The security mindset: Corrections officer workplace culture in late mass incarceration

Abstract

Prison officers’ behavior is one of the most consequential features of the modern prison. In this article, we introduce an organizational culture conceptual framework and build on previous prison scholarship to develop a model of prison officer workplace culture. We then apply the proposed model to original research in a US prison to investigate the relational aspects of prison officer culture during early 21st-century penal reforms. We find a set of collective norms and beliefs among officers consistent with the “traditional” prison officer culture historically documented by penologists, including high levels of distrust of prisoners, avoidance of relationships, and distancing from rehabilitation goals. We name this culture the “security mindset” because officers use multiple conceptions of “security” to rationalize their behavior. Our findings suggest that prison officer culture in late mass incarceration may work against the positive and supportive relationships necessary for rehabilitation.

Correctional officers and the use of force as an organizational behavior

“…COs described control and order maintenance as the raison d'etre of their work (Rubin & Reiter, 2018; Schoenfeld & Everly, 2022; Schultz et al., 2021). Importantly, when officers discussed the specific measures they used to maintain order, they started by listing “soft power” control measures such as active listening, discretion, and managing minor privileges (Crewe, 2011).…”

“…Officers knew they faced disciplinary sanctions for breaching use‐of‐force guidelines and carefully scripted their actions to fit inside policy frameworks (Schoenfeld & Everly, 2022). Elijah, a 15‐year veteran who worked in the prison disciplinary system at HBCC, told me “Policy is really clear.…”

Prison order through the hyperopticon, collectivism, and atomisation: The surveillance and disciplining of Ukrainian prison officers

“…Today, in most western systems, the role of the prison officer combines custody and care (Crawley, 2004;Liebling, 2004;Pogrebin, 1978; although see Schoenfeld and Everly, 2022). By contrast, Ukrainian prison officers perform narrowly defined roles with specialised duties: guards, patrols, social-psychological, and security.…”

“…Staffed by three officers and the head of department, the security department (Operatývny Víddil) was at the heart of power relations in the prison (Symkovych, 2023b). As is often the case across jurisdictions, security was the prison commander's paramount priority (Hepburn and Albonetti, 1980;Schoenfeld and 2022;Sparks et al, 1996). Any decision made by a staff member was weighted against potential security problems and external attention.…”

“…As we know from studies of the regimes of mass surveillance and domination, people commonly become more cautious, less trusting, and more individualistic under such conditions (Fitzpatrick, 1996). In turn, such an environment is hardly conducive to the purported aim of rehabilitation (Schoenfeld and Everly, 2022). For officers, such plural, excessive surveillance made them not only subjects, but also objects of control, engendering feelings of alienation.…”