Across the United States, correctional agencies are facing a problem that administrators know all too well: There simply are not enough officers. Vacancies are high. Excessive overtime has become commonplace. In some facilities, officers are working double shifts just to keep institutions running. [1] Recruitment pipelines have slowed, and experienced staff are leaving faster than agencies can replace them.
State departments of correction are responding by opening the checkbook. Hiring bonuses. Retention bonuses. Referral incentives. Emergency pay raises.
Some agencies are offering thousands, and sometimes tens of thousands, of dollars to bring people in the door or convince current staff to stay. The assumption behind these policies is simple: Staffing is a financial problem, so financial incentives should solve it.
But here is the uncomfortable question corrections leaders should be asking: Do we actually know that these policies work?
Right now, the honest answer in many places is no.
What do we actually know about incentives?
Across the country, millions of dollars are being spent on staffing incentives that have rarely been evaluated in any systematic way. Agencies implement them quickly, often under political pressure or operational necessity, but few departments of correction collect the data needed to determine whether the policies actually improve recruitment or retention.
Consider hiring bonuses. They may increase applications in the short term. But do those hires stay? If someone joins, collects the bonus, and leaves a year later, the agency may have spent thousands of dollars without improving long-term staffing stability. Moreover, what do we know about people who come to the job solely because of a lucrative signing bonus? How do they compare to someone who chose the career not for the money, but to help people turn their lives around? [2,3]
Retention bonuses raise similar concerns. They may delay resignations for a period of time, but do they reduce turnover overall? Or do they simply postpone departures until the required service period ends, at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer?
These are not philosophical questions. They are empirical ones. And they are answerable, if agencies take steps to measure them.
The irony is that corrections systems rely heavily on data in other areas. Departments generally track use-of-force incidents, grievances, assaults on staff and inmates, and recidivism of those released. Yet when it comes to staffing policies, arguably the most pressing issue facing many institutions and potentially the most costly, we often rely on assumptions and guesswork rather than evidence.
There is another reason financial incentives alone may fall short.
Correctional work is not just another job. Officers operate in one of the most challenging work environments in government. They are responsible for maintaining order in complex institutions while interacting daily with incarcerated individuals. Because of this, the factors that influence recruitment and retention are broader than salary alone.
Start with evidence, not assumptions
So what should corrections agencies do differently? Start with evidence.
First, departments should treat new staffing policies as pilot programs rather than permanent fixes. When a hiring bonus or retention incentive is introduced, agencies should track outcomes. Did applications increase? Did hires stay longer than previous cohorts? Did overtime decline?
Second, corrections systems need better information about why officers leave. Exit interviews are often inconsistent or underutilized. Standardizing this process across facilities could reveal patterns that point to real solutions.
Third, agencies should pay closer attention to who they recruit, not just how many people they recruit. Research suggests that motivations for entering correctional work and attitudes toward incarcerated individuals shape how officers approach the job. [3] Recruiting people who understand the realities of the profession may improve both performance and retention.
Finally, agencies should share what they learn. Right now, departments across the country are experimenting with staffing policies in isolation. If they shared their results, the field could learn far more quickly what works and what does not.
The larger point is straightforward: Corrections staffing is too important and too expensive to be guided by guesswork. Bonuses may ultimately prove useful. But until we measure their impact and compare them to other approaches, we are simply hoping they work.
References
- Greenwood R. (November 24, 2005). When the job takes you away: How mandatory overtime breaks down officers and families.
- Burton AL, et al. (2024). Understanding who is hired to work in U.S. prisons and why it matters: A call for research. Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research, 9(2), 287-308.
- Burton AL, Jonson CL, Miller WT, Cook R. (2022). Likely to stay or bound to leave? Exploring prior work histories of correctional officer recruits. Corrections Today, 84(5), 24-28.
