Correctional Officer Mental Health Training: Analysis of 52 U.S. Jurisdictions

• Date: 01 May 2020
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Author: Lauren E. Kois,Kortney Hill,Preeti Chauhan,Lauren Gonzales,Shelby Hunter
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403419849624
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419849624

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(4) 555 –572

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403419849624

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Correctional Officer Mental

Health Training: Analysis of

52 U.S. Jurisdictions

Lauren E. Kois1, Kortney Hill2, Lauren Gonzales3,

Shelby Hunter1, and Preeti Chauhan2,4

Abstract

Research indicates correctional officer (CO) mental health training may be effective

in facilitating the safety and security of both inmates and COs. We assessed

Department of Corrections’ CO preservice (requisite for beginning an official post)

mental health training requirements in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the

Federal Bureau of Prisons. We obtained information regarding instruction method,

training duration, and courses required. Descriptive statistics showed that all

jurisdictions require mental health training, ranging from 1.5 to 80 hr (M = 13.54,

SD = 14.58, Mdn = 8). When considering course titles, the most common course

topic is crisis intervention (n = 44, 84.62%). The next most frequent course topics

are general psychoeducation (n = 24, 46.15%), special populations (n = 12, 23.08%),

specific clinical interventions (n = 7, 13.46%), institutional procedure specific to

mental health (n = 6, 11.54%), and CO mental health and self-care (n = 4, 7.69%).

Future research should examine whether CO mental health training is related to

positive mental health outcomes and other important institutional metrics, as well

as variations in training and its impact at the national and international levels.

Keywords

mental health training, mental illness, offenders, correctional officers

1The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

2John Jay College, City University of New York, NY, USA

3Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, USA

4The Graduate Center, City University of New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Lauren E. Kois, The University of Alabama, Box 87034, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.

Email: lekois@ua.edu

849624CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419849624Criminal Justice Policy ReviewKois et al.

research-article2019

556 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(4)

The United States has the highest population of incarcerated individuals in the world

(Carson & Anderson, 2017), and research suggests that mental health is a major con-

cern within incarceration settings. Compared with the general population, individuals

in jails and prisons report disproportionately high levels of serious psychological dis-

tress (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017) and are more likely to meet criteria for major

psychiatric disorders (Steadman, Osher, Robbins, Case, & Samuels, 2009). Although

this imbalance is well documented, we know little about how correctional officers

(COs)—those on the “front lines” in incarceration settings—are trained to work with

incarcerated individuals with mental illnesses (IMI). To address this research gap, we

examined required preservice mental health training for COs (i.e., training requisite

prior to beginning an official post) for all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and

the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Mental Illness in Incarceration Settings

Some research exists on the prevalence of mental health problems among individuals

who are incarcerated. James and Glaze’s (2006) report on those incarcerated by U.S.

state and federal correctional facilities revealed that about 14% in federal prisons, 20%

in local jails, and 34% in state prisons endorsed mental health problems (diagnosed by

a professional, hospitalized for psychiatric reasons, prescribed medication, and/or

received professional psychotherapy) in the past year. In Maryland and New York

State, Steadman et al. (2009) attended specifically to gender differences and found that

15% of males and 31% of females who were incarcerated met criteria for at least one

severe mental illness—such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizoaf-

fective disorder, or schizophrenia. Another study found that about 35% of individuals

in jails met criteria for co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (Sung,

Mellow, & Mahoney, 2010). More recently, research found that about 14% of indi-

viduals incarcerated in state and federal prisons and 26% of individuals incarcerated in

jails experienced serious psychological distress (as measured per Kessler et al.’s

(2003) measure) within 30 days preceding a clinical interview (Bronson & Berzofsky,

2017). These results underscore that individuals incarcerated in the United States have

higher rates of serious mental health problems than the general public.

Research suggests that once incarcerated, individuals often lack access to critical

mental health services. Slightly more than a decade ago, a survey found that among 134

jails across 39 states, only 40% contained special purpose mental health units (Ruddell,

2006). IMI can experience greater difficulty adjusting to incarceration and commit

more infractions than incarcerated individuals without mental illnesses (Appelbaum,

Hickey, & Packer, 2001). As noted by Adams and Ferrandino (2008), infractions for

IMI often lead to punitive measures such as physical restraint and secure housing,

which may exacerbate anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual

distortions, obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosis. Furthermore, this increase in

the number of disciplinary incidents may contribute to longer lengths of stay, including

being less likely to earn early release, probation, or parole and serving an average of 12

months longer than incarcerated individuals without mental illnesses (see Amrhein &