The Challenge of Alcohol Dependency among Uniformed Prison Officers in Kenya

The Challenge of Alcohol Dependency among Uniformed Prison Officers in Kenya

Jane W Kirii, Lawrence Ojwang

Prisons Department, Kenya Prisons Service

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000450

Received: 14 May 2025; Accepted: 17 May 2025; Published: 21 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the growing challenge of alcohol dependency among prison officers within the Kenya Prisons Service (KPS). Specifically, it focuses on evaluating success rates of alcoholic prison officers placed in rehabilitation centers; assessing the effectiveness of the programs offered at the rehabilitation centers; examining the factors influencing relapse into alcohol dependency; and identifying consequences of alcohol dependency among prison officers. Alcohol dependency has emerged as a significant occupational health concern for correctional institutions globally, exacerbated by the inherently stressful, high-risk environment of prison work. Despite existing interventions by the KPS, such as medical insurance coverage, mental health facilities, and training programs, alcohol dependency continues to pose a threat to the staff productivity, service delivery and security of the prisons. The study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods, with data collected via a Google Forms questionnaire distributed to prison officers across Kenya. A total of 137 officers participated, representing diverse demographic characteristics, educational backgrounds, and ranks. Data analysis included descriptive statistics for quantitative responses and thematic analysis for qualitative data. Findings revealed that while 39% of respondents deemed rehabilitation efforts “somewhat successful,” only 5.1% considered them fully successful. Factors contributing to relapse include high occupational stress, trauma exposure, normalized drinking culture, peer pressure, lack of post-rehabilitation support, unresolved personal and mental health issues, financial stress, and stigmatization within the institution. Rehabilitation programs such as detoxification and life skills training received higher success ratings, while 12-step recovery programs and support groups showed moderate effectiveness. However, many participants identified the lack of aftercare, involuntary treatment participation, and failure to address root causes of addiction as major barriers to sustained recovery. Officers noted that some rehabilitation facilities were profit-driven and not tailored to the specific needs of prison staff. The impact of alcohol dependency is multifaceted. At the individual level, it leads to chronic health issues, mental health deterioration, and isolation. Professionally, it contributes to absenteeism, misconduct, impaired decision-making, and workplace accidents-factors that directly undermine prison security. Families of affected officers also experience emotional and financial stress, divorce and separation, while the institution suffers from reduced staff morale, increased disciplinary cases, and compromised rehabilitation efforts for inmates. Based on the findings, the paper makes key policy recommendations including: establishing structured aftercare programs; recognizing alcohol dependency as a medical condition; integrating technology into treatment; strengthening peer support networks; introducing mental health screenings; providing tailored treatment options; and promoting a non-stigmatizing workplace culture. It further calls for targeted supervisor training to detect early signs of addiction and the implementation of gradual reintegration strategies post-treatment.

INTRODUCTION

Background

Prison officers worldwide play a critical role in the rehabilitation and reformation of offenders, as well as in enhancing security through safe containment (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). However, these functions are increasingly being jeopardized by the rising trend of alcohol abuse and dependency. Alcohol dependency among prison officers presents numerous challenges, including poor performance, absenteeism, and issues with retention. There is, therefore, a pressing need for adequate measures to address this issue.

Alcoholism dependency is a global phenomenon that many countries are grappling. Studies have shown that prison work is associated with several risk factors, including high workload, underutilization of skills, and emotionally interaction with offenders, colleagues, and supervisors (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). These stressors make officers more susceptible to health-related issues, including alcohol use (Muteti, 2008). According to Morse, Dussetschleger, Warren, and Cherniack (2011), 11.1% of corrections officers reported consuming at least 15 drinks per week-significantly higher than the United States national estimate of 4.8% (National Center for Health Statistics, 2010).

Wellbeing for Staff 

Staff are essential for well-functioning corrections systems. However, many jurisdictions are facing significant challenges in the recruitment and retention of staff with correctional officers noting high levels of stress, burnout, and mental health challenges. This section presents wellbeing of staff, including:

Staff Recruitment and Retention

Kenya Prisons Service (KPS) has a population of approximately 30,670 uniformed officers. This is against an establishment of 37,000 officers as of 31st December 2024. This represents a deficit of over 6,000 officers, highlighting the urgent need for strategies that not only attract new recruits but also retains existing personnel. Retaining such a population requires a strategy as the department continues to grapple with the challenge of staff turnover especially desertion of officers.

Training and Development

One of the key mandate of the KPS is Staff Training and Development. The department ensures that prison staff are adequately trained and equipped to carry out their duties effectively. this is realized through enhancing skills and well-being through professional development and training programs. KPS has internal training program including initial training, on-the-job training, and specialized training; external training programs supported by non-governmental organizations, such as Faraja Trust and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Workplace Culture and Support Systems

Workplace culture shapes how employees interact and work within an organization. The department has put in place ways in which workplace culture is enhanced. Key areas of focus include: peer support systems, such as staff forums, team-building activities and social events.

Relationships and Fairness

Maintaining positive relationships among officers, and between officers and inmates, is critical for operational efficiency and staff wellbeing. Equally, important is the promotion of fairness, which fosters transparency and accountability.

Workplace Safety and Resilience

Ensuring the safety and wellbeing of prison officers is paramount. This section narrows down to the challenge of mental health in prisons and will specifically examine the challenge of alcohol dependency among uniformed prison officers in Kenya.

Objectives

This paper aimed to: evaluate the success rates of alcoholic prison officers placed in rehabilitation centers; assess factors influencing success in rehabilitation; evaluate the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programs; examine the causes of relapse among rehabilitated officers; and finally, identify the consequences of alcohol dependency among prison officers.

Statement of the Problem

KPS has implemented several measures to promote the mental well-being of its officers, including the provision of comprehensive medical insurance. The department has acknowledged the growing need for mental health services due to factors such as alcohol and substance abuse and high workload. Despite these efforts, alcohol dependency remains a persistent issue. Data from KPS shows a troubling trend in alcohol addiction.  Table 1.1 provides the data on officers who received treatment due to alcohol addiction.

Table 1.1 Number of officers who received treatment in a mental health facility

Source: KPS (2024)

Over 60% of the officers who underwent treatment as shown in Table 1.1 above (KPS, 2024) are estimated to have relapsed, underscoring the severity of alcohol dependency among officers. This relapse rate forms the basis of this study.  Finally, the consequences of alcohol dependency are far-reaching, affecting not only the officers but also their families and the department in general.

Justification for this Study

This study is justified by several key factors: first, the Kenya National Task Force on Police, Prisons and National Youth Service Reform identified alcohol and substance abuse as a major issue affecting officers (Maraga Presidential Taskforce Report, 2023). Second, alcohol and substance abuse among prison officers has compromised service delivery. Third, families of affected officers suffer both financially and emotionally due to alcohol dependency. Finally, KPS continues to lose valuable staff to alcohol-related complications, resulting in high treatment costs and reduced workforce efficiency.

METHODOLOGY

This study relied on primary quantitative and qualitative data collected from 63 prison in Kenya. The data was collected from maximum, main, medium, open prisons, prisons headquarters, prisons quartermaster, Youth Collective Training Centre, Borstal Institution and Regional Prisons Commanders office.  Data was collected using a Google Forms questionnaire that was distributed for voluntary participation. All responses were treated with utmost confidentiality. The quantitative data was analyzed descriptively using Microsoft Excel and presented in form of frequencies, percentages, graphs and tables. Qualitative data was analyzed thematically and presented in narrative.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE STUDY

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

A total of 137 prison officers participated in the study, of whom 65.7% were male and 34.3% were female. This reflects the gender distribution of the Kenya Prisons Service (KPS), which is predominantly male.

Most of the respondents (43.8%) were aged between 21 and 34 years, indicating that a significant proportion were youth. This aligns with the findings of the 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census, which established that the majority of Kenyans are below the age of 35 (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2019).

Regarding marital status, the majority of respondents (82.5%) were married, implying that they had familial responsibilities. Additionally, 11.7% were single or had never married, 2.9% were separated, 2.2% were divorced, and 0.7% were widowed.

In terms of educational attainment, the largest group (34.3%) were university graduates, 30.7% held a diploma or higher diploma, and 21.2% had postgraduate qualifications. The remaining 13.9% had completed secondary education. These findings suggest that all respondents possessed sufficient educational background to participate meaningfully in the study.

Regarding years of service in the KPS, 46% of respondents had served for between 11 and 20 years, while 21.2% had served for 31 years or more. Those who had served for 21 to 30 years accounted for 17.5%, and 16.8% had served for 10 years or less. These findings point that majority of the participants had been in service for a long period.

On the ranks of the respondents: 16% were constables, 14.5% were senior sergeants, 11.6% were superintendents of prisons, 10.2% were corporals, and 10.2% were assistant superintendents of prisons. Superintendents of prisons accounted for 8.7%, as did inspectors. Commissioners of Prisons and sergeants made up 7.2%, 2.9% were assistant commissioners general of prisons, and 2.1% were senior assistant commissioners general of prisons. These findings point to diverse views from different ranks of prison officers. Detailed information is presented in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample respondents

Success of prison officers treated and rehabilitated for alcohol dependency

Regarding the success of officers treat and rehabilitated for alcohol dependency, the most of respondents (39%) described the outcomes as “somewhat successful.” Meanwhile, 18.4% remained neutral on the matter. Only a small proportion (5.1%) considered the treatment and rehabilitation to be completely successful. On the other hand, 11.8% viewed it as unsuccessful, and 14.7% believed it was not successful at all. Additionally, 13.2% rated the outcome as “somewhat unsuccessful.” These data are contained in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Level of success of prison officers treated and rehabilitated due to alcohol dependency

Reasons for Rating Success of Prison Officers who have gone through the Rehabilitation as not at all Successful or only Somewhat Successful on

Officers were asked to give reasons for rating the success of prison officers who went through the rehabilitation as not at all successful or only somewhat successful. The main reasons given were as follows:

1. Negative peer influence and association with bad company-Rehabilitated officers often return to the same social circles that encouraged destructive behaviors, undermining recovery efforts.
2. Lack of career progression- Without visible opportunities for advancement, officers feel demotivated, which reduce their incentive to maintain positive changes.
3. Absence of personal commitment and willingness to change- Some officers lack genuine motivation to reform, resulting in superficial or short-lived recovery.
4. Failure to address triggers and underlying factors- Treatment and rehabilitation programs officers are subjected to often overlook root causes of addiction, leaving officers vulnerable to relapse. For effective management, triggers and underlying factors need to be identified.
5. Involuntary participation and coercion into treatment and rehabilitation for alcohol dependency- Officers who are forced into programs rarely engage meaningfully, leading to ineffective outcomes.
6. No change in environment, leading affected officers to continue interacting with the same colleagues and friends- Remaining in toxic or enabling environments make it difficult for officers to maintain new, healthier behaviors. Deployment of officers to duty stations they were prior to treatment and rehabilitation exposes them to possibility of relapse.
7. Negative attitude among affected officers- Persistent pessimism or resistance to rehabilitation undermine progress and lead to disengagement.
8. Financial constraints resulting from poor financial management- Post-rehabilitation financial stress, often tied to poor money habits, cause setbacks and hinder stability.
9. Lack of post-rehabilitation support from the prison service, families, and friends- Without ongoing encouragement and practical help, officers struggle to sustain recovery in isolation. A social network including members of the family, friends and colleagues is very crucial in the recovery process.
10. Stigmatization and discrimination by fellow officers- Social exclusion and judgment at work demoralize returning officers and erode their confidence.
11. Frustration related to work and family issues- Unresolved personal and career-related problems fuel stress, often leading to relapse.
12. Rehabilitation facilities that are profit-driven rather than client-centered- Some programs prioritize revenue over effective care, offering low quality and inadequate treatment and rehabilitation.
13. Enrollment in treatment and rehabilitation primarily to safeguard employment- Officers who enroll in programs just to keep their jobs often lack true engagement, compromising recovery.

Success of Rehabilitation Programs for Alcohol-Dependent Officers

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs provided to alcohol-dependent officers during treatment and rehabilitation. The findings are presented below:

12-Step Recovery Program: A majority of respondents (68) reported that the program was successful. Conversely, 30 found it ineffective, 26 were neutral, 10 considered it somewhat unsuccessful, and 2 stated it was not successful at all.

Support Groups/Alcoholics Anonymous: 70 respondents indicated that support groups were successful. Meanwhile, 35 deemed them ineffective, 22 were neutral, 7 viewed them as somewhat unsuccessful, and 2 reported they were not successful at all.

Detoxification and Medically Assisted Therapy: This intervention received the highest positive rating, with 83 respondents describing it as successful. However, 28 considered it ineffective, 16 were neutral, 8 said it was somewhat unsuccessful, and 1 found it not successful at all.

Individual and Group Therapy: A total of 71 respondents regarded therapy as successful. In contrast, 35 found it ineffective, 22 were neutral, 7 said it was somewhat unsuccessful, and 1 stated it was not successful at all.

Life Skills Training: Again, 83 respondents rated this intervention as successful. Twenty-six saw it as ineffective, 18 were neutral, 6 rated it somewhat unsuccessful, and 3 believed it was not successful at all. The details are contained in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Successfulness of rehabilitation programs offered to alcohol dependent officers

Factors leading officers to relapse into alcohol dependency

A number of factors including, personal, social, economic and workplace influence relapse into alcohol dependency among prison officers. The findings show a number of factors which include:

High Work-Related Stress and Workplace Culture

Occupational stress: prisons work is demanding, risky and dangerous, and emotionally taxing. It triggers stress, leading to alcohol reliance as a coping mechanism.

Exposure to violence and trauma: prison officers regularly encounter violence, trauma, and aggression especially from inmates. These may contribute to mental health complexities and an increased temptation to overcome these factors through alcohol.

Culture of drinking: in some prisons, alcohol use among officers may be normalized or even encouraged. This creates an environment that is favorable to relapse.

Lack of or minimal support from colleagues: lack of support at workplace including by senior and junior officers may make it problematic for individuals to maintain sobriety. This is common especially when colleagues do not recognize challenges experienced by an individual recovering from alcohol dependency.

Personal and Mental Health Issues

Recurring mental health disorders: the nature of prisons work makes officers susceptible to mental health conditions like anxiety, depression, PTSD, or trauma. Further, ongoing emotional pain, unresolved trauma, or a lack of viable coping strategies may increase exposure to relapse. These conditions can contribute to the desire to abuse alcohol as a form of self-medication.

Lack of Adequate or Inadequate Support Systems

Weak social or family support: if the officer lacks a supportive social network including family members, friends or colleagues they run a high risk of relapse. Affected officers require someone to walk with throughout the journey of recovery.

Isolation: prison officers sometimes work in secluded environments including at the watch towers. This can lead to feelings of isolation, loneliness and detachment. The officers are therefore likely to indulge into alcoholism.

Pressure to Return to Normal Life and Ineffective Coping Mechanisms

Challenges in reintegration: after treatment and rehabilitation, officers require support for them to reintegrate. However, returning to the stressful and high-pressure environment of the prison work may trigger relapse into alcoholism. Further, without developing healthier and positive coping mechanisms, alcohol can remain an easy escape for dealing with officer’s stress or emotional pain.

Poor post-rehabilitation follow-up: there is poor or a lack of aftercare or ongoing support programs for officers affected by alcohol dependency. Such programs include therapy or counseling. Lack or inadequate aftercare programs exposes officers to relapse after leaving the rehabilitation center.

Unresolved Trauma and Coping Mechanisms

Unaddressed trauma: factors that influenced alcohol dependency should be adequately identified and addressed during treatment and rehabilitation. If they are not addressed, they can continue to drive the officer back to alcoholism as a coping strategy.

Socioeconomic Factors

Financial pressures: financial constraints including commitment to loans facilities can contribute to stress. When officers struggle financially, there is an increasing possibility of relapsing to alcohol as a way of evading the financial constraints.

Lack of Motivation or Commitment to Recovery

Low motivation for change: if the officer has no free will to change their behavior of alcoholism or recover or is pursuing treatment as a result of external forces for instance mandatory rehabilitation by the employer, friends or family members, they are more likely to relapse.

Failure to develop personal goals: officers experiencing alcohol dependency must have a meaningful personal goals or a strong sense of purpose in recovery. If they are unable to set personal growth, relapse becomes imminent.

Consequences of Alcohol Dependency Among Prison Officers

Alcohol dependency among prison officers has far-reaching consequences-not only for the individual officer but also for their colleagues, families, and the institution as a whole. Below are the key areas where its impact ismost evident:

 Impact on Personal Health and General Well-being

Physical and mental health complications: Chronic alcohol use is associated with numerous health issues, including liver damage, and increased risk of various cancers. It also weakens the immune system, making individuals more susceptible to illness. Alcohol dependency is frequently linked to mental health disorders such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. All these health complications may lead to loss of life. In severe cases, this creates a vicious cycle where mental health struggles lead to increased alcohol use, and vice versa.

Workplace Performance Issues

Increased absenteeism and desertion: Officers struggling with alcohol dependency are more likely to be absent from work or desert their duties due to hangovers, low self-esteem, or lack of motivation. This diminishes their commitment and passion for prison work. For instance, data shows that 308 prison officers (KPS, 2024), majority of whom are junior officers have deserted duty due to alcohol-related issues.

Impaired judgment and decision-making: Alcohol impairs an officer’s concentration, memory, and ability to make sound decisions. This can seriously compromise performance, hinder effective service delivery, and endanger both prison staff and inmates.

Increased risk of accidents: Officers under the influence or recovering from alcohol use are more prone to workplace accidents. Given that many handle firearms and operate in high-risk environments, this poses a serious threat to themselves, their colleagues, and inmates.

Social, Institutional, and Security Consequences

Misconduct and indiscipline: Alcohol dependency often results in unethical or criminal behavior such as use of excessive force, abuse of power, bribery, or even aiding inmate escapes. Such behaviors undermine institutional discipline and security.

Strained relationships with colleagues: Dependency can lead to interpersonal conflicts, poor communication, and lack of teamwork. This negatively affects morale and cooperation, thereby hindering work performance and overall service delivery.

Compromised prisons security and safety: Officers suffering from alcohol dependency may neglect safety procedures, increasing the risk of prison breaks, inmate violence, and other security breaches. They are also more vulnerable to self-harm, especially when handling weapons.

Negative role modeling: Prison officers are meant to serve as role models for inmates undergoing rehabilitation and reformation in prisons. Alcohol dependency can undermine their authority and credibility, potentially encouraging negative behaviors among inmates, which may in turn lead to reoffending.

Career and Employment Impacts

Disciplinary action and dismissal: Officers who violate institutional policies due to alcohol-related issues may face interdiction, suspension or dismissal. This negatively affects their career progression.

Stagnation and demotion: Alcohol dependency often results in disciplinary records and poor performance, limiting opportunities for promotion. This stagnation can lead to demoralization and a lack of motivation. On the other hand, they may face demotion due to disciplinary actions.

Erosion of morale and institutional culture: Alcohol dependency can foster a toxic work environment, lowering morale and negatively influencing workplace culture across the institution.

Family and Social Consequences

Family breakdown and conflict: Officers dealing with alcohol dependency are more likely to experience marital problems, divorce, separations, and strained relationships with spouses and children, often neglecting their parental responsibilities.

Social isolation and low self-esteem: Dependency can lead to social withdrawal and a sense of isolation, exacerbating feelings of loneliness, depression, and worthlessness.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

This study offers a comprehensive insight into the complex interplay of personal, social, institutional, and structural factors surrounding alcohol dependency among prison officers in Kenya. The socio-demographic profile of the respondents highlights a predominantly male and relatively youthful workforce, with most officers being married and holding post-secondary qualifications. These characteristics underline a segment of the prison service that, while educated and experienced, is also burdened with significant familial and societal responsibilities that may intersect with stressors inherent to prison work.

The evaluation of rehabilitation programs for alcohol-dependent officers revealed mixed perceptions about their success. While interventions such as detoxification, life skills training, and individual/group therapy received largely positive feedback, the overall success of rehabilitation was rated as only “somewhat successful” by most respondents. This inconsistency emanates from numerous interrelated challenges, including negative peer influence, inadequate post-rehabilitation support and persistent stigmatization and discrimination. These findings point to systemic weaknesses in both the design and implementation of rehabilitation programs, particularly the lack of individualized, supportive, and sustainable reintegration strategies.

Relapse among officers was attributed to high work-related stress, normalized drinking culture within prison environments, unresolved mental health issues, and inadequate coping mechanisms. The work environment-marked by exposure to trauma, isolation, and pressure to perform-frequently aggravates vulnerabilities, pushing officers back into alcohol abuse as a maladaptive form of self-medication. The absence of strong social and institutional support systems further compounds the problem, making sustainable recovery a significant challenge.

The consequences of alcohol dependency are broad and multi-layered. On an individual level, it leads to serious physical and mental health complications and poor workplace performance. Institutionally, it undermines prisons discipline, security, and operational efficiency, while also compromising the rehabilitative role prison officers are meant to play. Socially and within families, it results in relationship breakdowns, isolation, and emotional strain. From a profession perspective, alcohol dependency often leads to disciplinary actions, stagnation, or dismissal from the service.

The findings of this study underscore the urgent need for a holistic, multidimensional approach to alcohol rehabilitation in the KPS. Interventions must go beyond treatment to address underlying triggers, offer continuous support, and create enabling environments for sustainable recovery and reintegration. Institutional reforms, mental health support, and targeted policies to reduce stigma and promote wellness are imperative if the KPS is to effectively support its officers.

Policy Recommendations

Arising from the findings of this paper, the following policy recommendations are made:

Tailor Treatment Programs to Officers’ Unique Needs

Design flexible, occupation-specific rehabilitation programs that account for the pressures and responsibilities of prison work.

Establish and Implement a Comprehensive Aftercare Program

Develop and implement structured aftercare services for officers’ post-treatment, including counseling, peer support, family involvement, and workplace reintegration planning.

Recognize Alcohol Dependency as a Medical Condition

Formally categorize alcohol dependency as a disease, ensuring it is treated through a healthcare-based approach rather than punitive measures.

Promote Financial Literacy and Stress Management Training

Provide ongoing training in financial literacy and healthy coping strategies to help reduce stress-related alcohol use among officers.

Integrate Technology into Treatment and Recovery of Alcohol Dependency

Leverage telemedicine, virtual therapy, mobile sobriety tracking apps, and online support groups to make

treatment more accessible and continuous.

Collect and Manage Comprehensive Data on Alcohol Dependency

Systematically gather valid and reliable data on alcohol dependency prevalence, causes, and impacts to inform evidence-based policy and program design.

Establish Peer Support Networks

Create and support peer-led recovery groups where officers can share experiences, exchange ideas on the recovery path, encourage each other, and build a community of trust.

Build Resilience Through Preventative Mental Health Programs

Implement resilience-building programs focusing on stress, anger, and anxiety management to reduce reliance on alcohol.

Train Supervisors and Champions to Identify Early Warning Signs on Alcohol Addiction

Equip supervisors and champions with adequate skills to detect early indicators of alcohol dependency and mental health challenges among staff. Further, they should be to offer basic assistance and make referrals for advanced care.

Introduce Regular and Voluntary Mental Health Screenings

Introduce routine and voluntary psychological assessments to detect alcohol addiction, stress, PTSD, anxiety, or depression early, allowing timely intervention.

Inculcate a Non-Stigmatizing and Non-Discriminating Workplace Culture

Promote open dialogue around mental health and addiction to reduce stigma and encourage officers to seek help without fear of judgment. Further, advocate for non-discrimination against affected officers.

Provide Confidential Employee Assistance Programs

Provide accessible, confidential counseling and referral services to support officers struggling with addiction and mental health concerns.

Provide Integrated Alcohol Addiction and Mental Health Services

Ensure access to quality and comprehensive care that addresses both alcohol abuse and mental health disorders including PTSD, depression.

Implement Gradual Reintegration Strategies

Introduce and implement a phased return-to-work plans that reduce stress by adjusting workloads or hours during the reintegration period. This will help them in the transition to a new environment after care and treatment.

Introduce Incentives for Sustained Recovery

Offer recognition and rewards for officers maintaining long-term sobriety to reinforce commitment and institutional support. This will as well encourage other officers affected to maintain the recovery trajectory.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

Conduct a national study to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges related to alcohol dependency within the Kenya Prisons Service (KPS).

Undertake a follow-up study specifically targeting prison officers who have relapsed into alcohol dependency, to better understand the factors contributing to relapse and inform intervention strategies.

While this study focused on alcohol dependency, there is a need for a broader investigation into the prevalence and impact of other forms of substance and drug abuse among prison officers.

REFERENCES

1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Correctional officers and bailiffs. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/correctional-officicers.htm
2. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2019). 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census. Nairobi, Kenya.
3. Kenya Prisons Service (2024). Annual Report. Prisons Headquaters, Nairobi.
4. Morse, T., Dussetschleger, J., Warren, N., & Cherniack, M. (2011). Talking about health: Correction employees’ assessments of obstacles to healthy living. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53, 1037–1045.
5. Muteti, S. M. (2008). Factors undermining the effectiveness of prison officers in the rehabilitation of offenders in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation). University of Nairobi, Kenya.
6. National Center for Health Statistics. (2010). Health, United States, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7. Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 19 – 48.

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Questionnaire for Officers on the Challenge of Alcohol Dependency among Uniformed Prison Officers in Kenya

Introduction

My name is ………………………………………. from Kenya Prisons Service. I am currently collecting data on the “the Challenge of Alcohol Dependency among Uniformed Prison Officers in Kenya’’. Alcohol dependency continues to pose a challenge to the Kenya Prisons Service fraternity. There is need for an urgent intervention on this area. Specifically, the study aims at examining the rate of success of prison officers’ admitted in rehabilitation centers due to alcohol dependency; assessing factors influencing success rates of alcohol dependent prison officers placed in rehabilitation centers; evaluate effectiveness of the programs offered at rehabilitation centers and finally, examining factors influencing relapse of prison officers into alcohol dependency.

Your participation in the exercise is highly valued and the information collected will assist in presenting a research paper the International Corrections and Prisons Association’s (ICPA). Your participation in the study is voluntary and all information you give will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.

Thank you in advance.

Signature of interviewer: __________________

[ ] Respondent agrees to be interviewed

[ ] Respondent does not agree to be interviewed    end

SECTION A:  SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

1. Gender:

1. Male   
2. Female   

2. Age category of respondents in years:
   1. 21-34                 2. 35-45             3. 46-55                4. 56-65        
3. Marital Status:

1. Single/Never Married  
2. Married   
3. Divorced
4. Separated 
5. Widowed  

4. Highest Level of Education attained:

1. None   
2. Primary    
3. Secondary 
4. Middle level  
5. Graduate 
6. Post Graduate   

5. How long have you been working in the Kenya Prisons Service?

10 years & below       1 1 to 20 years         21 to 30 years       31 years and above   

6. Current work station?_________________________________________

7. Current rank?________________________________________________

8. (a) Gauge the success rates of prison officers treated and rehabilitated for alcohol dependency.

     8(b) If your answer in Q8(a) above is not at all successful or somewhat successful, give reasons.

10. How effective/successful are the following rehabilitation programs offered to alcohol dependent officers?

11. Name factors that lead prison officers to relapse into alcohol dependency.

12. What are consequences of alcohol dependency among prison officers?_

13. Recommend ways to address the factors leading to relapse into alcohol dependency among prison officers can be addressed.

Thank you for participating.