Abstract
Effective service delivery by correctional officers (COs) requires timely responses to critical incidents, making physical fitness essential. Research across public safety sectors links regular exercise to improved mental well-being, job satisfaction, and self-esteem. However, little qualitative research has examined how fitness shapes COs’ experiences, addresses the occupational barriers tied to exercising, and assesses its impact on officer mental and social well-being. This study analyzes 126 interviews with federal COs employed by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) to address this gap. The study explores the evolution of fitness experiences over the course of officers’ careers, the degree to which fitness supports well-being and performance, and the structural challenges to fitness practices in correctional environments. The article concludes with recommendations to strengthen CO fitness opportunities and outlines policy changes CSC could implement to support officer wellness and retention.
Introduction
Prisons are social and physical structures intended to limit mobility and enforce spatial boundaries for those who live, and by extension, work within them (Turner et al., 2023). Moreover, the spatial design of the prison is a compact carceral site, where the social and physical strcuture of the correctional setting can often shape spatial boundaries and influence the experiences of confinement for both prison residents and prison workers (Moran et al., 2018). Said simply, prison restricts movement and the ability to exercise for all parties who both work and live within them. As such, physical fitness responds to the undeniable needs of incarcerated persons and staff to receive regular time for physical activity. Concomitantly, physical fitness has been linked to reducing symptoms of anxiety, hypertension, and reactive depression (Battaglia et al., 2014) and providing relief from the psychological distress associated with confinement (Sidney & Jetté, 1987).
In part, incarceration is distressing because of its associated “pains”—the bodily, symbolic, social, and societal hardships tied to imprisonment—as outlined in the seminal work of Gresham Sykes (1958). Sykes (1958) described five deprivations (i.e., “pains”) tied to detention. The ‘pain’ most relevant to the current article is the deprivation of liberty, which, in turn, includes limitations on movement. Instead of free liberty, movement becomes restricted, scheduled, surveilled, and controlled. Correctional officers (COs) are also subject to similar pains of imprisonment by virtue of their employment in correctional institutions. That is, their movement is similarly restricted and controlled. This has been labeled the “pains of employment” and includes the psychological stresses associated with correctional work (Turner et al., 2023). Yet, CO physical fitness practices in Canada's federal correctional workspaces, including the performance of physical fitness inside and outside of prison space, have received little scholarly attention. This inattention is noteworthy, as the pains of employment can affect COs’ availability (i.e., both mental and physical) to engage in outside of work fitness activities that support the physical demands of their occupational roles and responsibilities.
Common across Canadian public safety careers (e.g., police, firefighters, EMTs, etc.) is the requirement to pass physical fitness standards during recruitment and prior to occupational entry. In contrast, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) does not require officers to pass physical fitness testing during recruitment, nor to pass fitness standards once employed. Instead, a recruit “passes” fitness requirements in the Correctional Training Program (CTP) by demonstrating effort and participation. Yet, being physically fit is one of many criteria COs are to embody, as it is fundamental to their role of maintaining institutional security as well as ensuring the safety of staff, incarcerated individuals, and visitors (Crawley, 2004; Dowden & Tellier, 2004). Arguably, the CO role demands that officers meet occupational and physical fitness expectations. For example, a CO may need to sprint from one side of the institution to another, perform life-saving actions like cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and then apply de-escalation or use of force, consecutively—all emphasizing the importance of baseline levels of physical fitness. As well, there are consequences for COs who struggle to meet service delivery requirements, including breaches to interpersonal relationships with colleagues, threats to institutional security, or, in extreme cases, failure to prevent injury or the loss of life.
To address these issues, this article presents data from 126 semi-structured interviews with federal COs in Canada which are drawn from a multi-year longitudinal study. In the current article, we examine the degree to which COs consider physical fitness critical for correctional work, the types of fitness valued, and the barriers perceived to fitness practices—all with a focus on informing policy reform.
Context
In previous research, COs were found to use the Correctional Training Program (CTP) to improve their fitness, learn workouts and exercises, and adjust to job-specific tasks like use-of-force and decision-based training scenarios that make CO work physically challenging (Towns et al., 2024). During CTP, fitness is presented as a lifestyle and a regimented activity with check boxes and standards, including an emphasis on “gym-going” for those interested (Crossley, 2006). However, it more predominantly focuses on healthy living through lifestyle and leisure activities, which are described as keys to success (and longevity) in the career. Recruits also complete fitness testing at the beginning and at the end of CTP to measure their own personal growth and to acknowledge any physiological changes or increased fitness capabilities (i.e., increases in chin-ups, burpees, plank duration, etc.). In this regard, the current study offers a unique contribution to both criminological and sociological literature, given that COs are an oft-forgotten group of public safety professionals (PSPs) who are under-represented in broader qualitative scholarship on occupational fitness. In sum, COs are a category of workers who need fitness for both their own safety and the safety of prison residents, despite the varying degrees of organizational support to achieve physical fitness.
Once COs are deployed to an institution, the opportunities to engage in a healthy lifestyle rest on the officers themselves to create such experiences. Fitness and health are at the discretion of the officer; they are not tracked or monitored as part of their occupational responsibilities. The obligation to manage the challenges of correctional work, balance personal and familial responsibilities, and find time for “gym-going” or healthy lifestyle activities rests solely on the individual, creating unique occupational challenges that warrant further investigation. At the onset of this analysis, the research literature on physical fitness and correctional work in Canada was found to be nearly non-existent, particularly in qualitative research designs. As a result, the relevant extant research literature utilized here draws on earlier quantitative literature which remains relevant for mapping the well-being effects of physical fitness on correctional employees and the application of fitness practices and standards across PSP groups.
Fitness, Work, and Criminal Justice
Featherstone (1987, p. 170) confirmed Western consumer culture “latches onto the prevalent self-preservationist conception of the body, which encourages the individual to adopt instrumental strategies to combat deterioration and decay.” One way self-preservationist conceptions of the body manifest is in relation to exercise and the health/exercise industry. At a biopolitical level, this is reflected in how CSC, as a Canadian governmental institution, attempts to manage the health, bodies, and well-being of its workforce. Beyond “healthy” food consumption, this includes encouraging COs to engage in exercise to promote a healthy population, thereby reducing costs associated with illness (Foucault, 1990, 2003). This is echoed at the individual level where self-discipline, both in terms of diet and commitment to exercise, is paramount (Foucault, 1995; Rose, 2001). Exercise, then, is viewed within the current neoliberal context as a programmatic and individual panacea for the mental and physical health of the population (Rouleau, 2022). Neoliberal approaches to physical health shift responsibility away from structural factors (i.e., working conditions, institutional stressors) onto individuals, and COs are expected to manage health and fitness through personal choices, often removed from institutional requirements or support.
Exercise is fundamentally connected to leisure in contemporary consumer society; it is principally viewed as activities in which one engages when not at work (i.e., during leisure time). Maguire (2002, 2008) also argues that the fitness field is constructed as a site of obligations where citizens are to make productive use of their time away from work to enhance one's body and self, all through the channels prescribed and products provided by the consumer marketplace. In terms of the latter, a plethora of local and online fitness experts have emerged within the industry (De Lyon et al., 2017; Donaghue & Allen, 2016; Harvey et al., 2014), which includes endless quantities of fitness equipment and apparel (Addolorato et al., 2020; McKechnie et al., 2007). As individuals are encouraged to turn to the free market economy to manage fitness, this neoliberal approach frames fitness as an interpersonal problem as opposed to a collective issue, as the burden is placed on the worker (i.e., CO), rather than the institution (i.e., CSC), to maintain physical fitness.
Health and fitness have been promoted by corporations since the 1950s, often to combat rising healthcare costs and improve employee health (Conrad, 1988; von Thiele Schwarz & Lindfors, 2015). Such programs are often encouraged or provided by employers through corporate initiatives, but remain optional and are not necessarily required to carry out the job. Nevertheless, there is evidence that physically fit applicants are more likely to be hired for physically demanding occupations and that physical fitness has long-term effects on labor market outcomes (Rooth, 2011). Notably, findings here are not limited to private corporations; they have been extended to public service occupations as a solution to burnout and with implications for physically and mentally demanding forms of work.
Criminal Justice, Exercise, and Health
In spaces where healthy living via exercise takes place predominantly outside of the workspace, occupational stress intervention programs tend to emphasize personal coping skills without tackling the biological or psychological variables associated with distressful responses (Kiely & Hodgson, 1990). However, approaches to well-being within correctional workspaces are underpinned by CO workload and underload, ultimately shaping worker productivity as antecedents of stress (see Spencer et al., 2024 for further discussion on boredom and underload's impact on the CSC CO workforce). Kiely and Hodgson (1990) highlight that the work of COs requires the performance of several jobs concurrently. These include human service roles—through the provision of essential services to prison residents—and security personnel tasks—to quell physical and verbal confrontations. These workload demands, combined with the need to work overtime, are pervasive in correctional work settings; and they also include having to deal with extensive periods of inactivity, isolation, and under-stimulation at postings (Spencer et al., 2024). As a consequence, COs may experience higher levels of cortisol, poor health, or work absenteeism (Härenstam et al., 1988; Kiely & Hodgson, 1990).
Jetté and Sidney (1991) conducted an on-site 6.5-week exercise and lifestyle enhancement program with 25 male CSC-employed COs who participated in strength and aerobic training while working their normal shifts. Prior to the fitness program, 84% of the sample reported the CO occupation to be stressful; over half reported experiencing stress-related symptoms; and most reported CO work as “frustrating, mentally tiring, tense, irritating, boring, dangerous, depressing and unchanging” (Jetté & Sidney, 1991, p. 50). After the fitness training, COs reported more favorable interpretations of their work and work environment (Sidney & Jetté, 1987). Specifically, officers who originally expressed more negative views toward themselves and their occupation but averaged three aerobic and three strength workouts per week reported more favorable changes in mood, attitudes toward their occupation, and self-image (Sidney & Jetté, 1987). These findings are consistent with Kiely and Hodgson's (1990) research, where physical exercise programs for COs were linked with reduced staff sickness levels, improvements in attitude, increased confidence, enhanced worker morale, and improved resistance to stress. Such changes in perceptions toward the CO occupation and self-image support a physically fit CO workforce where “attitudes influence behavioral actions, and as such affect absenteeism, turnover, productivity, as well as reactions to various stressors” (Sidney & Jetté, 1987, p. 89). While CO physical exercise programs may not change the overall fitness levels of employees, they may have added psychological benefits, such as worker self-perception, self-confidence, awareness, or social coping (Kiely & Hodgson, 1990). Notwithstanding, COs are also socially motivated within correctional environments to become fit, based on the interpretations and perceptions of safety from those who work and live in prison (Ricciardelli & Gazso, 2013).
In comparison to and unlike CSC officers, COs in Poland must complete mandatory physical fitness tests. In Bergier and Wojciechowski's (2018) sample of 119 COs in Biala, Podlaska, they found higher levels of physical fitness among younger, more educated and sports-engaged officers (see Bergier & Wojciechowski, 2018). Given that there was no significant correlation between higher levels of physical fitness and the amount of COs’ free time, the authors attributed this finding to “awareness of how significant one's fitness is”—and that leisure activities, like household duties, or sports, helped officers meet the service's fitness standards (Bergier & Wojciechowski, 2018, p. 53). Morse et al. (2011) found contradictory evidence about fitness and COs, including concerns about their colleagues’ abilities to effectively respond to incident codes tied to fitness levels. Such trepidations were linked with their finding that body-mass-index (BMI) was positively associated with tenure but not age, including other health-related issues tied to obesity, diet, and nutrition among COs in their sample. Other contradictions were tied to what types of fitness were revered by COs, including some who had poor aerobic conditioning and preferred strength and conditioning training to respond to highly fit prison residents. They also found obstacles to exercise tied to an absence of ongoing requirements for fitness and limited access to on-site equipment due to “short breaks, prohibitions for use during lunch, and concern about being called in for overtime” (Morse et al., 2011, p. 1043). Furthermore, barriers to CO fitness included other occupational obstacles like fatigue, night shifts, shift scheduling, and working overtime (Morse et al., 2011).
As already noted, extant research on CO physical fitness has predominantly utilized quantitative research methods, with few qualitative studies that investigate the implications for workplace well-being related to physical fitness. The cited quantitative research has served as a point of entry to this study's qualitative research endeavor by illustrating the benefits of CO physical fitness to correctional workforce well-being. However, although the findings of quantitative studies suggest fitness is physiologically beneficial, there remains the opportunity to qualitatively investigate the relationship between CO stress, CO mental health, and CO physical fitness. Although research on CO occupational work stress has increased over the last decade (Johnston et al., 2021, 2022), a recent scoping review of 1986–2023 studies of CO well-being interventions (Ansah et al., 2026) identified only one study (Sidney & Jetté, 1987, cited in this article's review) that found CO physical exercise intervention to enhance “psychological hardiness’ (p.4).
This deficit of research on the relationship between fitness and CO mental health is presented against a backdrop of research findings showing an increased prevalence of mental health disorders among Canadian correctional workers (CWs). Ricciardelli et al. (2024) found 58% of correctional workers screened positive for at least one mental disorder, with screening prevalence higher than previous findings from Carleton et al.'s (2018) mixed-jurisdictional sample of correctional workers (i.e., 54.6%), and significantly higher than the Canadian general population rate of 10.1% (Coulling et al., 2024). Collectively, the research suggests a consistently concerning relationship between correctional work and mental health disorder symptoms. One response to the apparent mental health crisis among CWs is making access and opportunities for fitness and leisure equitable across the correctional workforce given physical fitness for COs has been linked to: 1) decrease prevalence and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress injuries; 2) improve attitudes towards work and self-image; 3) increase the ability to cope with stress; and 4) increase alertness and arousal (Jetté & Sidney, 1991; Sidney & Jetté, 1987).
Nevertheless, research is limited in explaining why fitness opportunities are inequitable among COs and why the demands of their work make it difficult for them to maintain regular exercise routines. The value here is identifying how any reduction in the physiological and psychological impacts of correctional work will positively serve all those living and working in prison spaces. Therefore, this study inquiry is framed within two research questions: 1) Do COs continue with their physical fitness once they leave the CTP and enter their respective correctional workplace? and 2) What potential barriers prevent COs from effectively and efficiently engaging in physical fitness or leisure activities?
Method
Data for the current study are drawn from the “Canadian Correctional Workers’ Well-being, Organizations, Roles and Knowledge” project (referenced hereafter as CCWORK; Ricciardelli et al., 2021). CCWORK is a longitudinal mixed-methods study of the mental health and well-being of federal COs in Canada, employed in all 43 penitentiaries, over a nearly ten-year period (i.e., currently in year eight). The current investigation relies on follow-up interviews where respondents were asked about their fitness, the need for physical fitness at work, and associated discussions of physical health.
Participants were recruited in collaboration with CSC, which allowed the research team to explain CCWORK to CO recruits at CTP. Interviews were conducted virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in person prior to and after the pandemic. COs were interviewed during paid working hours. Analyzing 126 transcripts from 119 participants with at least one year of experience in a prison, the project included participants deployed to all five CSC regions (i.e., Atlantic, Prairie, Quebec, Ontario, and Pacific). Interviews lasted between 45 and 90 min, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and uploaded to an evolving QSR NVivo MasterFILE. Despite CSC's role in recruitment, participation remained voluntary, with CSC unable to access raw data to ensure participant confidentiality. To further safeguard confidentiality, interviewees were assigned participant numbers (e.g., P109; P656) rather than pseudonyms to reduce assumptions and projections regarding race, ethnicity, gender, etc. The authors edited all excerpts for grammar and readability by removing speech fillers or repeated words. The Memorial University of Newfoundland's Health Research Ethics Board (HREB; File No. 20190481) approved the project.
Most respondents reported having completed high school (i.e., 19 stated the diploma was their highest degree), and 52 completed a college/technical program. Eleven had begun a college or university program; 19 graduated from a university program; two were part of the trades before correctional work, and 15 did not detail their education. The majority of participants identified as men (n = 70); 47 identified as female, and two did not disclose their gender. In total, 108 identified as heterosexual, six as non-heterosexual, three preferred not to provide a response, and two did not respond. The age distribution of respondents found: 32 were between 19–24 years old, 64 between 25–34; 16 between 35–44; five between 45–54, one was 55–64, and one did not disclose. Participants were white (n = 95), Indigenous (n = 10), 11 identified as racialized, and three did not report their ethnicity. The demographics of COs employed by CSC based on gender are not publicly available. However, one media release from CSC in 2024 stated that 52% of the workforce (i.e., including healthcare professionals, mental health clinicians, probation and parole, and COs) are women (Correctional Service Canada, 2024). Considering 37.3% of our sample identify as women, we reasonably suggest our sample may mirror the gendered demographic profile of COs working for CSC.
All CCWORK transcripts are axial-coded by research assistants using the qualitative software program QSR NVivo and relying on an evolving codebook (the codebook evolves each year as new data are introduced). A second round of selective/deductive coding was then undertaken within the parent nodes of “occupational mindset [toward fitness]” and child codes such as “occupational fitness,” “physical fitness,” “personal fitness,” and “priority amongst colleagues” to locate patterns and themes through the creation of mutually exclusive categories. Second and third authors assisted in structuring clarity in primary, secondary, and tertiary themes. As well, each node was focus-coded thematically into inclusive but mutually exclusive codes—where each code was broken down thematically (i.e., coded within each code, deductively, to better understand how COs conceptualize physical fitness barriers across their work) (see: Charmaz, 2014; Clarke & Braun, 2013; Glaser & Strauss, 2017). Hence, the approach was inductive and informed by grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 2017), enabling themes to emerge from the data. However, it should be noted that the findings do not necessarily generate a formal theory, which reflects a distinct analytical approach. Instead, the authors term this a semi-grounded constructivist approach (see Ricciardelli et al., 2010). That is, through this process of iteration, codes were arranged to construct an analysis as to how COs conceptualize the role of fitness within federal corrections and within their workplace interactions.
Results
To better contextualize how COs engage in physical fitness, including leisure practices, to stay physically fit for correctional work, the analysis revealed four main themes. Specifically: 1) CO leisure activities and lifestyle choices, 2) correctional work occupational obstacles to exercising, 3) CO fitness practices for mental well-being, and 4) CO physical appearance.
CO Leisure Activities and Lifestyle Choices
COs described how, for some, physical fitness was embedded within their existing lifestyle choices, even before CTP. During CTP, participants adjusted and maintained their fitness, and continued with their fitness practices after graduation and across their occupational tenure. For example, P158 separates their fitness regimen from the fitness CTP teaches, preferring their own. For people more dedicated to fitness: “CTP fitness wasn’t really emphasized very much” (P169), or was not aligned with their preferred fitness routines or needs. P114 described not continuing with “stuff that we learnt in CTP like the stretches and everything [like burpees or push-ups]” because of their dedication to “cardio with weights and stuff like that.” Several COs described preferring to do their own fitness routines that were engrained in their own personal fitness goals prior to CTP—and these included fitness regimens with routine “gym-going” with focused “leg days,” “arm days, shoulder [days]” in efforts to “target areas of my body” (P78). Some associated gym-going with physical strength, which was maintained by attending the gym “four or five times a week” (P445). For these participants, fitness, prior, during, and post CTP, was just “something I’ve always done” (P13). Thus, they embedded fitness in their “lifestyle” even with CTP fitness requirements “nothing changed for me” (P106) as they “been doing it [working out] my entire life” (P18).
Others did continue to engage in some form of physical fitness after leaving CTP, and noted the fitness regimen simply was not as scheduled as CTP. These participants engaged in physically demanding lifestyle activities like “track [and field], field hockey…” (P45). Fitness is then a part of their daily living as a form of leisure: I’ve always been active so to me it's just a part of who I am. I can’t even imagine life without it, I take joy in it. Yesterday, I was doing the stairs for example and then today [I] can’t wait to hop on my bike when I get home, I already have a plan of what I’m doing but other people they’re just accustomed to that way of life (P45).
COs described being “physically active” or “fit” concurrently with not going to the gym to engage in even strenuous, physical fitness (i.e., doing stairs). P13 explained: “I stay in shape from—I’m lucky genetically but I also play the odd soccer game” and P78 echoed: “I like to keep fit and even nowadays I still do my three walks a day. I can’t go hiking, what I used to do but I’ll still do walking, and kayaking.” For some, lifestyle choices supplemented the need for gym going because lifestyle activities assisted with staying fit for correctional work.
Since CTP, fitness presented itself in two forms among participants. First, there is the valuing of lifestyle choices inclusive of fitness (i.e., taking the stairs versus the elevator or, as per P149“I have horses and stuff”). Second, there is the fitness taught in class during modules (i.e., “I don’t do burpees anymore (laughter)” (P149)). CTP encourages fitness, which can be through remaining active in life (i.e., “when I’m not working, I’m cleaning my house doing yard work going to the park” (P134)), or can involve more regimented fitness routines. Regardless, ambiguity existed in how officers understand the meaning of being fit for CO work. Some equated being fit with:“[not] working out and stuff like that. But being where we are, it's hiking, and camping, and being outdoors” (P58), while others associated fitness with gym-going: “I wouldn't say weekly but I try to maintain myself in a decent shape” (P17).
Correctional Work Occupational Obstacles to Exercising
COs described several barriers to engaging and accessing fitness after CTP once working in the penitentiary, like shift work. P34, for example, wants to exercise (e.g., “you want to you really do want to”), positively reinforced by the weight loss they experienced at CTP, but feels their job leaves fitness inaccessible (e.g., “[fitness] it's important. I lost a chuck of weight at CORE and then I lost all my progress but that's just life. You work 16-h shifts a day; you’re not going to the friggin’ gym after”). P95 too shared struggles relating to fitness motivation and shift work: “I did [keep up with fitness after CTP] for probably two or three months, and then that's when it kind of started going downhill, and it was like ‘well now, I don’t feel like going out for a walk or going to the gym or anything.’”
COs described their reservations about attending the gym after work because of a lack of energy that reduced exercise opportunities or their workout quality. Even for those who have fitness embedded within their lifestyle, there are described challenges to energy levels: “Whether I can go on my days on with energy. I try to go four times in the week” (P226). Beyond rotational shifts’ effect on CO energy levels, COs must manage their responsibilities of daily living. For instance, P105 said: “I try to [workout but] it's harder when I’m working but on my four days off, that's when you get to work.” Officers accepting overtime shifts and still trying to balance home and work life can cause “burnout” (P414), making prioritizing exercise distressful (e.g., “just working too much overtime, I think you burnout” (P414)). P134 explained: You get up in the morning, you get the kids off to the school, I don’t really have time to work out unless I only did a half hour workout because I have to get ready for work. Then I gotta to work, and then I’m there the whole day. I get home at nine o’clock and I used to be the person that worked out at night but now when I come home at night it's laundry and …
P134's words elucidated the difficulties of managing fitness, life, and correctional work, even suggesting travel time to the gym serves as a deterrent. Travel challenges tied to carceral geography intensify with the rural locations of some CSC penitentiaries. P104 explained: “I find after I’m done working the three sets of [shifts] and with the driving and stuff, I’m absolutely dead. So, trying to drag myself to the gym, it's hard.” Considering that only some federal prisons have fitness centers for staff, certain demographics of COs can only exercise during working hours as their only option.
CO Fitness Practices for Mental Well-Being
After CTP, COs undergo several life transitions. Beyond starting a new job, they are introduced to prison society. Some re-locate to new places (i.e., cities, towns, provinces) and undergo onboarding. All these changes can produce barriers to exercise. For some COs, there were some effects on mental health, like P38, who struggled to maintain fitness: “I’m not going to lie, no [didn’t keep up with fitness after CTP]. When I first moved out here, I was a little depressed. Just moving out here to a different province, away from everyone.” Thus, a CO's state of being and living circumstances could increase the burden of making time for fitness. Others described CO work as a call to action because they experience physical confrontations and the physically demanding components of their new job.P460 considered fitness the difference between life or death for colleagues and prison residents because: “if you are not in good shape people can die.” The perceived role of fitness in determining preservation of life is in part rooted in the unpredictability of the prison space, including the precarity of incident codes, and COs need to always be ready to respond: [the work] does impact you both physically and mentally and then responding to things, you’re sitting down and then boom, you’re on the run where it's usually you would stretch before and your body is kind of prepared. [Instead, here is] where you go from zero to a hundred really quick (P269).
P269 described the physical and mental toll of CO work on their bodies, with lasting effects inside and outside the prison. Fitness, and specifically exercise, can be a stress buffer for COs: I do and I think everyone in this job should [exercise] not only because we are responders and we have to be able to physically get to where we need to go. This jail is huge. It's sometimes a run to get to where you need to go if there's an alarm or whatever and not to mention just for the mental health aspect as well. It should be a high priority for everyone (P419).
P269 and P419, echoing others, described how CO work “… does [impact you] mentally, for sure a hundred percent it does and anyone that says otherwise is in denial” (P269). CTP teaches about fitness and, in response, knowing the mental health benefits of exercise may also encourage COs to exercise to optimize their health. For example, P38 described engaging in fitness to help “decompress” from CO work and prison. P463 discussed the positive spillover that routines (which includes fitness schedules) can have on mental well-being: “I think [fitness] shows that [it] makes you a happier person, too.” Fitness routines for COs, including officers joining sports clubs, help to manage stress. P99 argued: “… if you don’t have your own mental health strategies and things you can turn to outside of work, then you’re going to turn to negative things. I go to the gym and I just started jujitsu and I have my own ways of dealing with my stress.” Using fitness to decrease stress was echoed by others: “It's definitely a big part of your day-to-day actions and if you’re physically fit or if you’re mentally fit, it definitely makes your day less stressful. (P49)” The connection between fitness and positive effects on health for COs was evidenced by P99 who felt “the importance that physical fitness brings to not just this job but life.”
CO Physical Appearance
COs view their own personal fitness separately from their occupational fitness. The ambiguity surrounding fitness practices is largely highlighted by COs who described being out of shape and yet fit enough for correctional work, which they felt required cardiovascular endurance and some physical strength. However, physical appearance affects interpretations of staff safety and suggests fitness capabilities. In part and for this reason, COs value the ability to complete job-specific tasks (e.g., cell extraction, physical handling, sprinting) over and above their physical appearance, and many recognize an officer's appearance as not always an indicator of their fitness and vice versa. Asked about their fitness, P21 replied: I am not in shape [laughing]. I have to say no [laughing]. I mean if you can respond to an incident, and the incidents don’t happen every day. We don’t have to physically respond every day, so if you can actually respond to an incident that is on the other side of the institution, you have to run there and respond, it doesn’t matter if you’re in shape or not. We have tools to help us, we don’t have to be in really good shape. You definitely have to be in [decent shape]—like if you cannot run from one side of the institution to the other side, well you’re just putting other officers and inmates in danger if you cannot respond … So that's a minimum [standard] but you don’t have to be really in shape. Like six-packs and everything.
Here, CO specific tasks requiring stamina or strength are valued more than idealized markers of fitness, like having a toned midsection. Despite some suggesting hyper-muscularity is not necessary, body-image tied to weight, height, or muscularity shaped how some COs perceive their colleagues’ physical competence and thus their own safety. Participants felt physical appearance affected COs’ interpretations of safety: “like I said, get someone who's 300 plus pounds, you just know for a fact that we just can’t count on that [person]. It's unfortunate; I hate to sound like a freaking asshole (P169).”Body-image remains deeply influential in interpretations of occupational ability, where being over/underweight potentially jeopardizes interpretations of ability. P62 illustrated the phenomena here: “You can’t be four hundred pounds.”Where P336 argued being overweight equates one with being: “useless … for this job especially, cause the last thing I wanna do is be one of these overweight, useless people who by the time they run to the other side of the institution they’re also about to have a heart attack.”
Respondents tended to engender two polarizing interpretations of fitness tied to CO physical appearance that underpin safety concerns. On one side, fitness for correctional work is rooted in workplace attitudes suggesting being “fit” means one “can do the job [but] I’m not a specimen by any means” (P343)—thus appearance is untied from ability—“you can be bigger [over-weight] and do that” (P300). Job-specific tasks can be performed while being perhaps unfit: “I put on a few pounds since CTP … I wear it proudly. Am I beating myself up over it? No. Can I still run from one unit to the other just as quick as the other guys? Yes” (P4). These officers admit they did not continue their workout routines after CTP but still feel fit: “I didn’t [keep up the routine]. I’m not even in a position to be speaking, I’m not even training or anything but I know that if I need to run, actually I have good cardio, so that would be good” (P143). These officers emphasized the abilities necessary for CO work (e.g., “cardio is the most important,” P434, or “you’ve gotta be able to pull inmates apart and you can’t be out of breath doing any of that stuff,” P62). Thus, interpretations of fitness (e.g., “I consider myself average, but I don’t consider myself physically fit no,” P300) can prevail that disentangle appearance from ability. On the other side are COs who confound body image with notions of hyper-muscularity or bodybuilders. These officers value muscularity, even hyper-muscularity tied to appearance. P5explained how “most of the guys that I work with, their arms are as big as my legs,” suggesting a valuing of physicality while P441 confirmed:“I don’t think you necessarily need to be like a bodybuilder to be in this job or anything like that it's not,” despite valuing muscularity.
COs were also very aware of stereotypes about officers’ bodily appearance: “I’ve definitely got like a CO gut right now (P456),” suggesting a stereotype exists: They think it's too mean to judge people based on their physical attributes now, [but] when it comes to an emergency, it's gonna be important, you don’t have to just be a meathead, like I said before, talking is more important than anything, but you need to be able to handle something when it comes across.
Here, a cacophony of body images and abilities exists within CO work including presentations of under/overweight as well as the CO gut/hyper-muscularity. Thus, the markers of physical appearance matter less than CO characteristics like the ability to de-escalate, cardio-vascular endurance, and communication skills. Physical appearance, and the potential fear of being viewed as the “useless” colleague, serves to call officers to become fit. P339 noted the pseudo peer pressure to be fit in saying: I go for walks a couple times a day with my dog but other than that I’ve been eating a lot healthier since I started here because I’m making a conscious effort to do so because once I got here I realized half of the staff here are very overweight. I’m trying to avoid that at all costs.
P339's words revealed how collegial pressures toward fit appearances can exist with fit or unfit peers. Universally agreed however there is a baseline of physical fitness necessary for COs to ensure safety in completing occupational responsibilities—particularly given prison layouts: [institution removed] is like a kilometre long. If you were to run from where I am right now, which is the end of post, to like [redacted] unit, it takes you– it takes me a good 3–4 min running. I could imagine if you’re 300 pounds you're gonna need your own ambulance on the way there, if you're running (P28).
Cardiovascular endurance is thought to be inherent to “doing the job,” and, in response, interpretations of quality officers are laced with conceptualizations of being physically fit—in life and in appearance. Most prominently, COs who perceive others as unable to perform job-specific duties can encourage other COs, like P35, to question their colleagues’ effectiveness (e.g., “Where you’re sprinting, and there's a few officers that can’t do that and it just seems like, well, why are you doing the job if you can’t even do that?”).
Discussion
The current study's objective was to provide insight into how physical fitness informs CO work, to identify the potential carceral barriers to exercising, and to assess the degree to which COs continue their fitness practices after CTP. The starting point for understanding physical fitness in Canadian federal workspaces rested on experience, observation, and research, as the current state of criminological qualitative literature on CO fitness remains in an early stage. The authors’ work to date (Towns et al., 2024) reflects the current state of qualitative research on CO physical fitness. Thus, this investigation's analysis and findings constitute a new and important contribution to criminological research on COs’ perceptions of physical fitness and mental well-being.
Consistent with existing literature, several COs reported engaging in physical fitness because of its stress-relieving benefits in response to the mental and emotional demands of CO work. That is, physical fitness allows some COs to “decompress” from the realities of working in a carceral environment. The significance of fitness is not only rooted in perceptions of safety among colleagues, but also in its ability to positively mitigate CO stress and mental health challenges, However, at the same time, this research acknowledges that CO work is infused with occupational barriers to maintaining fitness. COs who reported overcoming occupational barriers to exercising regularly described increased vigilance; greater resilience in dealing with the unpredictability of incident codes; improved stress management; and a feeling of happiness after exercising. Despite the exploratory nature of this study's qualitative findings on physical fitness as an effective CO coping strategy, the findings highlight the structural components of CO work that concurrently produce barriers that inhibit both exercise practices and sustained fitness.
For these study participants, being physically fit for correctional work did not require “gym-going.” Consistent with interpretations of the fitness industry broadly, current fitness expectations for federal COs are reinforced and encouraged vis-à-vis neoliberal practices, where COs are encouraged to maintain and manage fitness as a means of bolstering physical and mental health. However, these expectations are viewed and treated as separate from their CSC responsibilities. Thus, institutional supports that would be in tandem with such expectations are instead untethered from CSC current policies for assistance and support. It is the individual panacea, then, that frames CO fitness responsibilities as a series of individual-level choices shaped by the complex social and occupational challenges of correctional employment. For these COs, fitness was often achieved through leisure-based activities, such as household living (i.e., yard work) or a physically active lifestyle (i.e., hiking, walking, and sports teams). For other COs, involvement in daily living physical activities resulted in positive assessments of their own physicality. Lifestyle activities outside of the correctional workplace, such as kayaking, dog-walking, household duties, martial arts, sports, or hiking, were all tied to positive assessments of perceived CO fitness. In this regard, occupational fitness expectations are currently constructed as a site of obligations where COs are occupationally and socially influenced into making productive use of their time away from work as a means to enhance their physical fitness through fitness channels that also improve fitness for their roles as COs (Maguire, 2002, 2008).
Such lifestyle choices, a component taught and stressed at the CTP, afford latitude for COs when managing the litany of barriers to fitness. Specifically, COs noted a number of obstacles as challenging fitness practices, including familial expectations like childcare; occupational expectations like working overtime; burnout; job relocation to a new province; and travel time to private fitness clubs. Echoing the neoliberal approach to COs’ fitness being conducted outside the prison workspace, work stress can impact family stress, and family stress can impact work stress. Overall, this compounds CO role overload for workers who are already strained by organizational and operational demands (Regehr et al., 2005). When accounting for the organizational demands of institutional security, shift work, and increasing expectations of overtime, these structural forces cause COs to abruptly and precariously transition between the home and the workplace chronically. Applying the biopolitical model, government institutions such as the CSC encourage their personnel to engage in regular exercise to promote a healthy workforce that then improves service delivery to incarcerated people and also reduces costs associated with illness (Foucault, 1990, 2003). In this manner, CSC may be unintentionally benefiting from COs’ reliance on the consumer marketplace for leisure and exercise practices to maintain their health, longevity, and productivity as COs. This approach suggests the intention is to reduce CSC costs associated with long-term CO workforce mental and physical illness by fostering a mentality to positively influence CO conduct while, at the same time, reducing the overhead costs of providing these fitness incentives for its workforce (Foucault, 1990).
Similarly, as conceptualized in this study, COs’ movement within the total institution is confined and dictated by their occupational commitments (i.e., physical postings to certain pods within the institution) that shape their physical and mental capacities, and even their own self discipline related to physical fitness, both on and off shift. Although these interviewees recognized that the self discipline to adopt a healthy diet and exercise regularly is a crucial element related to the CO work role, they concurrently acknowledged correctional job features and structural barriers that interfere with the commitment to engage in fitness (Foucault, 1995; Rose, 2001). Again, within the current neoliberal structure of CSC, exercise is viewed as a programmatic and individual panacea to the COs’ mental and physical health. However, the reality of the CO role in incarcerated persons’ service delivery and supervision necessitates that these work responsibilities are prioritized above and beyond time for physical fitness. In sum, this prioritization presents unique occupational hurdles when conceptualizing physical fitness for COs (Rouleau, 2022).
For example, managing a lack of energy, causing some COs to describe feeling “dead [tired]” after their shifts, due to fluctuations in circadian rhythm, was a challenge to all COs—even for those who described fitness as being embedded in their daily routines before their CO work lives. As well, motivation to exercise is a further complication because correctional work itself is physically demanding. To illustrate, institutional rounds are every two hours in most institutions. Working in a facility for women's general population/medium security unit translates into performing upwards of 16 sets of stairs every two hours over a 16-h shift. Clearly, the 24/7, 365 days-a-year CO institutional security and service delivery work parameters create unique staffing needs that make understandable the avoidance of gym-going routines and the reported lack of energy before or after a CO's work shift.
In another theme related to CO physical fitness practices, body image and physical markers of being fit were found to provide a misleading illusion of occupational readiness. This perception was utilized by some COs who took on maladaptive health behaviors, justifying a lack of physical readiness so long as they could perform job-specific tasks like running and use-of-force. There was, then, to varying degrees, an association between fitness and safety, where, particularly when discussing colleagues, the body symbolized to others different degrees of safety via the ability to preserve life. In this regard, perceptions of personal safety were tied to embodiment, including how COs conceptualized their occupational fitness and personal fitness separately. COs viewed being able to “do the job”—rooted in job tasks like breaking up physical altercations, cell searchers, or arriving at critical incident codes in a timely manner—separately from their interpretation of their physical fitness outside of correctional work (e.g., “I’m working on it”- a reality that may resonate with many).
COs expressed concerns about the abilities of select colleagues with traits such as excess weight to quickly respond to emerging situations. Conversely, participants who did have awareness of select stereotypes of COs or PSP more generally (i.e., the “gut”), or self-identified as having gained weight, felt that doing the job was predicated on more than appearance and body image; there was a need to be present and able. COs who described being “bigger” or perhaps “average” still perceived their being able to “do the job” and the respective physical demands of correctional work. Thus, within the self-preservationist conceptions of the body, COs are affected in two ways: they are concurrently impacted on a biopolitical level where their inability to exercise caused by occupational barriers reduces their ability to engage in fitness to reduce illness (both physical and psychological); and they are also inhibited by their inability to consume healthy food both inside and outside the workplace to reduce illness or counter stereotypes associated with ill health (Foucault, 2003; Towns & Ricciardelli, 2024).
Theoretically, COs tended to engender two rather extreme notions of fitness linked to CO physical appearance and underpinned by safety concerns. On one end, COs suggest being “fit” means one “can do the job [but] I’m not a specimen by any means” (P343), therefore, appearance is not connected to ability. On the other end, COs find comfort in perceptions of safety when colleagues are hyper-muscular, but concurrently describe not needing such drastic displays of physicality for CO work. Colleagues who are hyper-muscular are valued because their physical capabilities are observable, informing and shaping their sense of safety, even though many valued physical endurance over muscularity. Although COs valued the ability to complete job-specific tasks (e.g., cell extraction, physical handling, sprinting) over and above their physical appearance, many recognized how an officer's appearance is not always an indicator of their fitness and vice versa, i. e., interpretations of safety and physical abilities are still rooted in physical appearance (see Ricciardelli & Gazso, 2013). For example, muscular officers did provide a sense of safety for colleagues if they were also quick to become involved and respond to incidents. The disposition of hyper-muscularity, or even muscularity more generally, created perceptions of ability, tied to safety, and, as such, was appreciated and revered in correctional work.
For those participants who self-identified as less fit, or perhaps not as fit as they wanted to be, the emphasis was on the significance of their cardiovascular endurance and some levels of physical strength, in combination with cognitive capabilities (i.e., de-escalation and negotiation) as called upon for CO work. Despite references to COs with excess weight self-identifying as being able to “do the job” (rooted in physical fitness abilities of running and strength), being overweight in correctional work was equated by COs in our sample as being: “useless … for this job especially” (P336). Here, those who could not overtly display physical capabilities, where appearance via height, weight, gender, or muscularity was tied to ability, had to prove to their colleagues and manage their fitness during critical incidents, challenging interpretations of fitness that separate appearance from ability. The fear of being viewed as “useless,” rooted in physical appearance and perhaps not physical ability, motivated some COs to exercise more. However, it is recommended that future research focus on unpacking how physical markers of being fit, embedded in body appearance, provide a false representation of occupational readiness for those who engage in negative health-related activities (e.g., smoking, consuming alcohol, not exercising), considering that current measures can obfuscate health markers so long as one can “do the job.”
Conclusion and Recommendations
Drawing on the studies of CO physical fitness, the authors suggest one potential intervention to improve/address these issues—an on-site fitness facility for COs to use at their own leisure, including during lunches, or before/after their shifts. However, the realities tied to institutional security measures that restrict break time, CO work schedules that accommodate understaffing and schedule overtime, and outside family commitments may impact COs’ utilization of facility physical fitness accommodations. Although on-site fitness facilities would constitute a much needed intervention, COs in the current study suggested they enjoy leisure activities more so than traditional “gym-going,” Thus, CSC should address this need and bolster CO physical and mental well-being at the policy level. Developing a list of interventions to consider should include addressing a variety of identified barriers—a reprieve from administrative workloads, the issue of forced overtime, and the availability of breaks during scheduled shifts.
Moving into the future and drawing from the current research, interviewees described leisure studies as their preferred form of physical activity. Notably, several participants showcased the CSC's laudable efforts via the CTP to create long-lasting fitness habits to encourage CO lifestyle changes. Ideally, CSC should continue with the CTP vision of fitness by creating an in-house personal fitness room and a corresponding weight-lifting module to help COs learn how to safely and effectively strength-train.
Another key policy intervention step for CSC to consider—one that echoes the message that COs value lifestyle and leisure activities as coping strategies to deal with the stress of correctional work—is the creation of wellness packages in the form of benefits or financial incentives for COs to engage in a variety of physical activities and leisure practices. Again, leisure practices were reported to us by COs as activities for well-being that they enjoy doing (i.e., kayaking, hiking, sports, cycling, private fitness club memberships for martial arts, Cross Fit or Good Life Fitness) and policy commitments by CSC to make leaisure more equitbale across the CO workforce could also increase the likelihood of COs' physical fitness engagement. Some COs also suggested that the identified barriers to fitness practices could be reduced if CO personal fitness rooms existed or were re-opened inside federal penitentiaries (i.e., only some institutions have staff gyms). In sum and where feasible, CSC should consider re-opening existing personal fitness rooms inside penitentiaries, investing in the creation of mutually inclusive spaces for leisure practices for both incarcerated people and COs to enjoy.
Footnotes
Ethics Approval Statement
The data collection for this research project was granted approval from Memorial University of Newfoundland's Health Research Ethics Board (HREB: File No. 20190481).
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Canadian Institute of Health Research (grants No. 449140, 2113887, 411385, and 422567), Correctional Services Canada, and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Union of Safety and Justice Employees, and the Memorial University of Newfoundland supported this work.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.