Addressing Correctional Officer StressRobert S. Hamel, Barry S. Levin, Michael McGarthy, Mark...

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

StressStressAddressing Correctional Officer

Programs and Strategies

in cooperationwith the

Corrections Program Office

ISSUES AND PRACTICES

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs810 Seventh Street N.W.Washington, DC 20531

Janet RenoAttorney General

Daniel MarcusActing Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou LearyActing Assistant Attorney General

Julie E. SamuelsActing Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of JusticeWorld Wide Web Site World Wide Web Sitehttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Addressing Correctional Officer Stress: Programs and Strategies

byPeter Finn

December 2000NCJ 183474

Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a publication series of the National Institute of Justice.Each report presents the program options and management issues in a topic area, based on areview of research and evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert opinion on thesubject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in planning, implementing,and improving programs and practices in criminal justice.

National Institute of JusticeJulie E. SamuelsActing Director

Vincent TalucciProgram Monitor

Project Advisers

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes theBureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by Abt Associates Inc., under contract#OJP–94–C–007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Nancy K. Bohl, Ph.DDirectorThe Counseling TeamSuite 111881 Business Center DriveSan Bernardino, CA 92408

Gary F. CorneliusLieutenantPrograms and Recreation

SupervisorAdult Detention CenterFairfax County Office of the

Sheriff10520 Judicial DriveFairfax, VA 22030

Jess Maghan, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Criminal

JusticeOffice of International Criminal

Justice (MC 141)University of Illinois at Chicago1033 West Van Buren StreetChicago, IL 60607–2919

John MaloySuperintendentTraining AcademyNew York State Department of

Correctional Services1134 New Scotland RoadAlbany, NY 12208–1097

Michael MaretteDirector, Corrections United American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

1625 L Street NWWashington, DC 20036

A D D R E S S I N G C O R R E C T I O N A L O F F I C E R S T R E S S

iii

Stress among correctional officers is widespread, according to research studies and anecdotal evidence. The threat ofinmate violence against officers, actual violence committed by inmates, inmate demands and manipulation, and prob-lems with coworkers are conditions that officers have reported in recent years can cause stress.

These factors, combined with understaffing, extensive overtime, rotating shift work, low pay, poor public image, andother sources of stress, can impair officers’ health, cause them to burn out or retire prematurely, and impair their familylife.

This publication is designed to help correctional administrators develop an effective program to prevent and treat officerstress. Seven case studies illustrate diverse options for structuring a stress program. The following are among the sevenprograms’ distinguishing features that administrators can consider adopting:

• Run the program in house or contract with external agencies.

• Offer professional counseling, peer support, or both.

• Address chronic stress, stress following a critical incident, or both.

• Conduct academy or inservice training.

• Serve family members.

In addition to these operational aspects, the report discusses options for staffing a stress program; explores methods ofgaining officers’ trust in the program; lists sources of help to implement or improve a stress program; and addressesmonitoring, evaluation, and funding issues.

The various program models presented in this report provide options from which correctional administrators can selectprogram features and tailor them to a particular set of needs and resources. The potential payoff attributed to stress programs—such as reduced stress-related costs, improved officer performance, and increased institutional safety—more than justifies careful consideration of this report’s observations and conclusions.

Julie E. SamuelsActing DirectorNational Institute of Justice

Foreword


v

I wish to thank the many individuals who patiently answered my questions and sent me materials about their stressprograms, in particular, the following program directors and coordinators: Bruce W. Baker, Lawrence H. Bergmann,Nancy K. Bohl, John J. Carr, James Hollencamp, Elaine Smith, and Edward J. Stelle.

Several other program staff members, correctional officers, and other employees were especially helpful in providinginformation for this report, including David Bielby, Cathy Carlson, Acey Edgemon, Edward Ferguson, Richard Gould,Robert S. Hamel, Barry S. Levin, Michael McGarthy, Mark Messier, Theodore Nevills, A.T. Wall, and Robert White.Special mention should be made of Daniel James Nagle, a corrections officer in Beeville, Texas, who was killed by aninmate several months after being interviewed for this report.

Roger J. Johnson provided information about his training activities for corrections personnel across the country;Richard Gist shared his insights into critical incident debriefings.

The following advisory panel members provided helpful guidance to the project during a 1-day meeting in Washington,D.C., and through comments on the draft report: Nancy K. Bohl, Gary F. Cornelius, Jess Maghan, John Maloy, andMichael Marette. Among other criteria, panel members were selected for their diverse experiences and views regardingstress programming for correctional officers. As a result, readers should not infer that the panel members necessarilysupport all the programming recommendations offered in this publication.

Vincent Talucci, program monitor for the project at the National Institute of Justice, gave constant support and guidanceto the project. Theodore Hammett, vice president at Abt Associates Inc., offered a number of valuable suggestions forimproving the report. Mary-Ellen Perry and Joan Gilbert carefully produced the numerous report drafts.

Peter FinnAssociateAbt Associates Inc.

Acknowledgments


vii

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Why Establish—or Expand—a Stress Program for Correctional Officers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

How Severe Is Correctional Officer Stress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Seven Programs Have Taken Steps to Address Officer Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Keys to Program Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

What Does a Stress Program Cost? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Chapter 1: Why Establish—or Expand—a Stress Program for Correctional Officers? . . . . . .5Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Audiences, Purposes, and Content of Addressing Correctional Officer Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Why a Stress Program Can Benefit Correctional Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Financial savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Improved officer work performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Increased institutional safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Improved relations with the union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Demonstrated concern for employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Stress Programs Have Drawbacks—But They Are Relatively Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Chapter 2: The Extent and Sources of Correctional Officer Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

How Bad Is Correctional Officer Stress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

What Causes Stress for Correctional Officers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Organizational sources of stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Work-related sources of stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Stress from outside the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Stress Can Create Several Significant Problems for Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Chapter 3: Program Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

The Rhode Island Department of Corrections Stress Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Program overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Collaboration with the DOC’s human resources office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

C O N T E N T S

viii

The Counseling Team, San Bernardino, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Contractual arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Program services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

The Massachusetts Department of Correction Stress Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

The Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff’s Department Peer Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31The substance abuse team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32The trauma and debriefing teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32The referral process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Texas’ Post Trauma Staff Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Program structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34An example of both teams in action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

New York State’s Department of Correctional Services Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Mohawk: A test of the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38The aftermath: A formal program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Post Trauma Resources, Columbia, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Services to the South Carolina Department of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Technical assistance and training to other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Chapter 4: Program Staffing, Training, and Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Professional Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Recruitment and screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Training and monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Peer Supporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Recruitment and screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Initial training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Ongoing training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Supervisor Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Examples of supervisor training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Employee Assistance Program (EAP) training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Developing a Network of Reliable Referral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52Outpatient counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53Inpatient services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53


ix

Chapter 5: Ensuring Participation: Involving Administrators, Unions, Officers, and Family Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Securing Top Administration Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

Collaborating With the Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58Connecticut’s collaboration with the union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58Unions, too, stand to benefit from a stress program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Outreach to Line Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61Inservice training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Academy training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Schmoozing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Brochures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Postings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Badges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Involving Family Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63Why involve family members? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64The Collier County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office’s Spouse Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Chapter 6: Three Other Keys to Program Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Securing Trust: Guaranteeing Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Clinicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68Peer supporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Pressure to reveal information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71The bottom line on confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Multiple Interventions May Be Needed after a Critical Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71An unproven intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Potential benefits of debriefings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73A smorgasbord approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Reducing Organizational Sources of Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Barriers to changing the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Organizational changes departments have implemented to reduce stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Chapter 7: Evaluation, Funding, and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Process evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80Impact evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

C O N T E N T S

x

Managing Program Costs and Securing Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Identifying cost elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84Actual program budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84Funding sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Sources of Help in Setting Up or Improving a Stress Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Materials, agencies, and associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86Individuals with experience in correctional officer stress programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Appendix A: Texas’ Post Trauma Staff Support Program—Unit Staff Support Officer

Application Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Appendix B: Post Trauma Resources Case Study and Role Profiles for Debriefer Training . . . . . . . . .93

Appendix C: The San Bernardino Counseling Team’s Supervisory Training Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Appendix D: New York State’s Department of Correctional Services Scenario for Training EAPCoordinators to Motivate Employees to Accept Professional Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Appendix E: Riverside County (California) Sheriff’s Department Peer Support Program Brochure . .105

Appendix F: Texas Post Trauma Staff Support Program Incident Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

Appendix G: Connecticut Department of Correction Stress Program Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Appendix H: Additional Materials for Developing a Correctional Officer Stress Program . . . . . . . . . .125

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

List of ExhibitsExhibit 3–1. Selected Features of Seven Stress Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Exhibit 3–2. Multnomah County Peer Stress Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Exhibit 3–3. Texas Post Trauma Staff Support Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Exhibit 3–4. Texas Post Trauma Program Peer Support Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Exhibit 3–5. Unit Staff Support Officer Statistics for 1998 by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Exhibit 3–6. Regional Staff Support Team Statistics for 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Exhibit 5–1. Union Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Exhibit 5–2. Academy Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Exhibit 6–1. Post Trauma Resources Session—Progress Note Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Exhibit 7–1. Number of Referrals New York Correctional Facility Supervisors Made to the EAP During the 3 Months Before and After Supervisor Training in 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Exhibit 7–2. Sample Stress Program 1999 Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84


1

Addressing Correctional Officer Stress: Programs andStrategies is intended to help correctional administratorsdevelop an effective program for preventing and treatingcorrectional officer stress. The publication describes avariety of approaches for relieving officer stress that cor-rectional administrators can implement.

Why Establish—or Expand—a Stress Program forCorrectional Officers?A stress program can—

(1) Save correctional administrators money by reducingovertime costs incurred when officers take sick time orquit because of job-related stress.

A former Peer Stress Program officer, now retiredbut still volunteering, drove me to a jail and draggedout the scheduling sheet for all five of our jails andall 700 employees and showed me that only 2 wereon stress leave—the first time the number had beenthat low in years. —Dan Noelle, Multnomah County (Oregon) sheriff

After inmates killed a civilian employee, 17 officerstook disability leave. Seven never returned. Ofthe five who went for individual counseling, fourreturned. [The one who did not was the officer whofound the body.] The officers who returned toldme that the counseling helped them to come back.—Cathy Carlson, Safety Office return-to-workcoordinator, California Youth Authority

(2) Improve officer performance by enhancing staffmorale.

Morale is important—working in prisons is a high-stress job. By its nature, the work is often unpleasant;we often operate short of staff; and it is very hotduring the summer. People are more productive,

I believe, if their morale is high. We may also haveless sick time and less attrition if employees feel loy-alty to the department. It is important that the staffknow that the department cares about their well-being.—Gary Johnson, director, Texas Department ofCriminal Justice Institutional Division

(3) Increase institutional safety by reducing distractionscaused by stress.

If an officer is stressed out to the point of agitation,he or she can’t manage inmates as well as if he orshe were more clear minded. Officers can cause ariot situation or get injured if they come [to work]with a cluttered mind. —Don Hunter, Collier County (Florida) sheriff

(4) Improve relations with the union by working togeth-er on a program that can mutually benefit both parties.

We hope to see better labor-management relations as a result of the FOCUS program [the ConnecticutDepartment of Correction stress program]. Thereshould be spinoffs from FOCUS that will improverelations [with the union] in other areas. —Maria Houser, deputy commissioner for adminis-tration, Connecticut Department of Correction

(5) Show concern for employees by demonstrating thatthe department cares about its staff as human beings, notjust as employees.

With the stress program, things that were neveraddressed before get attended to: If there is an acci-dent or an assault and an officer is hospitalized,Dick [Gould, a staff member] is there. He makessure they are cared for and talks to the officer’s wife.A paramilitary organization can get impersonal,so the program gives credence to the fact that theDOC cares about its employees. —Dennis Cullen, deputy director for labor relations,Massachusetts Department of Correction

Executive Summary

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

2

How Severe Is CorrectionalOfficer Stress?A review of the literature and interviews with more than50 knowledgeable individuals make clear that job-relatedstress is widespread—and possibly increasing—amongcorrectional officers. Many supervisors (lieutenants andcaptains) also experience considerable job-related stress.

There are many sources of stress for correctional officers,including—

• Organization-related conditions, such as understaffing,overtime, shift work, and unreasonable supervisordemands.

• Work-related sources of stress, including the threat ofinmate violence, actual inmate violence, inmate demandsand manipulation, and problems with coworkers.

• A poor public image and low pay.

A few facts illustrate the stressful nature of correctionalwork:

• Many officers do not answer their home telephonesbecause it might be the institution calling for overtime.Some officers get a second, unlisted telephone numberthat they keep secret from the department.

• Between 1990 and 1995, the number of attacks on cor-rectional officers in State and Federal prisons jumpedby nearly one-third, from 10,731 to 14,165, at a timewhen the number of correctional officers increased byonly 14 percent.

• Except for police officers, the number of workplacenonfatal violent incidents is higher per 1,000 employ-ees for correctional officers than for any other profes-sion, including taxi drivers, convenience store staff,mental health workers, and teachers. From 1992 to1996, there were nearly 218 incidents for every 1,000correctional officers, for a total of 58,300 incidents.

• One officer said, “The public hasn’t a clue as to whatcorrectional officers do. Someone asked me just theother day if I beat inmates all the time.” Another offi-cer reported she routinely tells other people, “I workfor the State,” refusing to specify her precise job. The

end result is some officers come to feel isolated andestranged from friends and family.

Seven Programs Have TakenSteps to Address Officer StressThis report presents seven case studies of well-establishedand replicable stress programs, which vary significantly intheir operations and services. The wide variation creates achallenge for correctional administrators, who must decidewhich models to adopt. However, while the choices maybe daunting, the options give commissioners and sheriffsthe freedom to tailor program components to their par-ticular department’s needs and resources. In addition,coordinators of the seven programs are available to offertelephone consultation regarding the suitability of theirstructure and services to other departments (see the endof each case study in chapter 3). A number of correc-tional officer stress experts are also available to provideassistance in setting up or improving a stress program(see “Individuals With Experience in Stress Programmingfor Correctional Officers” in chapter 7).

Keys to Program SuccessDeveloping and maintaining a successful stress programis not easy. Correctional and sheriff’s departments needto address several considerations to make their programseffective.

• Appoint talented and dedicated staff who can stand thestress of helping others who experience stress.

• Get the wholehearted participation of top administra-tors, union officers, line officers, and family members.

• Maintain confidentiality; provide an array of services,not just debriefings, after critical incidents; train super-visors to spot and refer officers who may be experienc-ing stress; and change the correctional organizationitself in ways that will reduce officer stress.

• Monitor program activities and evaluate their effective-ness in reducing stress and saving the departmentmoney.

What Does a Stress ProgramCost?Program costs vary tremendously depending primarilyon how much programs rely on volunteers and existingstaff and the services the programs provide. The Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program developed by theNew York State Department of Correctional Servicescosts almost nothing because it relies entirely on officerswho have received training as debriefers at their ownexpense or through department training funded by FederalGovernment grants. Other programs described in thisreport have annual budgets ranging from $27,500 to$87,289.

Departments should recoup their expenses manyfold byreducing excessive sick time and officer turnover. A fewdepartments have data suggesting their programs mayhave saved them money.

We compared the number of stress-related retire-ments officers and deputies took after critical inci-dents for a 10-year period before the contract andfound they cost the county $20 million in unfundedliability to the county retirement system [see the fullexplanation in chapter 7]. Six years after the [stress]program was in place, there were none. We estimat-ed that the program saved the department $13 mil-lion by avoiding the unfunded liability fee increases.—Deputy Chief James Nunn, San BernardinoSheriff’s Department


3


5

This chapter identifies the audiences for whomAddressing Correctional Officer Stress has been writtenand explains the publication’s purposes and content.The chapter then reviews the reasons many correctionaladministrators recommend setting up or expanding astress program for correctional officers.

Audiences, Purposes, andContent of AddressingCorrectional Officer Stress

This report has been written primarily for—

• State department of corrections commissioners.

• Facility superintendents or wardens.

• Sheriffs and jail administrators.

• Correctional department human resources and trainingdirectors.

Correctional officer union officials, employee assistanceprogram (EAP) administrators, correctional chaplains,and mental health professionals may also find this publi-cation useful.1

Addressing Correctional Officer Stress is intended primarily to—

• Motivate correctional administrators to develop aneffective program for preventing and treating correc-tional officer stress.

• Suggest the options correctional administrators havefor structuring the program.

Why a Stress Program CanBenefit CorrectionalAdministrators

West Virginia Department of CorrectionsCommissioner Bill Davis locked down theMount Olive Correctional Center last month for

5

Chapter 1: Why Establish—or Expand—aStress Program for Correctional Officers?

KEY POINTS• Addressing Correctional Officer Stress is intended

to help correctional administrators develop aneffective program for preventing and treating correctional officer stress.

• This publication describes a variety of approach-es to relieving officer stress that correctional administrators can implement.

• A stress program can—

— Save correctional administrators money byreducing the need to pay overtime to coverfor officers who take sick time or quitbecause of job-related stress.

— Improve officer performance by enhancingstaff morale.

— Increase institutional safety by reducing officer distractions due to stress.

• A stress program can also improve relationswith the union, help officers get back to worksooner after critical incidents, and show thedepartment cares about its employees.

• The report presents seven case studies of well-established and replicable stress programs.

C H A P T E R 1 : W H Y E S T A B L I S H—O R E X P A N D—A S T R E S S P R O G R A M ?

6

8 days to alleviate stress on overworked staff. . . .“We’ve had a significant turnover rate there sincewe opened the prison in 1995. Theprison administration was requir-ing COs to be frozen over [worktwo shifts in a row]. . . . [The clos-ing] was in the interest of theirsanity. . . . ” The commissioneralso made clear to officers thatovertime at the facility was strictlyvoluntary.2

Research studies and firsthand accountsfrom correctional officers have madeclear that employment as a correctionalofficer can be stressful—sometimesextremely stressful. Chapter 2 docu-ments the many sources of stress3 forcorrectional officers (such as themandatory overtime that existed in West Virginia, high-lighted above), and the effects of stress can be serious andwidespread. As discussed below and summarized in thebox “Benefits a Stress Program Can Bring to CorrectionalAdministrators,” a program that helps prevent and relieve

stress can have valuable benefits for correctional adminis-trators.

Financial savingsStress programs can save administra-tors money by reducing staff sick time.Researchers have long reported thatcorrectional officers take excessive sickleave as a means of coping with stresson the job.4 One lieutenant estimatedthat 20 percent of his officers whocall in sick are burned out. A captainjudged that 90 percent of officersabuse their sick time in this manner.Administrators have to pay overtimeto other officers to cover for personnelwho take sick time. As long ago as1975, California spent $1.86 million in

overtime pay to cover posts for officers on sick leave.5 Astress program can reduce sick time.

A former Peer Stress Program officer, now retiredbut still volunteering, drove me to a jail and

SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS PUBLICATIONThe information in this report comes from five principal sources:

(1) Literature on correctional officer stress (see the references at the end of chapter 2,“The Extent and Sourcesof Correctional Officer Stress”).

(2) In-person interviews with stress program staff, correctional administrators, and program clients in RhodeIsland and Texas.

(3) Telephone interviews with similar individuals in programs in California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, andSouth Carolina.

(4) Telephone interviews with selected program staff in a Connecticut and a Florida program.

(5) Members of an advisory board assembled to guide and review this publication (see page ii).

The jurisdictions studied were selected based on the suggestions of the project’s advisory board, an Internetsearch of large jails conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, and conversations with correctionaladministrators and experts.The programs represent different organizational structures, offer a variety ofapproaches to providing services, are geographically dispersed, and serve county jails and large and small Statedepartments of corrections.

“A former Peer StressProgram officer . . . draggedout the scheduling sheet forall 5 of our jails and all 700employees and showed me

that only 2 were stressleave—the first time the

number has been that lowin years.”

— Sheriff Dan Noelle, MultnomahCounty Sheriff ’s Department


7

dragged out the scheduling sheet for all five ofour jails and all 700 employees and showed methat only 2 were on stress leave—the first timethe number had been that low in years. —Sheriff Dan Noelle, Multnomah County(Oregon) Sheriff’s Department

Many administrators also report that officers offeredstress services after a critical incident or personal crisiscome back to work more quickly than if they had notbeen helped, further reducing the need for overtime tocover their absences.

Staff turnover is also high in many facilities. The averageturnover in prisons nationwide in 1986 was nearly 12percent, but in some States—such as Arizona, SouthCarolina, and South Dakota—the rate was more than25 percent.6 Stress has been implicated as an importantcause of disability retirements.7 The cost of stress-relateddisabilities among officers exceeded $40 million inCalifornia in 1985 alone.8 Administrators lose moneyrecruiting, hiring, training, and orienting new staff toreplace personnel who quit because of stress-related disability. A stress program can reduce turnover.

After inmates killed a civilian employee, 17 offi-cers took disability leave. Seven never returned.Of the five who went for individual counseling,four returned. [The one who did not was the officer who found the body.] The officers whoreturned told me that the counseling helpedthem to come back. —Cathy Carlson, Safety Office return-to-workcoordinator, California Youth Authority

Of the eight officers I have treated, two would nothave returned to work without counseling. One,who had witnessed an inmate suicide, begancounseling by saying he could never go backbecause he felt guilty that he had let down his fellow officers, but he did return and was fine. —Stevens Huggins, a psychologist who treatsMultnomah County Sheriff’s Department officers

Turnover can also increase retirement benefit costs to the department. In the early 1980s, Deputy Chief JamesNunn of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department was in charge of internal affairs and a member of the countyretirement board. After critical incidents, he would see

BENEFITS A STRESS PROGRAM CAN BRING TO CORRECTIONALADMINISTRATORSFinancial savings through—

• Reduced need to pay overtime to cover for officers on sick leave or who quit because of work-related stress.

• Reductions in the time officers need off after a critical incident before returning to work.

• Reduced fees paid into the retirement fund because of fewer stress-related early retirements.

Improved officer performance through higher staff morale.

Increased institutional safety through—

• Fewer inexperienced officers on duty.

• Fewer officer distractions with work-related and personal stresses.

Improved relations with the union by working together on a mutually beneficial program.

A demonstrated concern for employees through providing officers with the means to cope with an undeniably tough working environment.


8

officers’ names on the retirementlist, each one costing $750,000 to$1 million in unfunded liability to theretirement fund. Then the departmentcontracted with The Counseling Teamto provide stress services.

Later, we compared the number ofstress-related retirements officersand deputies took after criticalincidents for a 10-year periodbefore the contract and found theycost the county $20 million. Sixyears after the program was inplace, there were none. We esti-mated that the program saved thedepartment $13 million by avoid-ing increases in its unfunded lia-bility to the county retirement sys-tem. [See the full explanation in chapter 7.] —James Nunn, deputy chief, San BernardinoSheriff’s Department

Improved officer work performanceAccording to Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff DanNoelle, “It’s not just a money issue; the [stress] programcan improve how the organizationfunctions: It makes us a can-do organi-zation.” A stress program can improveperformance by improving morale.

Morale is important—working inprisons is a high-stress job. By itsnature, the work is often unpleas-ant; we often operate short ofstaff; and it is very hot during thesummer. People are more produc-tive, I believe, if their morale ishigh. We may also have less sicktime and less attrition if employ-ees feel loyalty to the department.It is important that the staff know that thedepartment cares about their well being. —Gary Johnson, director, Texas Departmentof Criminal Justice Institutional Division

Doing the job carefully in records isvery important: You don’t want tolet murderers out of jail by mistakeor not let people out when they’resupposed to leave—we get tortclaims and pay fines for every daywe hold someone too long. After weentered a warrant on an innocentperson, deputies ended up arrestingthe wrong person. We ended uppaying the woman $15,000. So youneed good staff morale so employ-ees will do the record keeping accu-rately. Peers [trained to help theirfellow employees] help with keep-ing morale high. —Kathleen Walliker, recordsadministrator, Multnomah CountySheriff’s Department

Increased institutional safetyAs a result of excessive sick time and turnover, especiallyamong experienced officers, remaining staff must workwith a larger number of rookies who are least equippedto handle the work in a manner that avoids conflict with

inmates and ensures safe operation ofthe facility. “One day last month, myentire second shift consisted of rook-ies,” an anxious 3-year “veteran” offi-cer reported. As a result, by reducingsick time and turnover, a stress pro-gram can reduce the risk of an institu-tional flareup.

A stress program can also increasesafety by reducing officers’ distrac-tions with personal and work-relatedstresses.

If an officer is stressed out to the point of agitation, he or she

can’t manage inmates as well as if he or she weremore clear minded. Officers can cause a riot situ-ation or get injured if they come [to work] with acluttered mind. —Don Hunter, Collier County (Florida) sheriff

By reducing turnover [due tostress-related disability], astress program can save

administrators money.“Weestimated that the programsaved the [San BernardinoSheriff ’s] department $13

million by avoiding increasesin its unfunded liability to thecounty retirement system.”— Deputy Chief James Nunn of

the San Bernardino Sheriff ’sDepartment

“People are more produc-tive, I believe, if their moraleis high.We may also have

less sick time and less attrition if employees feel

loyalty to the department.”— Gary Johnson, Director,

Texas Department of CriminalJustice, Institutional Division


9

Unaddressed stress can result in impaired workperformance, such as sloppy searches and care-less counts. By making officers less patient, theyare less able to resolve confrontations peaceably,so they use more force to get inmates to obey. —correctional lieutenant

Improved relations with the unionCorrectional officer unions generally support stressprograms. Indeed, according to Jess Maghan, editorof The Keeper’s Voice, the journal of the InternationalAssociation of Correctional Officers, “The stipulation forthe provision of employee stress programs . . . is becom-ing a permanent feature of collective bargaining contractsbetween correctional officer unions and correctionalagencies.” As a result, by instituting a program in collab-oration with the union, administrators have a rare chanceto improve labor-management relations.

We hope to see better labor-management relationsas a result of the FOCUS program [the ConnecticutDOC’s new stress program]. There should be spin-offs from FOCUS that will improve relations [withthe union] in other areas. —Maria Houser, deputy commissioner for adminis-tration, Connecticut Department of Correction

Demonstrated concern for employeesBy providing stress services, administrators have anopportunity to demonstrate that they care about their staff as human beings, not just as employees.

With the Stress Program, things that were neveraddressed before get attended to: If there is anaccident or an assault and an officer is hospital-ized, Dick [Gould, a staff member] is there. Hemakes sure they are cared for and talks to theofficer’s wife. A paramilitary organization can get impersonal, so the program gives credence tothe fact that the DOC cares about its employees. —Dennis Cullen, deputy director for labor rela-tions, Massachusetts Department of Correction

If we expect staff to work in these conditions andwe recognize the effects of the working environ-ment on them, we owe it to them to provide

resources to cope with the stresses of this setting.—A.T. Wall, director, Rhode Island Departmentof Corrections

Stress Programs HaveDrawbacks—But They AreRelatively MinorMultnomah County Sheriff Dan Noelle—a strong sup-porter of his department’s stress program—says, “I amstrapped for money, and the program does cost money[more than $87,000 a year]. It also takes officers awayfrom the job to be trained and retrained.” Although astrong believer in her department’s program, too,Kathleen Walliker, records administrator for theMultnomah County Jail, says:

It takes time to address these [stress-related]issues, so it takes peer supporters away from theirassigned duties. We end up having to cover fortwo people (the troubled employee and the peer).It’s a nuisance for me to let two people off for an

STRESS PROGRAMS ALSOBENEFIT MIDLEVELSUPERVISORSLieutenants and captains benefit from stress pro-grams because they can refer officers to the pro-gram whom they would otherwise have to disci-pline and write up. According to Richard Gould, amember of the Massachusetts DOC’s Stress Unit,“We are a net for captains. ‘Dick, you handle it, ifyou can, before I deal with it’ is how they view us.”A lieutenant in the Rhode Island Department ofCorrections reported that some supervisorsare delighted to tell officers,“Go talk to [Mark]Messier [the peer unit coordinator], or you’regoing to have a discipline problem.” If the referredofficers come back as productive workers, thesupervisors have been spared a time-consumingnuisance that can be stressful for them.


10

hour to talk. And then coworkers can be jealousabout it. Coworkers may have to cover the trou-bled person’s or peer’s phone while they talk.

A debriefer with the New York State Department ofCorrectional Services Post-Incident Stress DebriefingProgram felt some officers used the debriefing sessionsafter a major riot to get out of work. Bruce Baker, assistantcommissioner, confirms that the only drawback to the pro-gram is “officers who are only slightly involved and unaf-fected see it as a day at the beach.” However, Noelle,Walliker, and Baker all report the benefits of their stressprograms unquestionably outweigh their drawbacks.

Notes1. The National Institute of Justice has published a com-panion report for law enforcement officers, Developing aLaw Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and TheirFamilies, available free of charge from the NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service at (800) 851–3240and www.ncjrs.org. Finn, Peter, and Julie EsselmanTomz, Developing a Law Enforcement Program forOfficers and Their Families, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,1996, NCJ 163175.

2. “Commissioner Locks Down Prison to Improve StaffMorale,” The Corrections Professional 3 (20) (1998): 2.

3. Because stress can be defined in a number of differentways, it has become a catchall “buzzword” for all kindsand levels of emotional and mental problems. Althoughsome researchers have pointed out that stress can have apositive influence, the term generally carries a negativeconnotation. This report uses the common dictionary def-initions of stress: (a) a mentally or emotionally disruptiveand upsetting condition occurring in response to adverse

external influences and (b) a stimulus or circumstancecausing such a condition.

4. For example, Cornelius, G.F., Stressed Out: Strategiesfor Living and Working with Stress in Corrections, Laurel,Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1994;Ratner, A.M., “Administrative Sources of OccupationalStress in a Correctional Setting,” Sacramento, California:AIDE Behavioral Sciences, 1985; O’Brien, B., andGustafson, [sic] “Stress in Corrections Officers: IowaDepartment of Corrections Study,” Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections, 1985, NIC 004028; Brodsky, C.M., “WorkStress in Correctional Institutions,” Journal of Prison &Jail Health 2 (2) (1982): 74–102; Cheek, F.E., “ReducingStaff and Inmate Stress,” Corrections Today 44 (5)(1982): 72–76, 78; and Dahl, J.J., and S.S. Steinberg,“Management of Stress in Corrections: Participant’sHandbook,” Washington, D.C.: University ResearchCorporation, 1979.

5. Cheek, F.E., and M.D. Miller, “Prisoners of Life: AStudy of Occupational Stress among State CorrectionsOfficers,” Washington, D.C.: American Federation ofState, County and Municipal Employees, 1981.

6. American Correctional Association, unpublished dataprovided by the Research Department, October 8, 1997.

7. Slate, R.N., “Stress Levels and Thoughts of Quitting ofCorrectional Personnel: Do Perceptions of ParticipatoryManagement Make a Difference?” Paper presented at theAmerican Society of Criminology, New Orleans,November 1992.

8. Ratner, A.M., “Administrative Sources of OccupationalStress in a Correctional Setting,” Sacramento, California:AIDE Behavioral Sciences, 1985.


11

Chapter 2: The Extent and Sources ofCorrectional Officer Stress

This chapter examines the evidence regarding the extentof correctional officer stress and summarizes researchabout the causes of this stress and the effects it has onofficers.

How Bad Is Correctional Officer Stress?The available empirical and anecdotal evidence convinc-ingly documents that stress among correctional officers iswidespread and, in many cases, severe.1 Furthermore,several circumstances may have created increased stressfor correctional officers in recent years:

• Inmate crowding has increased in many correctionalfacilities. Furthermore, the ratio of inmates to custodyor security employees rose from 4.2 to 4.6 between1990 and 1995.2

• Inmate assaults against correctional staff in State andFederal prisons have increased. Between 1990 and1995, the number of attacks jumped by nearly one-third,from 10,731 to 14,165.3 During this same period, thenumber of correctional officers increased by only 14percent,4 resulting in an overall increased risk of assaultfor each individual officer at the end of this period.

• Assaults in jails appear to have declined between 1990and 1996 from 3.2 per 100 prisoners in 1990 to 2.4 in1996, with a peak of 3.6 in 1992. However, in absolute

KEY POINTS• Job-related stress is widespread and, in many

cases, severe—and possibly increasing—amongcorrectional officers. Many supervisors (lieu-tenants and captains) also experience consider-able job-related stress, as do superintendentsand wardens.

• An inherent source of stress for correctionalofficers is supervising individuals who do notwant to be confined and, as a result, try tomanipulate staff to make their conditions of confinement as tolerable as possible.

• The prison or jail organization, including under-staffing, overtime, rotating shift work, and super-visor demands, creates stress for many officers.

• Work-related sources of stress for officersinclude the threat of inmate violence, actualinmate violence, inmate demands and manipula-tion, and problems with coworkers.

• External stresses for some correctional officersinclude a poor public image and low pay.

• Stress can cause impaired health, burnout, earlyretirement, and impaired family life.

HOW THIS LITERATURE REVIEW WAS CONDUCTEDThe information in this chapter is based on a review of selected literature identified in part through databasesearches conducted by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) and the National Institute ofCorrections (NIC).This chapter is also based on in-person and telephone interviews with 23 line correctionalofficers, 12 midlevel administrators (lieutenants and captains), 4 superintendents and deputy superintendents,14 clinicians who counsel officers, and several other knowledgeable individuals.

C H A P T E R 2 : T H E E X T E N T A N D S O U R C E S O F S T R E S S

12

terms, there was an average of 42assaults by prisoners on jail staff perjail system in 1996, including anaverage of 206 assaults in each ofthe Nation’s 17 largest jail systems,representing on average of 4 assaultsper week.5

• Many offenders serving increasinglylonger sentences do not fear punish-ment or respect the authority of cor-rectional officers.6 According to one superintendent,“Inmates today aren’t afraid to assault staff; they don’tcare if they get put in segregation.”

• There are more gangs—and more dangerous gangs—in prison.7

What Causes Stress forCorrectional Officers?Many years ago a researcher observed, “any organizationor social structure which consists of one group of peoplekept inside who do not want to be there and the othergroup who are there to make sure they stay in will be anorganization under stress.”8 More recently, A.T. Wall,director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections,confirmed this observation based on firsthand experience:“You have a captive population thatdoesn’t want to be here and wants tobe as comfortable as possible for aslong as they have to be incarcerated.And correctional officers stand in theway of those desires, so there’s built-in tension and manipulation.”

Beyond this global source of stress,it is possible to distinguish amongstresses caused by the correctionalorganization, those created by correctional work itself,and those brought on by factors external to the facility.

Organizational sources of stressMany individuals interviewed for this report suggestedthat organization-related conditions create stress for

many officers, in particular, under-staffing, overtime, shift work, andsupervisor demands.

UnderstaffingIn many prisons and jails, there are toofew officers available to staff author-ized posts as a result of unattractivesalaries, high turnover, and excessiveuse of sick time and disability leave.

Understaffing can create several different kinds of stress:

• Lack of time to complete required tasks, such as headcounts, searches, and paperwork, at all or in a consci-entious manner.

• Occasionally working at breakneck speed to completethe required work, as well as addressing unplannedinmate needs and requests.

• Apprehension when there are too few officers availableas backup should inmate violence occur.

• Inability to get time off for special occasions or familycrises.

OvertimeStaff shortages create the need for extensive overtimeamong remaining staff. According to an intake administra-tor for a State department of corrections, “At least 100

officers have told me they don’t answertheir telephones because it might be theinstitution calling for overtime.” Someofficers get a second, unlisted telephonenumber, which they keep secret fromthe department. One facility allowsofficers to refuse overtime assignmentsonly once a year; a second refusalresults in a warning; a third, in a 1-daysuspension; and a fourth, in possibletermination. Some officers welcome

overtime because of the extra money they can earn. As oneofficer said, “Overtime is great—I worked three OTs aweek for 18 months.” However, she quickly added, “But Igot burned out, and my supervisors didn’t even acknowl-edge my contribution.”

The available empirical andanecdotal evidence convinc-ingly documents that stressamong correctional officers

is widespread and, inmany cases, severe.

The “organization” is amajor source of stress

for many officers, notablyunderstaffing, overtime,

shift work, and supervisordemands.


13

Rotating shift workCorrectional officers consistentlyreport that rotating shifts create havocwith family life and reduce officers’ability to perform their work conscien-tiously because of fatigue and irritabil-ity. “You can tell when shift work isgetting to officers,” a lieutenant said.“Their work gets sloppy, their searchesbecome careless, their units are filthy,and they stop following the rules.”

Supervisor demandsSeveral correctional officers reported that supervisors area source of stress because, as one officer said, “They arealways on you to do the job right, but you can’t do itright [because of staff shortages]. There is supposed tobe one officer per tier here, but now they’ve collapsed

DO MIDLEVEL CORRECTIONAL MANAGERS EXPERIENCE STRESS?Midlevel managers (lieutenants and captains) interviewed for this publication report they experience severaltypes of stress:

• Dealing with subordinates (in particular line officers acting without consultation), poor line officer productivity,the need to discipline or terminate officers, and contending with understaffing—including having to askstressed-out line officers to work overtime.

• Attempting to follow unclear policies and procedures and frequent modifications to policies and procedures astop-level supervisors change their minds or are replaced.

• Completing all the required documentation and paperwork—yet still being on the line to supervise and beseen by line officers.

A lieutenant with a State department of corrections reported that—

The stress is worst for middle management: You decide on staff deployment and everyone looks to youfor guidance.You make the critical decisions; as watch commander, you run the prison. On two shifts outof three, I’m the highest ranking person in the facility because the higher-ups leave at 4:00 p.m. It’s atremendous responsibility.The decisions are tough. Also, someone is Monday morning quarterbacking you,your decisions are scrutinized, and they’re life-and-death decisions.

Top correctional administrators also experience stress.Wardens, deputy wardens, and jail administrators may besaddled with a “24/7” commitment—carrying a beeper around the clock.They have to deal with typically adver-sarial labor relations with the officers’ union, staff hostility or mistrust, pressures from central administration,political scapegoating, and media exposure. Furthermore, top-level administrators are typically reluctant to sharetheir feelings of uncertainty, helplessness, or inadequacy with anyone for fear of appearing weak, incompetent, orindecisive.

the posts, and there is one officer forevery two tiers. So there just isn’tenough time for me to get inmatesawakened, showered, and fed; keep mylog books up to date; do my checks;and make sure the catwalks have allbeen cleaned and disinfected.”

Other stress sourcesResearch studies have consistentlyhighlighted two other sources of organi-zational stress that correctional officers

and administrators themselves do not usually identify asstressful: role conflict9 and role ambiguity.10

• Role conflict. Researchers define role conflict asthe struggle officers engage in to reconcile custodialresponsibilities (maintaining security, such as preventing

“You can tell when shiftwork is getting to officers,”

a lieutenant said.“Their workgets sloppy, their searches

become careless, their unitsare filthy, and they stop

following the rules.”


14

escapes and inmate fights) with their treatment functions(helping inmates rehabilitate themselves).

• Role ambiguity. Role ambiguity is the uncertainty cre-ated by supervisors who expect officers to “go by thebook” and follow all rules to the letter when supervi-sors and line officers alike know that officers must beflexible and use judgment in their interactions withinmates. One study illustrates this finding:

While officers work in a paramil-itary organization marked byexplicit lines of authority anda host of formal regulations,their task of managing inmatesdemands flexibility, the judiciousapplication of discretionary jus-tice, and the ability to secureinmate compliance through infor-mal exchanges which deviatefrom written rules. Ambiguousand conflicting expectations area likely result and a potentialsource of stress.11

Work-related sources of stressThe research literature and correctional officers agreethat many officers find four conditions of correctionalwork stressful:

Threat of inmate violence Correctional officers interviewed for this report identifiedthe threat of inmate violence against staff as a source ofstress more frequently than any other single feature oftheir occupation.

Inmate violence Actual violence, including assaults, hostage taking, riots,inmates killing each other, and inmate suicides, can be amajor source of stress for many officers not only duringthe episodes but afterwards: “Staff anxiety is intensified[after critical incidents] by the aftermath of recrimina-tions, scapegoating, blaming, and job insecurity.”12

Except for police officers, the number of workplace non-fatal violent incidents is higher per 1,000 employeesfor correctional officers than for any other profession,including taxi drivers, convenience store staff, mental

health workers, and teachers. From 1992 to 1996, therewere nearly 218 incidents per 1,000 correctional officers,for a total of 58,300 incidents.13

Inmate demands and manipulation Many officers find the constant demands and attempts atmanipulation by some inmates to be stressful—for exam-ple, requests for cigarettes or extra food with an implicit

quid pro quo of promising not to createtrouble or to keep other inmates in line.Furthermore, “When officers are manip-ulated [successfully] by inmates . . . ,they may experience extreme stress.”14

Problems with coworkers One survey found that 22 percent ofstaff viewed “other staff” as creatingmore stress than any other single fac-tor except for dealing with hostile,demanding inmates.15 The followingconditions can precipitate stressamong coworkers:

(1) Burned out coworkers repeatedly venting their frus-trations to their colleagues;

(2) officers competing for limited, choice assignments;

(3) apprehension that coworkers will refuse to back themup in a confrontation with inmates, are too inexperienced(e.g., due to high turnover) to know how to help out, ordo not have the physical or emotional strength to beeffective; and

(4) inappropriate officer behavior toward inmates—bringing in contraband, getting too friendly, using unnec-essary force, and taking questionable disciplinary action.

Sexist attitudes by colleagues (and supervisors) and sexu-al harassment create stress for many women officers.Many male officers question whether female officershave the physical strength and determination to help in a confrontation with inmates. However, sexist attitudesand behavior may have declined as more women havebecome correctional officers and, as a result, as maleofficers have gained the opportunity to see firsthand thatwomen can be as effective as men in dealing with inmateviolence.

There is a consensus in the literature and among correc-tional officers that the threat

of inmate violence, actualinmate violence, inmatedemands and attemptsat manipulation, and

problems with coworkersare all stressful.

Stress from outside the systemTwo significant sources of stress for some officers originate outside the prison or jail.

One source is poor public image. According to oneresearcher, “A negative image of corrections is regularlyportrayed in the media . . . [with officers depicted] as stupid, animalistic, and senseless abusers of socially

wronged individuals.”16 As one officer said, “The publichasn’t a clue as to what correctional officers do. Someoneasked me just the other day if I beat inmates all the time.”One officer said she routinely tells other people, “I workfor the State,” refusing to specify her precise job. Theend result is that some officers come to feel isolated andestranged from friends and family.17


15

WHICH OFFICERS ARE MOST LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE STRESS?

According to one researcher,“At this point, thereseems to be no clear consensus as to which factorscan be consistently correlated with stress in correc-tions.”a Some studies have found that officers workinghigher security level institutions or units experiencemore stress than officers working medium or minimumsecurity areas,b while other studies have found no dif-ferences in stress levels among security levels.c Staffingan administrative segregation unit can, paradoxically,feel less stressful than working on other units (becauseinmates are locked down almost the entire day) ormore stressful (because every inmate is a potentialtime bomb).The evidence regarding stress levels asso-ciated with working in direct supervision facilities issimilarly inconsistent.

The apparent stresses of a specific post or assignmentmay be offset by its perceived benefits. For example,tower duty may be boring but valued because it involveslittle or no inmate contact.d All 13 officers posted to the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island andGoldwater Hospital on Roosevelt Island in New YorkCity for inmates with AIDS saw the assignment as agood one because it was not a prison setting, therewere no captains or deputy wardens supervising themon the wards, the inmates were usually more manage-able than the general population, the pay was good, andno one else wanted the position—the officers did nothave to play politics to get or keep it.e

Still other conditions can influence stress levels.Officers who work in rural settings may be related toor personally know other staff—or inmates—whichcan lead to concerns about privacy. Inmates in jails may

present different problems for correctional officersthan prison inmates because so many jail detaineeshave just come into the facility right off the streets. Inaddition, rapid turnover in jails creates its own set ofstresses: While correctional officers must not onlyestablish their authority and make clear the groundrules to a constantly changing population, they are atthe same time frequently deprived of the satisfaction of seeing inmates improve their lot through the educa-tional, religious, vocational, and other programs prisonscan offer their longer term inmates.

Studies that have attempted to determine whether offi-cers’ stress levels are associated with length of time onthe job, educational level, race, and gender have pro-duced inconsistent findings.

Notes

a. Huckabee, R.G.,“Stress in Corrections:An Overview of theIssues,” Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 (5) (1992): 479–486.

b. See, for example,Van Voorhis, P., F.T. Cullen, B.G. Link, and N.T.Wolfer,“Impact of Race and Gender on Corrections Officers:Orientation to the Integrated Environment,” Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency 28 (4) (1991): 472–500; and Cullen, F.T.,B.G. Link, N.T.Wolfe, and J. Frank,“The Social Dimension ofCorrectional Officer Stress,” Justice Quarterly 2 (4) (1985):505–533.

c. Lasky, G.L., and B.C. Gordon,“Occupational Stressors amongFederal Correctional Officers Working in Different SecurityLevels,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 13 (3) (1986): 317–327.

d. Grossi, E.L.,T.J. Keil, and G.F.Vito,“Surviving ‘the Joint’: MitigatingFactors of Correctional Officer Stress,” Journal of Crime and Justice19 (2) (1996): 103–120.

e. Kamerman, J.,“Corrections Officers and Acquired Immune DeficiencySyndrome: Balancing Professional Distance and PersonalInvolvement,” Death Studies 15 (1991): 375–384.


16

The second outside source of stress is poor pay. Manyofficers cite low pay as a source of stress. The beginningsalary in one State is $12,000. In another State, officersstart out earning $18,000; the most they can earn after 18months is $26,400. Starting pay in one privately operatedfacility is $14,000 to $16,000 a year.

Stress Can Create SeveralSignificant Problems for OfficersExcessive stress can result in at least four serious prob-lems for officers:

• Stress may result in physical illnesses, ranging fromheart disease to eating disorders. It may also precipitatesubstance abuse among susceptible individuals.18

• Stress can lead to burnout amongofficers.19

• Stress has been implicated in exces-sive disability retirements.20 Evenwhen physical ailments are the reason for the disability, the illnessesmay have been brought on by stress.

• Correctional officers experiencingexcessive stress may damage theirfamily relationships by displacingtheir frustration onto spouses and children, orderingfamily members around just as they issue commands toinmates (one officer locked his son out of the boy’sroom and searched it), and becoming distant by with-holding information about their work that they feelfamily members will not understand. Shift work andovertime can create stress by preventing officers fromattending important family functions.

As discussed above, the effects of stress on correctionalofficers can degrade their ability to perform their respon-sibilities in the prison or jail in ways that compromiseinstitutional safety, cost money, and create stress forother staff. The remainder of this report addresses theapproaches seven stress programs have implemented toprevent and treat officer stress with the goals of enhanc-ing the officers’ lives and improving the operations of thecorrectional facilities in which they work.

Notes1. Huckabee, R.G., “Stress in Corrections: An Overviewof the Issues,” Journal of Criminal Justice 20 (5) (1992):479–486.

2. Stephan, J.J., Census of State and Federal CorrectionalFacilities, 1995, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997, NCJ 166582.

3. Ibid.

4. Data provided by the American CorrectionalAssociation, June 29, 1999.

5. Camp, C.G., and G.M. Camp, The CorrectionsYearbook, 1997, South Salem, New York: CriminalJustice Institute, 1997.

6. Martinez, A.R., “CorrectionsOfficer: The ‘Other’ Prisoner,” TheKeeper’s Voice 18 (1) (1997): 8–11.

7. Ibid. A few correctional officers sug-gested that correctional work has notbecome more stressful. Rather, theysaid, officers themselves have changed.According to these officers, in the pastmany officers came to the job from themilitary and therefore had a disciplineand toughness that enabled them toadapt better to the work requirements

(see also Kauffman, K., Prison Officers and Their World,Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1988). In addition, life in general may be more stressful.If so, officers may be less able to cope with correctionalwork because they come to work already stressed out. Inthis connection, some providers observe that relationshipproblems are what drive many officers to seek profession-al counseling, not correctional work per se.

8. Brodsky, C.M., “Work Stress in CorrectionalInstitutions,” Journal of Prison & Jail Health 2 (2)(1982): 74–102.

9. For example, Grossi, E.L., T.J. Keil, and G.F. Vito,“Surviving ‘the Joint’: Mitigating Factors of CorrectionalOfficer Stress,” Journal of Crime and Justice 19 (2)(1996): 103–120; Woodruff, L., “Occupational Stress forCorrectional Personnel: Part One,” American Jails 7 (4)

Excessive stress can resultin at least four serious problems for officers:

impaired health,burnout, premature early retirement, andimpaired family life.


17

(1993a): 15–20; Philliber, S., “Thy Brother’s Keeper:A Review of the Literature on Correctional Officers,”Justice Quarterly 4 (1) (1987): 9–35; Lindquist, C.A.,and J.T. Whitehead, “Burnout, Job Stress and JobSatisfaction among Southern Correctional Officers—Perceptions and Causal Factors,” Journal of OffenderCounseling, Services and Rehabilitation 10 (4) (1986):5–26; and Crouch, B.M., “Prison Guards on the Line,” inDilemmas of Punishment, ed. K.C. Hass and G.P. Alpert,Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1986.

10. Woodruff, L., “Occupational Stress for CorrectionalPersonnel”; Gerstein, L.H., C.G. Topp, and C. Correll,“Role of the Environment and Person When PredictingBurnout Among Correctional Personnel,” CriminalJustice and Behavior 14 (3) (1987): 352–369; andCullen, F.T., B.G. Link, N.T. Wolfe, and J. Frank, “TheSocial Dimension of Correctional Officer Stress,” JusticeQuarterly 2 (4) (1985): 505–533.

11. Cullen et al., 1985.

12. Freeman, R.M., “Remembering the Camp Hill Riot,”Corrections Today 59 (1) (1997): 56, 58–59.

13. Warchol, Greg, Workplace Violence, 1992–96, Bureauof Justice Statistics Special Report, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 1998, NCJ 168634.

14. Cornelius, G.F., “Keys to Effective InmateManagement: Avoiding Manipulation,” in The EffectiveCorrectional Officer, Laurel, Maryland: AmericanCorrectional Association, 1992: 75–82. See alsoKauffman, Prison Officers and Their World, pp. 56–57.

15. Marston, J.L., “Stress and Stressors: Inmate and StaffPerceptions,” American Jails 7 (4) (1993): 21–30.

16. Van Fleet, F., “Correctional Officers and TheirFamilies: Dealing with Stress,” in The EffectiveCorrectional Officer, Laurel, Maryland: AmericanCorrectional Association, 1992: 37–44.

17. Maghan, J., and L. McLeish-Blackwell, “BlackWomen in Correctional Employment,” in Change,Challenges, and Choices: Women’s Role in ModernCorrections, ed. J.B. Morton, Laurel, Maryland:American Correctional Association, 1991: 82–99;

Kauffman, Prison Officers and Their World; and Harris,G.A., “Stress in Corrections,” Topeka, Kansas: WashburnUniversity, 1980.

18. Woodruff, “Occupational Stress for CorrectionalPersonnel”; and Cheek, F.E., and M.D. Miller, “NewLook at Officers’ Role Ambiguity,” in CorrectionalOfficers—Power, Pressure and Responsibility, ed. J.N.Tucker, Laurel, Maryland: American CorrectionalAssociation, 1983.

19. Burnout has been defined as a process that producesthree conditions: (1) emotional exhaustion or feelingsthat the person is overextended and exhausted by the job;(2) depersonalization that causes impersonal and cynicalinteractions with clients; and (3) lack of feelings of per-sonal accomplishment. Maslach, C., and S. Jackson,“The Measurement of Experienced Burnout,” Journal ofOccupational Behavior 2 (1981): 99–113. While there isno time limit or period in which workers burn out, fivestages of burnout have been identified that many workerspass through in the process of becoming burned out: hon-eymoon (e.g., the officer loves his or her job and workshard); fuel shortage (e.g., the officer no longer enjoysgoing to work every day and gets tired more and moreeasily); chronic symptoms (e.g., the officer begins toexperience chronic headaches and tunes out his or herfamily by watching a lot of television); crisis (the officercomplains constantly to coworkers about the job; physi-cal and mental problems get worse; and the officer is fedup with inmates, supervisors, and the paperwork); and“hitting the wall” (the officer quits the job, walks out onthe family, or continues to work but thinks obsessivelyabout how bad it is). Veninga, R., and J. Spradley, TheWork Stress Connection: How to Cope with Job Burnout,New York: Ballantine Books, 1981; Cornelius, G.,Stressed Out: Strategies for Living and Working withStress in Corrections, Laurel, Maryland: AmericanCorrectional Association, 1994.

20. Slate, R.N., “Stress Levels of Correctional Personnel:Is There a Difference Between the Sexes?” Paper pre-sented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciencesannual meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, March 20,1993.


19

Chapter 3: Program Case Studies

This chapter provides brief case studies of seven programsthat prevent or treat correctional officer stress. The casestudies concentrate primarily on the programs’ operationalprocedures. Details about other aspects of the programsare presented in the remaining chapters of the report:

• Chapter 4 discusses options for staffing a stress program.

• Securing constructive participation from correctionaladministrators, union leaders, correctional officers, andfamily members is addressed in chapter 5.

• Chapter 6 explores methods of gaining officers’ trust inthe program, providing services after critical incidents,and addressing organizational sources of stress.

• Monitoring, evaluation, and funding issues are coveredin chapter 7.

Exhibit 3–1 identifies the principal features of each of theseven programs. As shown, the programs’ most distin-guishing features are whether they—

• Are independent organizations (with which the depart-ment of corrections or sheriff’s department contracts),in-house programs, or a combination of the two (see“Selecting a Suitable Organizational Structure IsImportant”).

• Offer professional counseling, peer support, or both.

• Address chronic stress, stress resulting from criticalincidents, or both.

• Conduct academy or inservice training.

• Offer services to family members.

Some of the seven programs have significant similarities,while others are very different. Rhode Island’s FamilyService Society and San Bernardino’s The CounselingTeam are both private agencies that provide a full rangeof stress-related services—individual counseling, criticalincident debriefing, peer training and supervision, andinservice prevention training—under contract to correc-tional agencies. However:

KEY POINTS• Seven different stress programs illustrate the diverse options for structuring a program.

• The programs’ most distinguishing features are whether they—

– Are in-house programs or externally contracted agencies.

– Offer professional counseling, peer support, or both.

– Address chronic stress, stress following a critical incident, or both.

– Conduct academy or inservice training.

– Serve family members.

• Programs fall into one of three basic structures: in-house programs, independent contracted services, and hybrid arrangements.

• The wide variation in program operations creates a challenge for correctional administrators to decide whichmodels to adopt. However, while the choices may be daunting, the options give commissioners and sheriffs thefreedom to tailor program components to their particular department’s needs and resources.

• Coordinators of the seven programs are available to offer telephone consultation regarding the suitability oftheir structure and services to other departments.

CH

AP

TE

R3

: P

RO

GR

AM

CA

SE

ST

UD

IE

S

20

Feature Annual Budget Clients

AgenciesServed Organizational Family Road Police

Program (# COs) Relationship Staffing Services 1999 Data Civilians Members Deputies Officers

Rhode Island: DOC hybrid • professionals • professional counseling $27,500 yes yes yes yesFamily Service (includes • peers • critical incident debriefingSociety jails) • inservice training

(991) • academy training• peer supporter training

California: jails, DOC contracted • professionals • professional counseling varies by department yes yes yes yesThe Counseling (450 to • peers • critical incident debriefing servedTeam 3,300) • inservice training

• academy training• peer supporter training

Massachusetts: DOC in-house • peers • peer support $33,390 yes yes NA yesa

Stress Unit (4,031) • referrals to clinicians

Multnomah jail in-house • peers • peer support $87,280 yes yes yes NACounty (Portland, (515) • critical incident debriefingOregon): Peer • referrals to cliniciansSupport Program

Texas: Post DOC in-house • peers • peer support $36,966 yes yes NA NATrauma Staff (24,500)b • chaplain • critical incident debriefingSupport Program • referrals to EAP

New York State: DOC in-house • peers • critical incident debriefing None yes yes NA NAPost-Incident (22,315) • referrals to EAPStress Debriefing

South Carolina: DOCs contracted • professionals • critical incident debriefing Generally reimbursed an yes no yes yesPost-Trauma (4,850) • professional counseling hourly rate by workers’ Resources • staff training compensation; if denied,(PTR) • program planning DOC pays

a.This program serves a few police officers every year.b. Excludes State jails.

EXHIBIT 3–1. SELECTED FEATURES OF SEVEN STRESS PROGRAMS


21

• Family Service Society serves only one correctionalagency—the Rhode Island Department of Corrections—while The Counseling Team serves three sheriff’sdepartments in addition to the California Departmentof Corrections.

• The Rhode Island Department of Corrections not onlycontracts with Family Service Society for professionalservices but also has an in-house peer sup

Addressing Correctional Officer StressRobert S. Hamel, Barry S. Levin, Michael McGarthy, Mark...

Documents

Transcript of Addressing Correctional Officer StressRobert S. Hamel, Barry S. Levin, Michael McGarthy, Mark...