones that are out there trying to manipulate and play the games.” Jim suggests the younger staff are more susceptible to being manipulated by the incarcerated population, which “feeds into” the increased staff turnover. Other staff members, such as Josh, who has only been in the department for a year, also note, “A lot of our turnover rate is coming from the younger staff [. . .] When you hire somebody who’s 20 years old [compared] to somebody who’s 30 or 35, to me, the 30 or 35-year-old will take the job more seriously.” Thus, the turnover rate only feeds into the notion that this younger generation is not adequately suited for this type of work and may be more vulnerable to manipulations than the older and more experienced staff. It should be noted that Josh is a newer staff member and sides with more senior staff in believing that the problematic turnover rates can be attributed, at least somewhat, to the facility’s hiring of younger staff members.

Moreover, many differences are mentioned as part of a more significant concern regarding safety and security. Amber similarly reflects on the issue, “We get 19-year-olds with no life experiences, and that’s what’s dangerous. That’s . . . they get set up, they get us hurt. They just don’t have life experiences.” David Moore, who has worked at the institution for 2 years, also expressed his concerns about newer staff:

I personally think that sometimes staff is a little too complacent, especially some of our newer staff members. They seem to think that nothing could happen to them, and so they tend to get a little laissez faire about their safety and about the procedures and policies that are in place to keep us safe . . . I think the majority of the lack of safety, for the most part, comes through laziness or complacency, kind of deviate from what we’re supposed to be doing.

Thus, it is not only a matter of dealing with different work styles or work ethics, it is also the perception of looming security concerns that cause tensions between staff groups. Beyond the safety and security concerns, others expressed other institutional concerns—like Erika who voiced her worry regarding staff morale: “I see that more than anything, that morale . . . we’ve got these very young people coming into a very stressful environment, and they are not prepared to handle it . . . they retreat into themselves. They make it very vocal that they hate their job.” However, newer workers also note that their morale is low because of the unwillingness of the more senior staff to help them understand different aspects of the job. Caleb, for example, who has been in the department for 19 months, reports that “if I’m doing something my way and it’s not the way that they agree upon, they will start an argument with me, which kind of brings the morale down for the rest of the day.” Bob, who has worked at the facility for 4 years, even suggests that “If CO’s aren’t getting along with CO’s, it usually drags the inmates in too, it affects everybody’s attitude.”

Senior staff members expressed concern over the newer staff’s lack of preparedness and life experience, which affects morale, safety, and the overall work environment. The sentiment of “this job is not for everyone” is apparent among veteran staff, as they observe how newer staff carry out their duties and interact with residents. Staff members perceive low morale due to their own experiences of navigating staff interactions, with some senior staff experiencing burnout from their perception of having to support new staff. Conversely, newer staff report struggling to navigate the complex nature of their job interactions and feel dismissed by other staff.

Safety and institutional climate are paramount in correctional contexts. While the shortage of workers is not unique to correctional institutions, its consequences can put many correctional workers at risk. The uniqueness of the prison setting is of great importance, as the lack of trust one has in their coworker (e.g., regarding their job abilities and their potential susceptibility to being influenced by residents). The long extra hours worked by more senior staff, because of the job shortage in the field, put prison staff at higher risk of injury and burnout. The staff’s decreased perceived safety cannot be understated, as it was of significant concern to the participants.

Discussion and Policy

The unprecedented change in the correctional workforce during- and post-COVID has posed a multitude of institutional challenges. To this end, this study considers how changes in workplace staffing, including reducing the minimum age of hire and eliminating other qualifications, have impacted workplace morale and strain. By examining the dynamic nature of staffing and the consequences of change on the environment, including interactions among staff and between employees and incarcerated residents, this work adds to the existing literature on correctional climate. It is crucial to understand the effects of staffing changes on the work environment to ensure a safe and secure environment for both staff and incarcerated people.

As typical in this work, participants denoted substantial strain in the institution, which they partly attributed to workplace staffing policies. Senior staff members report that they often struggle to work with younger staff because they perceive that they lack the “life experience” needed for this line of work. Participants also describe that the tension between staff has contributed to lower staff morale and burnout among senior officers, as they struggle to teach and mentor newer officers. In contrast, newer officers often are not sure who to go to for help. The narratives often blur together assumptions about age, preparedness, and work ethic, while also conflating the age of the worker and their tenure at the prison. Importantly, the sample of participants only included two people under the age of 27 years, thus limiting opportunities for counternarratives. More senior staff seem to equate newer officers with a poor work ethic and life experience, but there is little evidence that these differences are at all related to generational cohorts. As noted, complaints about past generations are common in the workplace, but they are not robustly supported in quantitative analysis (Dimock, 2019; Twenge, 2010). We thus suggest that while it may appear to be a generational or age cohort problem, most issues seem to stem from the lack of work experience that accompanies any new worker, similar to the points made by Arnett (2010). It is unclear how much the new hiring policies influence the makeup of the workforce, but they were often noted, making it essential to consider the long-term effects of these changes.

The study results have several policy implications. Most notably, the participants point to the necessity for enhanced training and mentorship for new employees. This is a particularly important implication, given that seven states have no statutory requirements for training (Kowalski, 2020). Even though departments may have a dedicated training academy with a standardized curriculum and formalized training that is consistent across sites, “on-the-job” training may vary, thus making it more challenging to have uniformity in training across different state departments and potentially across facilities in the same state. In addition, participants expressed that many key skills taught during the training academy were not reinforced when individuals were on their own in the facility.

We contend, therefore, that while states are lowering age requirements to fill in the understaffing gaps, training should be developed to fill the potential skill gaps. Furthermore, refresher training could also be beneficial, as it can provide trainees with more feedback on their performance, give them practical examples, and may even increase their confidence in their work (Miller et al., 2023). When staff are adequately trained, they feel more confident in their abilities, which can improve job satisfaction and reduce stress (Lambert et al., 2009), all of which have been shown to impact staff turnover in corrections (Lambert et al., 2020). Thus, focusing on not only training new staff, but also older staff, can potentially alleviate the costly issue of staff retention that impacts corrections departments. That being noted, low staffing levels make elective training more difficult, as institutions may be unable to cover shifts vacated because of training.

Another recommendation, similar to the refresher training, would be establishing a formal mentoring program between senior and newer staff members. This could include job shadowing, policy and procedure reviews, safety training, and overview sessions where newer officers can ask questions after their “on the job” training. This would help new staff feel more comfortable talking to and asking questions of the staff without fear of judgment. Similarly, building from the mentoring aspect of training, community-building exercises could help foster effective socialization in the workplace. This can range from staff appreciation events within the prison to informal gatherings outside of work. Both the mentoring aspect and the community building aim to promote the positive socialization of newer staff, which could help reduce their role stress and burnout (Farnese et al., 2017) and reduce turnover intentions (Griffin et al., 2014). Both implications can help with teamwork and team building, which in turn can raise coworker trust (Colquitt et al., 2007) and help older staff members feel more confident in the skills of the new staff in times of crisis. Newer staff would also benefit, as they would feel more comfortable asking questions and interacting with their senior coworkers.

With corrections departments implementing new policies, such as lowering the hiring age and eliminating physical and written tests to recruit more workers, it is evident that emphasis should also be placed on retaining new hires. While our results suggest that some experienced officers are hesitant to work with newer officers, it seems that these new policies reducing the age requirements are here to stay. With this in mind, the policy innovations presented follow recommendations found in corrections literature that highlight the important role of correctional departments and administrators in recruiting, training, and maintaining correctional staff. Departments must learn to adapt to this new and younger worker that they are targeting in their recruitment efforts, as well as implement new strategies that will successfully help retain and train recruits.