Correctional Officer Staffing in Federal Prisons: Background and Issues

The federal prison system, operated by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), is the largest correctional system in the United States, both in terms of the number of prisoners under its jurisdiction and the number of facilities it operates. In recent years, BOP has faced issues with recruiting and retaining correctional officers (COs). Staffing issues at BOP have become acute and contributed to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) adding Strengthening Management of the Federal Prison System to its high-risk list in 2023, noting that BOP “faces significant, longstanding management challenges—including staffing—which represent a serious threat to inmate and staff safety.” BOP has attempted to address staffing issues by offering recruitment and retention incentives for COs. BOP offered 25% of the base salary for COs or $10,000, whichever is greater, as a recruitment incentive for all eligible CO new hires. BOP also received authorization from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to offer group recruitment incentives of varying amounts for COs at individual facilities that have experienced chronic staffing issues. However, BOP indicated that they have paused offering new recruitment incentives and have ended some retention incentives due to budgetary constraints. BOP was also granted direct hire authority to fill some positions, which allows it to hire applicants without having to take into consideration some statutory and regulatory requirements related to civil service hiring. The decreasing number of BOP COs might reflect a larger trend in fewer people wanting to work in a prison setting. There have been reports about the difficulties that state correctional agencies are also having with recruiting and retaining COs to staff their facilities. There are several factors facing BOP and state correctional agencies that might make it harder for them to recruit and retain COs. Prisons can be stressful and dangerous places to work. Corrections positions tend to offer less compensation compared to other professions in the criminal justice field, and, depending on the job market, potential applicants might find non-correctional work options more appealing. Prisons tend to be located in rural areas that have smaller CO candidate pools than more populous areas. It can also be difficult to recruit candidates from outside the rural areas in which many prisons are located because they might face longer commutes or the prospect of having to relocate. In addition, the nature of work in a prison—hierarchical organizational structure, shift work, requirements to work mandatory overtime—might not appeal to a significant number of potential employees. Understaffing in CO positions can have several implications for the operations of the federal prison system. When there are not enough COs to staff all required posts at a correctional facility, BOP has to pay overtime to COs to staff those shifts. Staffing shortages can also lead to BOP using augmentation to fill shifts. This is when BOP assigns non-CO staff members to a custody role (i.e., one where the staff member’s primary task becomes supervising prisoners). Augmentation can affect opportunities for prisoners to participate in rehabilitative programs—including, in some instances, all programming being cancelled for a day—because employees who operated those programs were covering CO shifts. If policymakers decide to consider legislation regarding CO staffing in federal prisons, there are several issues they might consider addressing, including (1) CO pay, (2) the hiring process for COs, (3) new working arrangements or schedules for COs, (4) increasing access to mental health services for COs, (5) evaluating the mission of the federal prison system, (6) expanding student loan repayment and forgiveness for COs, and (7) improving working conditions in prisons.