Title: Addressing Correctional Officer Stress: Programs and Strategies. Series: Issues and Practices Author: Peter Finn Published: National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the Corrections Program Office Subject: Corrections; correctional personnel; program evaluations 129 pages 270,000 bytes --------------------------- Figures, charts, forms, tables, and appendixes are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 For TTY users). --------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Daniel Marcus Acting Associate Attorney General Mary Lou Leary Acting Assistant Attorney General Julie E. Samuels Acting Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij --------------------------- Addressing Correctional Officer Stress: Programs and Strategies by Peter Finn December 2000 NCJ 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 a review of research and evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert opinion on the subject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in planning, implementing, and improving programs and practices in criminal justice. --------------------------- National Institute of Justice Julie E. Samuels Acting Director Vincent Talucci Program Monitor Nancy K. Bohl, Ph.D. Director The Counseling Team Suite 11 1881 Business Center Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Gary F. Cornelius Lieutenant Programs and Recreation Supervisor Adult Detention Center Fairfax County Office of the Sheriff 10520 Judicial Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 Jess Maghan, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Criminal Justice Office of International Criminal Justice (MC 141) University of Illinois at Chicago 1033 West Van Buren Street Chicago, IL 60607-2919 John Maloy Superintendent Training Academy New York State Department of Correctional Services 1134 New Scotland Road Albany, NY 12208-1097 Michael Marette Director, Corrections United American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 1625 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 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 necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. --------------------------- Foreword Stress among correctional officers is widespread, according to research studies and anecdotal evidence. The threat of inmate violence against officers, actual violence committed by inmates, inmate demands and manipulation, and problems with coworkers are conditions that officers have reported in recent years can cause stress. Those factors combined with understaffing, extensive overtime, rotating shift work, low pay, poor public image, and other sources of stress can impair officers' health, cause them to burn out or retire prematurely, and impair their family life. This publication is designed to help correctional administrators develop an effective program to prevent and treat officer stress. Seven case studies illustrate diverse options for structuring a stress program. The following are among the seven programs' 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 those operational aspects, the report discusses options for staffing a stress program; explores methods of gaining officers' trust in the program; lists sources of help to implement or improve a stress program; and covers monitoring, evaluation, and funding issues. The various program options presented in this report constitute, in effect, a "menu" from which correctional administrators can select program features and tailor them to a particular set of needs and resources. The potential payoff attributed to stress programs--uch as reduced stress-related overtime costs, improved officer performance, and increased institutional safety--more than justifies careful consideration of this report's observations and conclusions. Julie E. Samuels Acting Director National Institute of Justice --------------------------- Acknowledgments I wish to thank the many individuals who patiently answered my questions and sent me materials about their stress programs, 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 providing information 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 an inmate 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, and Michael Marette. Among other criteria, panel members were selected for their diverse experiences and views regarding stress programming for correctional officers. As a result, readers should not infer that the panel members necessarily support 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 guidance to the project. Theodore Hammett, vice president at Abt Associates Inc., offered a number of valuable suggestions for improving the report. Mary-Ellen Perry and Joan Gilbert carefully produced the numerous report drafts. Peter Finn Associate Abt Associates Inc. --------------------------- Contents Foreword Acknowledgments Executive Summary Why Establish--or Expand--a Stress Program for Correctional Officers? How Severe Is Correctional Officer Stress? Seven Programs Have Taken Steps to Address Officer Stress Keys to Program Success What Does a Stress Program Cost? Chapter 1: Why Establish--or Expand--a Stress Program for Correctional Officers? Key Points Audiences, Purposes, and Content of Addressing Correctional Officer Stress Why a Stress Program Can Benefit Correctional Administrators --Financial savings --Improved officer work performance --Increased institutional safety --Improved relations with the union --Demonstrated concern for employees Stress Programs Have Drawbacks-But They Are Relatively Minor Chapter 2: The Extent and Sources of Correctional Officer Stress Key Points How Bad Is Correctional Officer Stress? What Causes Stress for Correctional Officers? --Organizational sources of stress --Work-related sources of stress --Stress from outside the system Stress Can Create Several Significant Problems for Officers Chapter 3: Program Case Studies Key Points The Rhode Island Department of Corrections Stress Unit --Program overview --Collaboration with the DOC's human resources office --Training The Counseling Team, San Bernardino, California --Contractual arrangements --Program services The Massachusetts Department of Correction Stress Unit --Procedure --Referrals The Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff's Department Peer Support Program --History --Organization --The substance abuse team --The trauma and debriefing teams --The referral process Texas' Post Trauma Staff Support Program --Program structure --Procedure --An example of both teams in action New York State's Department of Correctional Services Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program --Mohawk: A test of the system --The aftermath: A formal program Post Trauma Resources, Columbia, South Carolina --Services to the South Carolina Department of Corrections --Technical assistance and training to other States Chapter 4: Program Staffing, Training, and Networking Key Points Professional Staff --Recruitment and screening --Training and monitoring Peer Supporters --Recruitment and screening --Initial training --Ongoing training --Monitoring Supervisor Training --Examples of supervisor training --Employee Assistance Program (EAP) training Developing a Network of Reliable Referral Resources --Outpatient counseling --Inpatient services Chapter 5: Ensuring Participation: Involving Administrators, Unions, Officers, and Family Members Key Points Securing Top Administration Support Collaborating With the Union --Connecticut's collaboration with the union --Unions, too, stand to benefit from a stress program Outreach to Line Officers --Letters --Inservice training --Academy training --Schmoozing --Brochures --Postings --Announcements --Badges Involving Family Members --Why involve family members? --The Collier County (Florida) Sheriff's Office's Spouse Academy Chapter 6: Three Other Keys to Program Success Key Points Securing Trust: Guaranteeing Confidentiality --Clinicians --Peer supporters --Pressure to reveal information --Reporting --The bottom line on confidentiality Multiple Interventions May Be Needed after a Critical Incident --An unproven intervention --Potential benefits of debriefings --A smorgasbord approach Reducing Organizational Sources of Stress --Barriers to changing the organization --Organizational changes departments have implemented to reduce stress Chapter 7: Evaluation, Funding, and Technical Assistance Key Points Monitoring Evaluation --Process evaluation --Impact evaluation Managing Program Costs and Securing Funding --Identifying cost elements --Actual program budgets --Funding sources Sources of Help in Setting Up or Improving a Stress Program Materials, agencies, and associations --Publications --Individuals with experience in correctional officer stress programming Glossary Appendixes Appendix A: Texas' Post Trauma Staff Support Program-Unit Staff Support Officer Application Form Appendix B: Post Trauma Resources Case Study and Role Profiles for Debriefer Training Appendix C: The San Bernardino Counseling Team's Supervisory Training Syllabus Appendix D: New York State's Department of Correctional Services Scenario for Training EAP Coordinators to Motivate Employees to Accept Professional Help Appendix E: Riverside County (California) Sheriff's Department Peer Support Program Brochure Appendix F: Texas Post Trauma Staff Support Program Incident Log Appendix G: Connecticut Department of Correction Stress Program Questionnaire Appendix H: Additional Materials for Developing a Correctional Officer Stress Program Index List of Exhibits Exhibit 3-1. Selected Features of Seven Stress Programs Exhibit 3-2. Multnomah County Peer Stress Program Structure Exhibit 3-3. Texas Post Trauma Staff Support Program Structure Exhibit 3-4. Texas Post Trauma Program Peer Support Process Exhibit 3-5. Unit Staff Support Officer Statistics for 1998 by Region Exhibit 3-6. Regional Staff Support Team Statistics for 1998 Exhibit 5-1. Union Memorandum Exhibit 5-2. Academy Outline Exhibit 6-1. Post Trauma Resources Session-Progress Note Form 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 Exhibit 7-2. Sample Stress Program 1999 Budgets --------------------------- Executive Summary Addressing Correctional Officer Stress: Programs and Strategies is intended to help correctional administrators develop an effective program for preventing and treating correctional officer stress. The publication describes a variety of approaches for relieving officer stress that correctional administrators can implement. Why Establish--or Expand--a Stress Program for Correctional Officers? A stress program can-- (1) Save correctional administrators money by reducing overtime costs incurred when officers take sick time or quit because of job-related stress. A former Peer Stress Program officer, now retired but still volunteering, drove me to a jail and dragged out the scheduling sheet for all five of our jails and all 700 employees and showed me that only 2 were on stress leave--the first time the number had been that low in years. --Dan Noelle, Multnomah County (Oregon) sheriff After inmates killed a civilian employee, 17 officers 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 who returned told me that the counseling helped them to come back. --Cathy Carlson, Safety Office return-to-work coordinator, California Youth Authority (2) Improve officer performance by enhancing staff morale. 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 hot during the summer. People are more productive, I believe, if their morale is high. We may also have less sick time and less attrition if employees feel loyalty to the department. It is important that the staff know that the department cares about their well-being. --Gary Johnson, director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division (3) Increase institutional safety by reducing distractions caused 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 or she were more clear minded. Officers can cause a riot 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 together 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 Connecticut Department of Correction stress program]. There should be spinoffs from FOCUS that will improve relations [with the union] in other areas. --Maria Houser, deputy commissioner for administration, Connecticut Department of Correction (5) Show concern for employees by demonstrating that the department cares about its staff as human beings, not just as employees. With the stress program, things that were never addressed before get attended to: If there is an accident or an assault and an officer is hospitalized, Dick [Gould, a staff member] is there. He makes sure 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 the DOC cares about its employees. --Dennis Cullen, deputy director for labor relations, Massachusetts Department of Correction How Severe Is Correctional Officer Stress? A review of the literature and interviews with more than 50 knowledgeable individuals make clear that job-related stress is widespread--and possibly increasing--among correctional officers. Many supervisors (lieutenants and captains) 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 supervisor demands. --Work-related sources of stress, including the threat of inmate violence, actual inmate violence, inmate demands and manipulation, and problems with coworkers. --A poor public image and low pay. A few facts illustrate the stressful nature of correctional work: --Many officers do not answer their home telephones because it might be the institution calling for overtime. Some officers get a second, unlisted telephone number that they keep secret from the department. --Between 1990 and 1995, the number of attacks on correctional officers in State and Federal prisons jumped by nearly one-third, from 10,731 to 14,165, at a time when the number of correctional officers increased by only 14 percent. --Except for police officers, the number of workplace nonfatal violent incidents is higher per 1,000 employees for correctional officers than for any other profession, including taxi drivers, convenience store staff, mental health workers, and teachers. From 1992 to 1996, there were nearly 218 incidents for every 1,000 correctional officers, for a total of 58,300 incidents. --One officer said, "The public hasn't a clue as to what correctional officers do. Someone asked me just the other day if I beat inmates all the time." Another officer reported she routinely tells other people, "I work for the State," refusing to specify her precise job. The end result is some officers come to feel isolated and estranged from friends and family. Seven Programs Have Taken Steps to Address Officer Stress This report presents seven case studies of well-established and replicable stress programs, which vary significantly in their operations and services. The wide variation creates a challenge for correctional administrators, who must decide which models to adopt. However, while the choices may be daunting, the options give commissioners and sheriffs the freedom to tailor program components to their particular department's needs and resources. In addition, coordinators of the seven programs are available to offer telephone consultation regarding the suitability of their structure and services to other departments (see the end of each case study in chapter 3). A number of correctional officer stress experts are also available to provide assistance in setting up or improving a stress program (see "Individuals With Experience in Stress Programming for Correctional Officers" in chapter 7). Keys to Program Success Developing and maintaining a successful stress program is not easy. Correctional and sheriff's departments need to address several considerations to make their programs effective. --Appoint talented and dedicated staff who can stand the stress of helping others who experience stress. --Get the wholehearted participation of top administrators, union officers, line officers, and family members. --Maintain confidentiality; provide an array of services, not just debriefings, after critical incidents; train supervisors to spot and refer officers who may be experiencing stress; and change the correctional organization itself in ways that will reduce officer stress. --Monitor program activities and evaluate their effectiveness in reducing stress and saving the department money. What Does a Stress Program Cost? Program costs vary tremendously depending primarily on how much programs rely on volunteers and existing staff and the services the programs provide. The Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program developed by the New York State Department of Correctional Services costs almost nothing because it relies entirely on officers who have received training as debriefers at their own expense or through department training funded by Federal Government grants. Other programs described in this report have annual budgets ranging from $27,500 to $87,289. Departments should recoup their expenses manyfold by reducing excessive sick time and officer turnover. A few departments have data suggesting their programs may have saved them money. We compared the number of stress-related retirements officers and deputies took after critical incidents for a 10-year period before the contract and found they cost the county $20 million in unfunded liability to the county retirement system [see the full explanation in chapter 7]. Six years after the [stress] program was in place, there were none. We estimated that the program saved the department $13 million by avoiding the unfunded liability fee increases. --Deputy Chief James Nunn, San Bernardino Sheriff's Department --------------------------- Chapter 1: Why Establish--or Expand--a Stress Program for Correctional Officers? Key Points --Addressing Correctional Officer Stress is intended to help correctional administrators develop an effective program for preventing and treating correctional officer stress. --This publication describes a variety of approaches to relieving officer stress that correctional administrators can implement. --A stress program can-- o Save correctional administrators money by reducing the need to pay overtime to cover for officers who take sick time or quit because of job-related stress. o Improve officer performance by enhancing staff morale. o Increase institutional safety by reducing officer distractions due to stress. --A stress program can also improve relations with the union, help officers get back to work sooner after critical incidents, and show the department cares about its employees. --The report presents seven case studies of well-established and replicable stress programs. This chapter identifies the audiences for whom Addressing Correctional Officer Stress has been written and explains the publication's purposes and content. The chapter then reviews the reasons many correctional administrators recommend setting up or expanding a stress program for correctional officers. Audiences, Purposes, and Content of Addressing Correctional 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 training directors. Correctional officer union officials, employee assistance program (EAP) administrators, correctional chaplains, and mental health professionals may also find this publication useful.[1] Addressing Correctional Officer Stress is intended primarily to-- --Motivate correctional administrators to develop an effective program for preventing and treating correctional officer stress. --Suggest the options correctional administrators have for structuring the program. Why a Stress Program Can Benefit Correctional Administrators West Virginia Department of Corrections Commissioner Bill Davis locked down the Mount Olive Correctional Center last month for 8 days to alleviate stress on overworked staff. . . . "We've had a significant turnover rate there since we opened the prison in 1995. The prison administration was requiring COs to be frozen over [work two shifts in a row]. . . . [The closing] was in the interest of their sanity. . . . " The commissioner also made clear to officers that overtime at the facility was strictly voluntary.[2] Research studies and firsthand accounts from correctional officers have made clear that employment as a correctional officer can be stressful--sometimes extremely stressful. Chapter 2 documents the many sources of stress[3] for correctional officers (such as the mandatory overtime that existed in West Virginia, highlighted above), and the effects of stress can be serious and widespread. As discussed below and summarized in the box "Benefits a Stress Program Can Bring to Correctional Administrators," a program that helps prevent and relieve stress can have valuable benefits for correctional administrators. Financial savings Stress programs can save administrators money by reducing staff sick time. Researchers have long reported that correctional officers take excessive sick leave as a means of coping with stress on the job.[4] One lieutenant estimated that 20 percent of his officers who call in sick are burned out. A captain judged that 90 percent of officers abuse their sick time in this manner. Administrators have to pay overtime to other officers to cover for personnel who take sick time. As long ago as 1975, California spent $1.86 million in overtime pay to cover posts for officers on sick leave.[5] A stress program can reduce sick time. A former Peer Stress Program officer, now retired but still volunteering, drove me to a jail and dragged out the scheduling sheet for all five of our jails and all 700 employees and showed me that only 2 were on stress leave--the first time the number had been that low in years. --Sheriff Dan Noelle, Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff's Department Many administrators also report that officers offered stress services after a critical incident or personal crisis come back to work more quickly than if they had not been helped, further reducing the need for overtime to cover their absences. Staff turnover is also high in many facilities. The average turnover in prisons nationwide in 1986 was nearly 12 percent, but in some States-such as Arizona, South Carolina, and South Dakota-the rate was more than 25 percent.[6] Stress has been implicated as an important cause of disability retirements.[7] The cost of stress-related disabilities among officers exceeded $40 million in California in 1985 alone.[8] Administrators lose money recruiting, hiring, training, and orienting new staff to replace personnel who quit because of stress-related disability. A stress program can reduce turnover. After inmates killed a civilian employee, 17 officers 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 who returned told me that the counseling helped them to come back. --Cathy Carlson, Safety Office return-to-work coordinator, California Youth Authority Of the eight officers I have treated, two would not have returned to work without counseling. One, who had witnessed an inmate suicide, began counseling by saying he could never go back because he felt guilty that he had let down his fellow officers, but he did return and was fine. --Stevens Huggins, a psychologist who treats Multnomah County Sheriff's Department officers Turnover can also increase retirement benefit costs to the department. In the early 1980s, Deputy Chief James Nunn of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department was in charge of internal affairs and a member of the county retirement board. After critical incidents, he would see officers' names on the retirement list, each one costing $750,000 to $1 million in unfunded liability to the retirement fund. Then the department contracted with The Counseling Team to provide stress services. Later, we compared the number of stress-related retirements officers and deputies took after critical incidents for a 10-year period before the contract and found they cost the county $20 million. Six years after the program was in place, there were none. We estimated that the program saved the department $13 million by avoiding increases in its unfunded liability to the county retirement system. [See the full explanation in chapter 7.] --James Nunn, deputy chief, San Bernardino Sheriff's Department Improved officer work performance According to Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff Dan Noelle, "It's not just a money issue; the [stress] program can improve how the organization functions: It makes us a can-do organization." A stress program can improve performance by improving morale. 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 hot during the summer. People are more productive, I believe, if their morale is high. We may also have less sick time and less attrition if employees feel loyalty to the department. It is important that the staff know that the department cares about their well being. --Gary Johnson, director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division Doing the job carefully in records is very important: You don't want to let murderers out of jail by mistake or not let people out when they're supposed to leave--we get tort claims and pay fines for every day we hold someone too long. After we entered a warrant on an innocent person, deputies ended up arresting the wrong person. We ended up paying the woman $15,000. So you need good staff morale so employees will do the record keeping accurately. Peers [trained to help their fellow employees] help with keeping morale high. --Kathleen Walliker, records administrator, Multnomah County Sheriff's Department Increased institutional safety As a result of excessive sick time and turnover, especially among experienced officers, remaining staff must work with a larger number of rookies who are least equipped to handle the work in a manner that avoids conflict with inmates and ensures safe operation of the facility. "One day last month, my entire second shift consisted of rookies," an anxious 3-year "veteran" officer reported. As a result, by reducing sick time and turnover, a stress program can reduce the risk of an institutional flareup. A stress program can also increase safety by reducing officers' distractions with personal and work-related stresses. 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 were more clear minded. Officers can cause a riot situation or get injured if they come [to work] with a cluttered mind. --Don Hunter, Collier County (Florida) sheriff Unaddressed stress can result in impaired work performance, such as sloppy searches and careless counts. By making officers less patient, they are less able to resolve confrontations peaceably, so they use more force to get inmates to obey. --correctional lieutenant Improved relations with the union Correctional officer unions generally support stress programs. Indeed, according to Jess Maghan, editor of The Keeper's Voice, the journal of the International Association of Correctional Officers, "The stipulation for the provision of employee stress programs . . . is becoming a permanent feature of collective bargaining contracts between correctional officer unions and correctional agencies." As a result, by instituting a program in collaboration with the union, administrators have a rare chance to improve labor-management relations. We hope to see better labor-management relations as a result of the FOCUS program [the Connecticut DOC's new stress program]. There should be spinoffs from FOCUS that will improve relations [with the union] in other areas. --Maria Houser, deputy commissioner for administration, Connecticut Department of Correction Demonstrated concern for employees By providing stress services, administrators have an opportunity to demonstrate that they care about their staff as human beings, not just as employees. With the Stress Program, things that were never addressed before get attended to: If there is an accident or an assault and an officer is hospitalized, Dick [Gould, a staff member] is there. He makes sure 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 the DOC cares about its employees. --Dennis Cullen, deputy director for labor relations, Massachusetts Department of Correction If we expect staff to work in these conditions and we recognize the effects of the working environment on them, we owe it to them to provide resources to cope with the stresses of this setting. --A.T. Wall, director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections Stress Programs Have Drawbacks--But They Are Relatively Minor Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Noellea strong supporter of his department's stress program--says, "I am strapped for money, and the program does cost money [more than $87,000 a year]. It also takes officers away from the job to be trained and retrained." Although a strong believer in her department's program, too, Kathleen Walliker, records administrator for the Multnomah County Jail, says: It takes time to address these [stress-related] issues, so it takes peer supporters away from their assigned duties. We end up having to cover for two people (the troubled employee and the peer). It's a nuisance for me to let two people off for an hour to talk. And then coworkers can be jealous about it. Coworkers may have to cover the troubled person's or peer's phone while they talk. A debriefer with the New York State Department of Correctional Services Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program felt some officers used the debriefing sessions after a major riot to get out of work. Bruce Baker, assistant commissioner, confirms that the only drawback to the program is "officers who are only slightly involved and unaffected see it as a day at the beach." However, Noelle, Walliker, and Baker all report the benefits of their stress programs unquestionably outweigh their drawbacks. Notes 1. The National Institute of Justice has published a companion report for law enforcement officers, Developing a Law Enforcement Stress Program for Officers and Their Families, available free of charge from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at (800) 851-3240 and www.ncjrs.org. Finn, Peter, and Julie Esselman Tomz, Developing a Law Enforcement Program for Officers 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 Staff Morale," The Corrections Professional 3 (20) (1998): 2. 3. Because stress can be defined in a number of different ways, it has become a catchall "buzzword" for all kinds and levels of emotional and mental problems. Although some researchers have pointed out that stress can have a positive influence, the term generally carries a negative connotation. This report uses the common dictionary definitions of stress: (a) a mentally or emotionally disruptive and upsetting condition occurring in response to adverse external influences and (b) a stimulus or circumstance causing such a condition. 4. For example, Cornelius, G.F., Stressed Out: Strategies for Living and Working with Stress in Corrections, Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1994; Ratner, A.M., "Administrative Sources of Occupational Stress in a Correctional Setting," Sacramento, California: AIDE Behavioral Sciences, 1985; O'Brien, B., and Gustafson, [sic] "Stress in Corrections Officers: Iowa Department of Corrections Study," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 1985, NIC 004028; Brodsky, C.M., "Work Stress in Correctional Institutions," Journal of Prison & Jail Health 2 (2) (1982): 74-102; Cheek, F.E., "Reducing Staff 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's Handbook," Washington, D.C.: University Research Corporation, 1979. 5. Cheek, F.E., and M.D. Miller, "Prisoners of Life: A Study of Occupational Stress among State Corrections Officers," Washington, D.C.: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 1981. 6. American Correctional Association, unpublished data provided by the Research Department, October 8, 1997. 7. Slate, R.N., "Stress Levels and Thoughts of Quitting of Correctional Personnel: Do Perceptions of Participatory Management Make a Difference?" Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, November 1992. 8. Ratner, A.M., "Administrative Sources of Occupational Stress in a Correctional Setting," Sacramento, California: AIDE Behavioral Sciences, 1985. --------------------------- Sources of Information for This Publication The 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 Sources of Correctional Officer Stress"). (2) In-person interviews with stress program staff, correctional administrators, and program clients in Rhode Island and Texas. (3) Telephone interviews with similar individuals in programs in California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and South 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 Internet search of large jails conducted by the National Institute of Corrections, and conversations with correctional administrators and experts. The programs represent different organizational structures, offer a variety of approaches to providing services, are geographically dispersed, and serve county jails and large and small State departments of corrections. --------------------------- Benefits a Stress Program Can Bring to Correctional Administrators Financial 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. --------------------------- Stress Programs Also Benefit Midlevel Supervisors Lieutenants and captains benefit from stress programs because they can refer officers to the program whom they would otherwise have to discipline and write up. According to Richard Gould, a member of the Massachusetts DOC's Stress Unit, "We are a net for captains. 'Dick, you handle it, if you can, before I deal with it' is how they view us." A lieutenant in the Rhode Island Department of Corrections reported that some supervisors are delighted to tell officers, "Go talk to [Mark] Messier [the peer unit coordinator], or you're going to have a discipline problem." If the referred officers come back as productive workers, the supervisors have been spared a time-consuming nuisance that can be stressful for them. --------------------------- Chapter 2: The Extent and Sources of Correctional Officer Stress Key Points --Job-related stress is widespread and, in many cases, severe--and possibly increasing--among correctional officers. Many supervisors (lieutenants and captains) also experience considerable job-related stress, as do superintendents and wardens. --An inherent source of stress for correctional officers is supervising individuals who do not want to be confined and, as a result, try to manipulate staff to make their conditions of confinement as tolerable as possible. --The prison or jail organization, including understaffing, overtime, rotating shift work, and supervisor demands, creates stress for many officers. --Work-related sources of stress for officers include the threat of inmate violence, actual inmate violence, inmate demands and manipulation, and problems with coworkers. --External stresses for some correctional officers include a poor public image and low pay. --Stress can cause impaired health, burnout, early retirement, and impaired family life. How This Literature Review Was Conducted The information in this chapter is based on a review of selected literature identified in part through database searches conducted by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). This chapter is also based on in-person and telephone interviews with 23 line correctional officers, 12 midlevel administrators (lieutenants and captains), 4 superintendents and deputy superintendents, 14 clinicians who counsel officers, and several other knowledgeable individuals. --------------------------- This chapter examines the evidence regarding the extent of correctional officer stress and summarizes research about the causes of this stress and the effects it has on officers. How Bad Is Correctional Officer Stress? The available empirical and anecdotal evidence convincingly documents that stress among correctional officers is widespread and, in many cases, severe.[1] Furthermore, several circumstances may have created increased stress for correctional officers in recent years: --Inmate crowding has increased in many correctional facilities. Furthermore, the ratio of inmates to custody or security employees rose from 4.2 to 4.6 between 1990 and 1995.[2] --Inmate assaults against correctional staff in State and Federal prisons have increased. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of attacks jumped by nearly one-third, from 10,731 to 14,165.[3] During this same period, the number of correctional officers increased by only 14 percent,[4] resulting in an overall increased risk of assault for each individual officer at the end of this period. --Assaults in jails appear to have declined between 1990 and 1996 from 3.2 per 100 prisoners in 1990 to 2.4 in 1996, with a peak of 3.6 in 1992. However, in absolute terms, there was an average of 42 assaults by prisoners on jail staff per jail system in 1996, including an average of 206 assaults in each of the Nation's 17 largest jail systems, representing on average of 4 assaults per week.[5] --Many offenders serving increasingly longer sentences do not fear punishment or respect the authority of correctional officers.[6] According to one superintendent, "Inmates today aren't afraid to assault staff; they don't care if they get put in segregation." --There are more gangs-and more dangerous gangs-in prison.[7] What Causes Stress for Correctional Officers? Many years ago a researcher observed, "any organization or social structure which consists of one group of people kept inside who do not want to be there and the other group who are there to make sure they stay in will be an organization 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 that doesn't want to be here and wants to be as comfortable as possible for as long as they have to be incarcerated. And correctional officers stand in the way of those desires, so there's built-in tension and manipulation." Beyond this global source of stress, it is possible to distinguish among stresses caused by the correctional organization, those created by correctional work itself, and those brought on by factors external to the facility. Organizational sources of stress Many individuals interviewed for this report suggested that organization-related conditions create stress for many officers, in particular, understaffing, overtime, shift work, and supervisor demands. Understaffing In many prisons and jails, there are too few officers available to staff authorized posts as a result of unattractive salaries, high turnover, and excessive use of sick time and disability leave. Understaffing can create several different kinds of stress: --Lack of time to complete required tasks, such as head counts, searches, and paperwork, at all or in a conscientious manner. --Occasionally working at breakneck speed to complete the required work, as well as addressing unplanned inmate needs and requests. --Apprehension when there are too few officers available as backup should inmate violence occur. --Inability to get time off for special occasions or family crises. Overtime Staff shortages create the need for extensive overtime among remaining staff. According to an intake administrator for a State department of corrections, "At least 100 officers have told me they don't answer their telephones because it might be the institution calling for overtime." Some officers get a second, unlisted telephone number, which they keep secret from the department. One facility allows officers to refuse overtime assignments only once a year; a second refusal results in a warning; a third, in a 1-day suspension; and a fourth, in possible termination. Some officers welcome overtime because of the extra money they can earn. As one officer said, "Overtime is great--I worked three OTs a week for 18 months." However, she quickly added, "But I got burned out, and my supervisors didn't even acknowledge my contribution." Rotating shift work Correctional officers consistently report that rotating shifts create havoc with family life and reduce officers' ability to perform their work conscientiously because of fatigue and irritability. "You can tell when shift work is getting to officers," a lieutenant said. "Their work gets sloppy, their searches become careless, their units are filthy, and they stop following the rules." Supervisor demands Several correctional officers reported that supervisors are a source of stress because, as one officer said, "They are always on you to do the job right, but you can't do it right [because of staff shortages]. There is supposed to be one officer per tier here, but now they've collapsed the posts, and there is one officer for every two tiers. So there just isn't enough time for me to get inmates awakened, showered, and fed; keep my log books up to date; do my checks; and make sure the catwalks have all been cleaned and disinfected." Other stress sources Research studies have consistently highlighted two other sources of organizational stress that correctional officers and administrators themselves do not usually identify as stressful: role conflict[9] and role ambiguity.[10] --Role conflict. Researchers define role conflict as the struggle officers engage in to reconcile custodial responsibilities (maintaining security, such as preventing escapes and inmate fights) with their treatment functions (helping inmates rehabilitate themselves). --Role ambiguity. Role ambiguity is the uncertainty created by supervisors who expect officers to "go by the book" and follow all rules to the letter when supervisors and line officers alike know that officers must be flexible and use judgment in their interactions with inmates. One study illustrates this finding: While officers work in a paramilitary organization marked by explicit lines of authority and a host of formal regulations, their task of managing inmates demands flexibility, the judicious application of discretionary justice, and the ability to secure inmate compliance through informal exchanges which deviate from written rules. Ambiguous and conflicting expectations are a likely result and a potential source of stress.[11] Work-related sources of stress The research literature and correctional officers agree that many officers find four conditions of correctional work stressful: Threat of inmate violence Correctional officers interviewed for this report identified the threat of inmate violence against staff as a source of stress more frequently than any other single feature of their occupation. Inmate violence Actual violence, including assaults, hostage taking, riots, inmates killing each other, and inmate suicides, can be a major source of stress for many officers not only during the episodes but afterwards: "Staff anxiety is intensified [after critical incidents] by the aftermath of recriminations, scapegoating, blaming, and job insecurity."[12] Except for police officers, the number of workplace nonfatal violent incidents is higher per 1,000 employees for correctional officers than for any other profession, including taxi drivers, convenience store staff, mental health workers, and teachers. From 1992 to 1996, there were 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 at manipulation by some inmates to be stressful--for example, requests for cigarettes or extra food with an implicit quid pro quo of promising not to create trouble or to keep other inmates in line. Furthermore, "When officers are manipulated [successfully] by inmates . . . , they may experience extreme stress."[14] Problems with coworkers One survey found that 22 percent of staff viewed "other staff" as creating more stress than any other single factor except for dealing with hostile, demanding inmates.[15] The following conditions can precipitate stress among coworkers: (1) Burned out coworkers repeatedly venting their frustrations to their colleagues; (2) officers competing for limited, choice assignments; (3) apprehension that coworkers will refuse to back them up in a confrontation with inmates, are too inexperienced (e.g., due to high turnover) to know how to help out, or do not have the physical or emotional strength to be effective; and (4) inappropriate officer behavior toward inmates-bringing in contraband, getting too friendly, using unnecessary force, and taking questionable disciplinary action. Sexist attitudes by colleagues (and supervisors) and sexual harassment create stress for many women officers. Many male officers question whether female officers have the physical strength and determination to help in a confrontation with inmates. However, sexist attitudes and behavior may have declined as more women have become correctional officers and, as a result, as male officers have gained the opportunity to see firsthand that women can be as effective as men in dealing with inmate violence. Stress from outside the system Two significant sources of stress for some officers originate outside the prison or jail. One source is poor public image. According to one researcher, "A negative image of corrections is regularly portrayed in the media . . . [with officers depicted] as stupid, animalistic, and senseless abusers of socially wronged individuals."[16] As one officer said, "The public hasn't a clue as to what correctional officers do. Someone asked me just the other day if I beat inmates all the time." One officer said she routinely tells other people, "I work for the State," refusing to specify her precise job. The end result is that some officers come to feel isolated and estranged from friends and family.[17] The second outside source of stress is poor pay. Many officers cite low pay as a source of stress. The beginning salary in one State is $12,000. In another State, officers start out earning $18,000; the most they can earn after 18 months is $26,400. Starting pay in one privately operated facility is $14,000 to $16,000 a year. Stress Can Create Several Significant Problems for Officers Excessive stress can result in at least four serious problems for officers: --Stress may result in physical illnesses, ranging from heart disease to eating disorders. It may also precipitate substance abuse among susceptible individuals.[18] --Stress can lead to burnout among officers.[19] --Stress has been implicated in excessive disability retirements.[20] Even when physical ailments are the reason for the disability, the illnesses may have been brought on by stress. --Correctional officers experiencing excessive stress may damage their family relationships by displacing their frustration onto spouses and children, ordering family members around just as they issue commands to inmates (one officer locked his son out of the boy's room and searched it), and becoming distant by withholding information about their work that they feel family members will not understand. Shift work and overtime can create stress by preventing officers from attending important family functions. As discussed above, the effects of stress on correctional officers can degrade their ability to perform their responsibilities in the prison or jail in ways that compromise institutional safety, cost money, and create stress for other staff. The remainder of this report addresses the approaches seven stress programs have implemented to prevent and treat officer stress with the goals of enhancing the officers' lives and improving the operations of the correctional facilities in which they work. Notes 1. Huckabee, R.G., "Stress in Corrections: An Overview of the Issues," Journal of Criminal Justice 20 (5) (1992): 479-486. 2. Stephan, J.J., Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1995, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997, NCJ 166582. 3. Ibid. 4. Data provided by the American Correctional Association, June 29, 1999. 5. Camp, C.G., and G.M. Camp, The Corrections Yearbook, 1997, South Salem, New York: Criminal Justice Institute, 1997. 6. Martinez, A.R., "Corrections Officer: The 'Other' Prisoner," The Keeper's Voice 18 (1) (1997): 8-11. 7. Ibid. A few correctional officers suggested that correctional work has not become more stressful. Rather, they said, officers themselves have changed. According to these officers, in the past many officers came to the job from the military and therefore had a discipline and toughness that enabled them to adapt 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 correctional work because they come to work already stressed out. In this connection, some providers observe that relationship problems are what drive many officers to seek professional counseling, not correctional work per se. 8. Brodsky, C.M., "Work Stress in Correctional Institutions," 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 Correctional Officer Stress," Journal of Crime and Justice 19 (2) (1996): 103-120; Woodruff, L., "Occupational Stress for Correctional Personnel: Part One," American Jails 7 (4) (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 Job Satisfaction among Southern Correctional Officers-Perceptions and Causal Factors," Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 10 (4) (1986): 5-26; and Crouch, B.M., "Prison Guards on the Line," in Dilemmas of Punishment, ed. K.C. Hass and G.P. Alpert, Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1986. 10. Woodruff, L., "Occupational Stress for Correctional Personnel"; Gerstein, L.H., C.G. Topp, and C. Correll, "Role of the Environment and Person When Predicting Burnout Among Correctional Personnel," Criminal Justice and Behavior 14 (3) (1987): 352-369; and Cullen, F.T., B.G. Link, N.T. Wolfe, and J. Frank, "The Social Dimension of Correctional Officer Stress," Justice Quarterly 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, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998, NCJ 168634. 14. Cornelius, G.F., "Keys to Effective Inmate Management: Avoiding Manipulation," in The Effective Correctional Officer, Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1992: 75-82. See also Kauffman, Prison Officers and Their World, pp. 56-57. 15. Marston, J.L., "Stress and Stressors: Inmate and Staff Perceptions," American Jails 7 (4) (1993): 21-30. 16. Van Fleet, F., "Correctional Officers and Their Families: Dealing with Stress," in The Effective Correctional Officer, Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1992: 37-44. 17. Maghan, J., and L. McLeish-Blackwell, "Black Women in Correctional Employment," in Change, Challenges, and Choices: Women's Role in Modern Corrections, 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: Washburn University, 1980. 18. Woodruff, "Occupational Stress for Correctional Personnel"; and Cheek, F.E., and M.D. Miller, "New Look at Officers' Role Ambiguity," in Correctional Officers-Power, Pressure and Responsibility, ed. J.N. Tucker, Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1983. 19. Burnout has been defined as a process that produces three conditions: (1) emotional exhaustion or feelings that the person is overextended and exhausted by the job; (2) depersonalization that causes impersonal and cynical interactions with clients; and (3) lack of feelings of personal accomplishment. Maslach, C., and S. Jackson, "The Measurement of Experienced Burnout," Journal of Occupational Behavior 2 (1981): 99-113. While there is no time limit or period in which workers burn out, five stages of burnout have been identified that many workers pass through in the process of becoming burned out: honeymoon (e.g., the officer loves his or her job and works hard); fuel shortage (e.g., the officer no longer enjoys going to work every day and gets tired more and more easily); chronic symptoms (e.g., the officer begins to experience chronic headaches and tunes out his or her family by watching a lot of television); crisis (the officer complains constantly to coworkers about the job; physical and mental problems get worse; and the officer is fed up with inmates, supervisors, and the paperwork); and "hitting the wall" (the officer quits the job, walks out on the family, or continues to work but thinks obsessively about how bad it is). Veninga, R., and J. Spradley, The Work Stress Connection: How to Cope with Job Burnout, New York: Ballantine Books, 1981; Cornelius, G., Stressed Out: Strategies for Living and Working with Stress in Corrections, Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association, 1994. 20. Slate, R.N., "Stress Levels of Correctional Personnel: Is There a Difference Between the Sexes?" Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences annual meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, March 20, 1993. --------------------------- Do Midlevel Correctional Managers Experience Stress? Midlevel managers (lieutenants and captains) interviewed for this publication report they experience several types 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 ask stressed--out line officers to work overtime. --Attempting to follow unclear policies and procedures and frequent modifications to policies and procedures as top-level supervisors change their minds or are replaced. --Completing all the required documentation and paperwork--yet still being on the line to supervise and be seen 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 you for guidance. You make the critical decisions; as watch commander, you run the prison. On two shifts out of three, I'm the highest ranking person in the facility because the higher-ups leave at 4:00 p.m. It's a tremendous 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 be saddled with a "24/7" commitment-carrying a beeper around the clock. They have to deal with typically adversarial 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 share their feelings of uncertainty, helplessness, or inadequacy with anyone for fear of appearing weak, incompetent, or indecisive. --------------------------- Which Officers Are Most Likely to Experience Stress? According to one researcher, "At this point, there seems to be no clear consensus as to which factors can be consistently correlated with stress in corrections."[a] Some studies have found that officers working higher security level institutions or units experience more stress than officers working medium or minimum security areas,[b] while other studies have found no differences in stress levels among security levels.[c] Staffing an administrative segregation unit can, paradoxically, feel less stressful than working on other units (because inmates are locked down almost the entire day) or more stressful (because every inmate is a potential time bomb). The evidence regarding stress levels associated with working in direct supervision facilities is similarly inconsistent. The apparent stresses of a specific post or assignment may be offset by its perceived benefits. For example, tower duty may be boring but valued because it involves little or no inmate contact.[d] All 13 officers posted to the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island and Goldwater Hospital on Roosevelt Island in New York City for inmates with AIDS saw the assignment as a good one because it was not a prison setting, there were no captains or deputy wardens supervising them on the wards, the inmates were usually more manageable than the general population, the pay was good, and no one else wanted the position-the officers did not have 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 to or personally know other staff--or inmates--which can lead to concerns about privacy. Inmates in jails may present different problems for correctional officers than prison inmates because so many jail detainees have just come into the facility right off the streets. In addition, rapid turnover in jails creates its own set of stresses: While correctional officers must not only establish their authority and make clear the ground rules to a constantly changing population, they are at the same time frequently deprived of the satisfaction of seeing inmates improve their lot through the educational, religious, vocational, and other programs prisons can offer their longer term inmates. Studies that have attempted to determine whether officers' stress levels are associated with length of time on the job, educational level, race, and gender have produced inconsistent findings. Notes a. Huckabee, R.G., "Stress in Corrections: An Overview of the Issues," 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 Research in Crime and Delinquency 28 (4) (1991): 472-500; and Cullen, F.T., B.G. Link, N.T. Wolfe, and J. Frank, "The Social Dimension of Correctional Officer Stress," Justice Quarterly 2 (4) (1985): 505-533. c. Lasky, G.L., and B.C. Gordon, "Occupational Stressors among Federal Correctional Officers Working in Different Security Levels," Criminal Justice and Behavior 13 (3) (1986): 317-327. d. Grossi, E.L., T.J. Keil, and G.F. Vito, "Surviving 'the Joint': Mitigating Factors of Correctional Officer Stress," Journal of Crime and Justice 19 (2) (1996): 103-120. e. Kamerman, J., "Corrections Officers and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: Balancing Professional Distance and Personal Involvement," Death Studies 15 (1991): 375-384. --------------------------- Chapter 3: Program Case Studies Key Points --Seven different stress programs illustrate the diverse options for structuring a program. --The programs' most distinguishing features are whether they- o Are in-house programs or externally contracted agencies. o Offer professional counseling, peer support, or both. o Address chronic stress, stress following a critical incident, or both. o Conduct academy or inservice training. o 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 which models to adopt. However, while the choices may be daunting, the options give commissioners and sheriffs the freedom 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 of their structure and services to other departments. This chapter provides brief case studies of seven programs that prevent or treat correctional officer stress. The case studies concentrate primarily on the programs' operational procedures. Details about other aspects of the programs are presented in the remaining chapters of the report: --Chapter 4 discusses options for staffing a stress program. --Securing constructive participation from correctional administrators, union leaders, correctional officers, and family members is addressed in chapter 5. --Chapter 6 explores methods of gaining officers' trust in the program, providing services after critical incidents, and addressing organizational sources of stress. --Monitoring, evaluation, and funding issues are covered in chapter 7. Exhibit 3-1 identifies the principal features of each of the seven programs. As shown, the programs' most distinguishing features are whether they-- --Are independent organizations (with which the department of corrections or sheriff's department contracts), in-house programs, or a combination of the two (see "Selecting a Suitable Organizational Structure Is Important"). --Offer professional counseling, peer support, or both. --Address chronic stress, stress resulting from critical incidents, 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 Family Service Society and San Bernardino's The Counseling Team are both private agencies that provide a full range of stress-related services--individual counseling, critical incident debriefing, peer training and supervision, and inservice prevention training--under contract to correctional agencies. However: --Family Service Society serves only one correctional agency-the Rhode Island Department of Corrections-while The Counseling Team serves three sheriff's departments in addition to the California Department of Corrections. --The Rhode Island Department of Corrections not only contracts with Family Service Society for professional services but also has an in-house peer support unit supervised by a correctional officer. As a result, the Rhode Island program represents a hybrid approach to structuring stress services. The Massachusetts Department of Correction Stress Unit and the Multnomah County (Oregon) Peer Support Program both have a cadre of trained in-house peers who support officers experiencing chronic stress or stress after a critical incident. Both programs refer officers to professional counselors outside the agency. However: --Peer supporters in Multnomah County's program offer critical incident debriefings, while the Massachusetts program was only just beginning in 1999 to train its peers for this purpose. --While the Multnomah County program's trained peers are regular correctional officers who are released from duty to provide support to other officers as needed, the Massachusetts program's five peer supporters are officers who have agreed to be reassigned to spend full-time providing peer support services. The Texas Institutional Division's Post Trauma Staff Support Program and the New York State Department of Correctional Services Post-Incident Stress Debriefing (PISD) Program are both in-house programs that assemble and send trained officers, along with a clinician, to go on site to provide debriefings after critical incidents. While available to address individual officers' problems with chronic stress, the two programs are used primarily after critical incidents. After debriefings, both programs refer officers in need of professional counseling to their respective employee assistance programs (EAP). South Carolina's Post Trauma Resources (PTR), a private, for-profit organization, plays two roles. On the one hand, PTR provides critical incident debriefing and individual counseling services to South Carolina Department of Corrections employees. On the other hand, PTR helps departments of corrections in other States to plan and set up their own stress programs, and it trains their staff to provide critical incident debriefings and peer support. As exhibit 3-1 illustrates--and the case studies that follow explain in detail- -there is considerable variation in the structure, operations, and services of the seven programs. Differences among the programs beyond the major contrasts identified earlier include the following: --Having one office versus a main office and satellite offices. --Providing compensatory time for officers to attend training as peer supporters. --Referring troubled officers to an EAP or to independent psychologists. --Paying for a limited number of free visits to independent psychologists. --Making debriefings for affected staff mandatory or optional. --Training unlicensed correctional staff to lead or co-lead debriefings. --Bringing in peer supporters from other facilities to conduct debriefings after critical incidents as opposed to using peers from the facility in which the incident occurred. --Conducting outreach to family members. The variation in how the programs operate and the services they provide may seem discouraging: The lack of uniformity makes it difficult for corrections administrators to easily select commonly implemented program features around which they can structure their own programs. Instead, DOC managers and sheriffs must take the time to pick and choose among a range of alternatives for designing their own stress programs, and they need to assess the benefits and limitations of each possible component. On the positive side, however, this programmatic diversity means correctional administrators do not have to feel they are obligated to follow slavishly any one model or approach; they have the freedom to tailor the various components of their program to the particular needs of their facilities and employees and to the characteristics of their department's structure, history, size, and resources. While the choices may be daunting, there is expert help available for making them. Key participants in all seven programs have agreed to field telephone calls to share information about what works best for them and why. The names and telephone numbers of these individuals follow each case study below. In addition, chapter 7, "Evaluation, Funding, and Technical Assistance," identifies still other individuals with national experience in stress programming who are available for consultation. --------------------------- Selecting a Suitable Organizational Structure Is Important There are three possible organizational relationships between a stress program and the correctional agency it serves: (1) An in-house program is a separate unit within--and operated by--the correctional agency (Massachusetts' Stress Unit, Multnomah County's Peer Support Program, New York State's Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program, Texas' Post Trauma Staff Support Program). (2) External arrangements involve regular use of a private service provider (South Carolina's Post Trauma Resources, California's Counseling Team). (3) Hybrid programs combine elements of both in-house and external structures (Rhode Island's Stress Unit and Family Service Society). --------------------------- The Rhode Island Department of Corrections Stress Unit Brief Program Overview The Rhode Island Department of Corrections Stress Unit has two components: (1) Family Service Society, a nonprofit outpatient counseling agency, provides professional evaluation and counseling, along with referral to other sources of professional help (including hospitalization), to the department's 1,547 employees and their family members. Family Service Society also provides inservice training, critical incident response services, and training of peer supporters. (2) A group of 28 trained peer supporters, directed by a volunteer correctional officer, provides everyday and critical incident support for employees and refers them to the Family Service Society for professional help. The Department of Corrections provides the Family Service Society $16,500 a year for services. Family Service Society conducted two critical incident debriefings, counseled 17 employees, and referred 12 employees for hospitalization in 1998. Peer supporters made about 360 contacts with coworkers. The Rhode Island Department of Corrections has seven facilities located within a 1-square mile complex. Because the State has no jails, the DOC also houses pretrial inmates. The department's 991 correctional officers and 556 civilian employees oversee 3,250 inmates. Family Service Society is a private, nonprofit, outpatient counseling agency with three full-time clinicians that began in 1869 as an orphanage. With annual revenues of between $230,000 and $250,000, the agency is supported by the United Way and other charities, third party reimbursements, direct client fees, and endowment interest. The DOC first contracted with Family Service Society in 1985 for $6,000 to provide professional counseling services for employees under stress. In 1993, the DOC expanded the contract to provide for developing an in-house peer support unit. The 3-year contract ending June 30, 2000, was for $16,500 annually. Corrections and law enforcement agencies represent about one-third of the agency's caseload. Program overview The Stress Unit's structure and staffing reflect its hybrid nature as a partly in-house and partly externally contracted program. Structure The Rhode Island DOC's Stress Unit consists of two components: (1) Family Service Society staff provide DOC employees and their families professional evaluation and counseling services along with referrals to other sources of professional help, including hospitalization. The agency also provides inservice and academy training and critical incident response services. The agency trains new peer supporters. (2) A group of 28 peer supporters trained by Family Service Society-but supervised by a correctional officer-provides support for employees and refers them to Family Service Society if they need professional help. In addition to helping officers experiencing chronic stress, peer supporters respond to officers after a critical incident. Family Service Society's specific obligations under its contract with the department are to be available for 300 hours a year to-- --Provide three orientation sessions on stress prevention and program services for department supervisors, union stewards, and line personnel. --Provide a free initial visit and an evaluation session to any employee at no cost. --Continue counseling on a sliding fee scale with third-party reimbursement. --Be on call 24 hours a day to respond to emergencies involving personnel both on and off grounds. --Train, develop, and support at least six DOC employees a year to provide peer support services. Staffing The program has two supervisors. The Stress Unit's clinical supervisor is John Carr, Family Service Society's executive director. Carr ensures that the services called for in the DOC contract are provided. With a master's degree in social work, Carr is tactical coordinator of the emergency response unit for the Coventry, Rhode Island, Police Department, where he served previously as an active duty reserve police officer for 14 years. Carr provides the bulk of Family Service Society's counseling and evaluation and, together with the DOC's program coordinator, he coordinates stress services after critical incidents. The Stress Unit's coordinator is appointed by the DOC from among current peer supporters who apply for the position. At this writing, the coordinator is Mark Messier, a correctional officer. Messier spends about half-time managing the Stress Unit's day-to-day operations within the DOC. Messier also recruits new peers and supervises current peers. Supervisors and peer supporters tell Messier about officers needing help. Officers in crisis may also call him directly. If the situation is not an emergency, Messier calls the appropriate on duty peer supporter to address the problem. If the problem appears to be serious, he handles it himself after getting permission to leave his post. Program services There were 28 trained peers in 1999. Eighteen were uniformed, and 10 were civilians. Altogether, peers average 30 contacts a month on grounds or about 1 contact per peer per month. If a peer supporter talks with another employee three times and the person is still "stuck" on the same issue, the peer calls Carr, who will evaluate and treat the person, refer the person to one of the two other Family Service Society clinicians or to an outside psychologist, or arrange for hospitalization. In 1998, Carr and his staff treated 17 employees and referred 12 for hospitalization. The agency uses a consulting psychiatrist to provide medical support and psychiatric evaluations for officers whom Family Service Society treats on an outpatient basis. Normally, after the first contact with any Family Services clinician, either the person's insurance pays or the person pays out-of-pocket. (Counseling is available on a sliding fee scale.) On occasion, Family Service Society will provide long-term counseling services pro bono. Family Service Society refers employees in need of hospitalization to Butler Hospital, a private psychiatric facility affiliated with Brown University in Providence. Since the officers' managed care provider typically provides reimbursement for only 2 or 3 days of residential treatment (and many officers are terrified at the thought of being locked up), Family Service Society usually refers officers to the facility's "day hospitalization" program, which patients attend weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., generally for 1 week. The Stress Unit provided two critical incident debriefings in 1998, one after a civilian employee committed suicide and one after a tactical officer died of a brain tumor. Debriefings are mandatory if there is a suicide or facility disorder. Supervisors and Messier can make debriefings after lesser incidents (such as assaults) mandatory, as well. Messier asks the warden to instruct supervisors to give the employees time off to go to the debriefings. Carr and Messier work in tandem when there is a critical incident. In 1997, five officers were injured during a riot at the maximum security facility. The head of the hostage negotiating team paged Carr, who paged Messier. Messier activated the peer supporters. Carr and Messier met together on grounds. Carr and Messier contacted family members and had them meet near the facility (not at the incident site) to talk one-on-one with a peer supporter. After release, a peer rode with each officer in the ambulance to the hospital and remained with the officer at the hospital. Carr and his wife, Patricia Carr, the DOC's parole coordinator who is also a peer supporter and social worker, conducted a debriefing for family members 2 weeks later because many husbands and wives were frightened about whether their spouses should return to work. After the session, the Carrs went to the home of one couple who asked for extra help. None of the five officers resigned. Collaboration with the DOC's human resources office When an individual will need extended time away from work while undergoing outpatient counseling or when Butler Hospital's admitting evaluation confirms the need for inpatient care or day hospitalization, Carr or Messier calls Barry Levin, the DOC's human resources coordinator, to determine the officer's medical coverage and to find out if the person has sick leave or vacation time left. Carr or Messier tells Levin the person's circumstances (for example, whether it is a marital or alcohol problem), whether the person is going to be treated inpatient or outpatient, and how many days off the person will probably need. Levin calls the person's deputy warden and says the person will not be at work for the estimated number of days (without saying why) and that a physician's note will be forthcoming. When an officer returns to work after discharge from a treatment program or leave of absence, Carr notifies Messier. Either Messier or Carr then asks a peer supporter in the returning officer's facility to keep an eye on the person. Training Family Service Society trains new peer supporters, and Carr arranges for clinicians and other experts to provide bimonthly inservice training meetings for the peers at Butler Hospital. Carr and Messier provide inservice training annually to all officers to remind them of the program's services and pass out an updated list of additional resources. Carr also coordinates the bimonthly inservice training for the DOC's crisis negotiation team. Early in the schedule of each academy class, John and Patricia Carr and Messier give a 1-hour session addressing basic stress; a later session addresses traumatic stress. At family night at the end of the academy, they introduce the peer counselors and discuss the program with the graduates and their families. However, Carr says, It can be difficult to convince recruits that stress will be an issue [for them]. It goes in one ear and out the other. Also, the academy is training them to be lean, mean, fighting machines just when I'm trying to tell them it's OK to feel afraid and come for help. As a result, I put a peer supporter in front of them who is a member of the cell extraction team or a 199-pound maximum security officer so the recruits can say to themselves, "That tactically trained person is a touchy-feely peer?!" So, I sell people, not the program--people who can help. For further information, contact: John Carr Director Family Service Society 33 Summer Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 (401) 723-2124 fax (401) 723-0566 Mark Messier Coordinator Stress Unit Rhode Island Department of Corrections Cranston, RI 02920 (401) 462-5151 in_line@unidial.com --------------------------- Advantages and Drawbacks of Three Program Organizational Options In-house Programs Advantages-- --Staff more likely to be viewed by officers as part of the corrections community --Staff more likely to be knowledgeable about corrections stresses, the stresses peculiar to the department, and the department structure Drawbacks --Officers more likely to view program as a tool of management and, therefore, worry about confidentiality --Risk of conflict in duties to client and agency External Programs Advantages-- --Officers less likely to view staff with suspicion, offering greater chance to build trust --Greater autonomy in program operations --Less chance for stress program staff to feel torn between loyalty to the department and loyalty to the client Disadvantages-- --Greater chance of program being isolated and officers viewing staff as inaccessible, not part of the corrections community, and unfamiliar with corrections work and stress Hybrid Programs Hybrid programs may have the advantages of both the internal and external options, with few, if any, of their shortcomings. It is possible, however, that some of the drawbacks to the internal or external model may remain. Also, unless they are well coordinated, hybrid programs risk creating confusion among officers about how the program operates as well as creating conflict between internal and external program staff. --------------------------- The Counseling Team, San Bernardino, California Brief Program Overview The Counseling Team, a private counseling organization consisting of 13 full-time and 3 part-time professional counselors and offering "one-stop shopping," has provided stress services to officers, civilians, and family members in corrections departments (and law enforcement agencies) in Southern California since 1982. Three sheriff's departments contract with The Counseling Team to provide some combination of individual counseling, critical incident debriefings, peer supporter training, and academy and inservice training. The Counseling Team provides critical incident debriefing services to correctional officers in State prisons and juvenile facilities in Southern California. The Counseling Team treats more than 100 correctional officers a year, goes to correctional facilities to conduct debriefings an average of 24 times a year, and conducts 6 to 10 trainings a week. As of 1999, The Counseling Team, a private for-profit counseling organization in Southern California, served sheriff's departments in Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties with a total of 1,280 correctional officers. The Counseling Team also serves more than 17 California Department of Corrections and Youth Authority facilities from Los Angeles to the Mexican border. In addition to its home office in San Bernardino, The Counseling Team has established offices in Corona (1993), Victorville (1995), and San Diego (1999). Contractual arrangements The Counseling Team's services vary from agency to agency. --The Counseling Team's contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department calls for the organization to provide psychological screening of applicants and individual counseling and critical incident debriefings to all department employees (including 530 correctional officers). --The San Diego County Sheriff's Department contracts with The Counseling Team to serve the department's 3,300 employees, including its 300 uniformed correctional officers in seven jails. The contract calls for individual counseling and critical incident debriefings, overseeing a revamped peer support unit, and providing supervisory and academy training. --The Counseling Team provides individual counseling to Riverside County Sheriff's Department employees, including its 450 correctional officers, providing same-day response in crisis situations (because the EAP may not see the officer for a week). The Counseling Team has trained all Riverside's peer supporters. --Through a subcontract with the California Department of Corrections' employee assistance program, The Counseling Team provides critical incident debriefings in DOC facilities in Southern California. Typically, the contracts have an upper limit on the amount of money the correctional department will reimburse The Counseling Team each year. Program services Training Any contracted department may request an inservice training session for its personnel by calling The Counseling Team's full-time training director. The training director explains the request to Nancy Bohl, The Counseling Team's director; asks about her or other staff availability to conduct the training; and then handles the logistics. One sheriff's department requested a session on line-of-duty burnout; another department asked for a session on staff becoming emotionally involved with inmates. The Counseling Team conducts 6 to 10 trainings a week for all its clients (including police agencies). The Counseling Team provides a 3-day training course for peer supporters based on the organization's 160-page training manual. Peers from several corrections and law enforcement agencies attend the training together. Graduates are State-certified as peer supporters. Individual counseling Officers and other employees use an 800 number to call The Counseling Team to arrange an appointment. Support staff take the calls and make the appointments, recording the time on the computer and hard copy and leaving the counselor a voice mail identifying the appointment. The Counseling Team automatically provides up to three free counseling sessions per employee and, if there is an important clinical necessity and the correctional agency approves, up to three more sessions. Staff clinicians refer officers to other counselors or to that agency's employee assistance program for longer term treatment. Critical incident debriefing The Counseling Team goes onsite to corrections institutions and police stations to conduct debriefings an average of 24 times each year. Counseling Team clinicians rotate being on call (and serving as oncall backups) for emergencies. The team has responded to as many as five simultaneous critical incidents. In a crisis response, the counselor meets first with a ranking officer to learn what happened and which personnel are having a difficult time coping. The clinician then talks with each officer individually for an hour or two in a private room. The counselor usually arranges for the officer to come voluntarily to the agency 3 to 5 days after the incident for a followup session. Over a 2-week period in 1996, 8 different Counseling Team clinicians participated in a series of 41 mandatory debriefing sessions with more than 400 staff at a California Youth Authority facility after a trustee killed a civilian staff member. The inmates had put the employee in a Dumpster truck that picked up trash in the facility. A search team found her a day later in a landfill under a mound of garbage. Cathy Carlson is the Safety Office return-to-work coordinator at the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility where 450 officers manage 1,800 youths in a facility built to house 1,000 inmates. As Carlson tells the story, "We discovered the body at 11:00 a.m." My supervisor gave me the choice of calling the authority's inmate psychologists, the mental health care provides I use through workers' compensation, or The Counseling Team. I called the team because I knew how angry the officers felt toward management, and the team had no connection with the Youth Authority. I called Nancy Bohl around 1:00 p.m. and left a message on her answering machine. Bohl called back within 30 or 40 minutes. Nancy had a counselor--Bryon Greenberg--at the facility by 2:30. Greenberg met me in the lobby, and we went to the command post where I told him what had happened and what I needed. I told him how the staff would react--fear, shock, anger. I said I didn't know what to do, and he said, "Don't worry, I'll take care of it." Because the murdered staff member was a friend of mine, Greenberg asked how I was doing, too. Greenberg went to the control center and tried to assemble the murdered employee's coworkers, but they were so angry at management (because they blamed us for the short staffing that they felt allowed the murder to happen), they would not meet with him. So I had to ask the superindendent to make the debriefing mandatory. [Greenberg then conducted the debriefings.] By now it was 9:30 p.m., so I told Nancy [Bohl], who had arrived, that the night shift was coming in--how do we tell them [what happened] and keep them at work? Nancy and Byron decided that, as the new staff came into the facility, I should assemble them in the visitors' hall where the superintendent would tell them what happened and what the facility was doing about it. He would then offer them the choice of going home or talking [with a counselor] before they went on duty. About one--quarter of them--80 staff-talked with Nancy or Byron, some in groups, some one-on-one. I told them they could come back and talk some more any time during their shift. Byron stayed until 3:00 a.m. A third counselor had already come. The next morning, three other counselors arrived. The debriefings began on August 11 and ended on August 16 after the counselors had debriefed with every member of the staff. After the debriefings ended, a number of officers asked if they could go back to The Counseling Team for individual counseling. I encouraged them to go. Counseling Team staff kept calling me back asking how the officers and I were doing. Seventeen officers took disability leave. Seven never came back. Of the five who went for individual counseling, four returned. [The one who did not was the officer on the search team who had found the body.] The officers who returned told me that the counseling helped them to come back. A tremendous number of staff, including cooks and janitors, could not say enough good things about The Counseling Team. According to Carlson, staff hostility toward management has declined over the long term. But getting staff to continue to avoid rushing their work and maintain vigilance about safety has been difficult as time passes. Some staff have gotten lax again and forget or ignore the rules, saying "Oh, he's a trustee, he's safe"-- but, Carlson reminds herself, "the murderer was a trustee, too." --------------------------- An Officer Uses the Counseling Team for a Personal Problem In 1985, The Counseling Team debriefed a correctional officer after a critical incident. Several years later, when the officer was going through a tough time as a result of a divorce, he called on his own initiative to see Nancy Bohl, The Counseling Team's director, for several sessions. "I could not vent with anyone else because I felt it was a personal matter that I wasn't comfortable sharing. I would just telephone her and ask, 'Hey, Nancy, got the time?' 'Sure, come down tomorrow.' She told me I wasn't all screwed up, that my reactions were normal. The way counseling is available with the team makes it easy. All I have to do is drop a dime, and it's a done deal." For further information, contact: Nancy Bohl Director The Counseling Team 1881 Business Center Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 (909) 884-0133 fax (909) 384-0734 --------------------------- The Massachusetts Department of Correction Stress Unit Brief Program Overview The Massachusetts Department of Correction funds a Stress Unit consisting of five full-time correctional officers trained as peer supporters to help other officers experiencing stress and link them to sources of professional help. Peer Unit members follow up with employees after treatment to assure successful return to productive employment. Stress Unit members helped 3,600 officers, civilian employees, and family members between 1988 and 1998. During fiscal year 1997-98, the unit assisted 206 individuals. The department does not incur added staff expenses because officers who join the Stress Unit are not replaced in the institutions from which they have been transferred. As a result, the unit's only expenses are the coordinator's $12,240 half-time salary and a $90 per week supplement to each unit member for carrying a pager. The Massachusetts Department of Correction has 4,031 correctional officers and 1,597 civilian employees. The DOC inmate population count on January 1, 1999, was 11,908. The DOC established the Stress Unit in 1983 staffed by two correctional officers, increasing to five by 1999. Stress Unit positions are filled on a volunteer basis by regular correctional officers as a job assignment. With headquarters in a National Guard Armory in Concord, Massachusetts, the program has satellite offices in a recreation building, a DOC administration building, and a State office building. The DOC has permitted the unit to serve any State or local public safety employee in the State as a gesture of collegiality to other agencies. Procedure One Stress Unit member is assigned to each of the DOC's five principal facilities. All five members call the Stress Program's central office every morning where James Hollencamp, the program's half-time coordinator, logs in the times and the members' locations. Whenever a unit member goes to another location, he or she calls in and Hollencamp records the information. While the DOC requires unit members to telephone Hollencamp every morning, they call in for each contact as a matter of safety-so he knows where they are. There have been occasions when unit members have been in dangerous situations. Unit members rotate weekly as the duty officer. The duty officer gets paged by the DOC's central paging station-for example, if someone at the Walpole Correctional Institution wants to talk with a unit member right away, the employee asks the paging station to call the Stress Unit duty officer who, in turn, puts the appropriate unit member in touch with the caller. If the unit member for the caller's prison is on vacation or otherwise unavailable, the duty officer goes to the facility to talk with the officer. If an officer calls the program office directly, James Hollencamp asks for the person's first name and telephone number and says when the unit member assigned to his or her facility will call back. If the person needs immediate attention, Hollencamp pages the Stress Unit duty officer. Referrals The program has helped a number of officers with drinking problems enter alcoholism treatment facilities. Many of these officers have returned to work, been promoted, and remained sober ever since. Typically, the Stress Unit member talks to the person, accompanies him or her to the facility, follows the officer's progress while in treatment, and then checks up on the person periodically after he or she has been discharged and returned to work. Staff as high as deputy superintendents have used the program for drinking problems-usually to avoid getting terminated. Many officers with drinking problems see Tom McNeeley, a former heavyweight boxer well known in the area, who helps them enter a treatment facility. Edward Rockett, a correctional officer for 20 years who currently is in charge of transport, inmate orientation, and fiscal ordering for the DOC's Pondville work release unit, has referred six officers with drinking problems to the program over the years. After an officer experiencing delirium tremens passed out at work, Rockett called Richard Gould, who came immediately and took the revived officer to Rockett's office. Gould facilitated the officer's entry into inpatient treatment, and the officer took a 30-day leave of absence. The officer has been back at work--and sober--for 2 years. Stress Unit staff, Hollencamp says, "do a lot of encouraging, a lot of motivating officers to get help." Unit members have used some inpatient facilities so many times that facility staff accept referrals with no questions asked. The unit member simply tells the facility what kind of substance abuse problem the officer has, his or her age, and the officer's insurance provider. --------------------------- A Correctional Officer Says the Stress Unit Benefited Him A correctional officer became concerned after he had "belted my 12-year-old son." I called [Richard] Gould, who showed up, and the two of us, with the supervisor's permission, went for a ride for some coffee and spent the entire morning talking. I was afraid the school nurse would see the welt on my son, and my son might tell her his father had hit him. So Gould suggested I talk to the guidance counselor before my son went back to school-not wait for the school to contact me. I agreed, and Gould came with me to the meeting. Dick's presence was helpful because the guidance counselor knew I was doing something about the problem. The next day, Gould checked up on me to make sure I was OK. --------------------------- A Day in the Life of a Stress Unit Member Richard Gould arrives at his office at 7:30 a.m. and calls in his time and location to James Hollencamp. Gould then listens to the five or six calls on his answering machine from officers or supervisors. One officer has called to report he shook his child the previous night, so Gould calls back to set him up with a counselor who, in turn, will arrange for him to take an anger management course. After answering the other calls, Gould drives to a prison to have coffee and talk about fishing with some of the officers in the vehicle trap where delivery trucks bringing supplies into the facility are searched. Gould's beeper rings with a message to call a captain who wants him to talk with an officer who has been abusing her sick time. While Gould drives to the facility, the captain sends the officer outside the facility so she can meet with him in a donut shop without being observed by her coworkers. Gould tells her that management believes she might have problems because she comes to work late and skips days. The officer explains why she avoids work, and Gould tells her "The DOC is not for everyone; so, if the pressure is too great, you should think hard about quitting." After talking for an hour, Gould asks the officer for permission to tell her supervisor that the two of them have been in touch and that she is trying to solve the problem. At 2:35 p.m., Gould returns to his office to call several other officers back to find out how they are progressing with their problems or with their treatment or counseling and to make sure they do not need further assistance. He goes home shortly before 4:00. During the evening, Gould takes calls from two officers who want to discuss problems and a call from a captain concerned about the effects of an officer's divorce on his work. For further information, contact: James Hollencamp Stress Unit Coordinator Massachusetts Department of Correction 91 Everett Street Concord, MA 01742 (617) 727-8536 --------------------------- The Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff's Department Peer Support Program Brief Program Overview The Multnomah County Sheriff's Department chaplaincy coordinator spends part of his time supervising a Peer Support Program for the agency's 515 correctional officers and 450 civilians (as well as almost 100 road deputies). The chaplain arranges training and retraining for the members of three peer support teams: --A drug abuse team consisting of officers in recovery that provides support for officers experiencing substance abuse problems. --A trauma team that is called immediately into action to support officers involved in a critical incident. --A debriefing team that takes over after the trauma team has provided initial support. Members of all three peer support teams give the chaplain's telephone number to officers in need of professional assistance. The officers may then call him anonymously. The chaplain refers them to one of five psychologists who have experience treating public safety personnel. The sheriff makes $50,000 available each year to pay the psychologists for their counseling services, along with $10,000 for training the peers. The chaplaincy coordinator spends less than half of his time managing the program. Peer supporters referred 67 officers to the chaplain in 1998, 43 of whom he sent to private psychologists. The debriefing team conducted 10 debriefings involving 42 employees. The Multnomah County Sheriff's Department's Peer Stress Program, with 65 peer supporters, serves 515 correctional officers and about 450 civilian employees in 5 jail facilities housing 2,000 inmates. The program also serves the department's 100 road deputies. History The sheriff's department was seriously demoralized in the early 1980s after the city annexed part of the county and the department lost half its road deputies to the Portland Police Bureau. In addition, there were two jail breaks, and a deputy was killed. College-educated applicants hired to staff two newly constructed jails reported they could not stand the pressure of the work. In 1984 the sheriff hired a chaplain, Edward Stelle, for 1 year to address the morale problem. As of 1999, Stelle was still with the department. Stelle asked several supervisors to name employees to whom other employees would turn on their own to discuss personal problems. Through this process, Stelle identified three correctional officers and three road deputies he felt would be excellent peer supporters. He then persuaded the sheriff to pay to send them to Seattle for training. By 1987, Stelle and the peers agreed the department needed a formal peer support program. With the help of the six original peer supporters, Stelle recruited additional peers and then secured funding from the sheriff to hire Nancy Bohl, director of The Counseling Team (see the case study on The Counseling Team above), to train them. Organization Exhibit 3-2 shows the program's structure. The peer supporters are divided into three specialty area teams: substance abuse, trauma, and debriefing. Members of each team include correctional officers, law enforcement deputies, and civilian records division employees. Each team is led by a team coordinator. Each of three sheriff's department divisions--correctional, law enforcement, and records--has a program manager who oversees the peer supporters from all three teams who work within his or her division. The sheriff gives each manager 1 day a week to do nothing but peer support, which could involve keeping in touch with other peer supporters, helping an officer get hospitalized, or publicizing the program among other officers. The managers are given cellular phones and access to a vehicle, and they may split their time across two shifts. The substance abuse team According to Deputy Ken Spencer, a member of the substance abuse team, "The [addiction] problems [officers seek help for] are usually alcohol or gambling." To encourage them to ask for help, Spencer tells officers he had a substance abuse problem--and is still employed. Usually the person gets into trouble on the outside and doesn't come to work, and I hear about it through the grapevine. Then I try to contact the person at home, away from the job. But often you can see that they have a problem: they come in late for work or just don't report at all; or you can see they don't look well. They stop talking to you. Often other officers see the symptoms, it goes through the gossip mill, and then I hear about it. I try to be nonconfrontational, saying, "I'm from the peer support team, and I hear you may be having problems. I'd like to explain the program and let you know the sheriff is 100 percent behind it because he doesn't want to lose good, trained people. If you do have a problem, we can help you." Spencer refers about two officers a year for substance abuse counseling. Some team members have literally taken officers by the hand to outpatient or residential treatment programs. The trauma and debriefing teams After a critical incident, department telephone operators automatically call the peer team program managers because their names are on the emergency call-out list established by the personnel department and approved by the sheriff. A command officer may also call the program managers. The corrections trauma team manager activates the trauma team by calling members on the job or at home. Trauma team members prepare the involved officers for the mandatory debriefing to follow and determine whether any of them need immediate psychological attention. As needed, trauma team members pick up children or arrange for family members' transportation to the facility or hospital. Members of the debriefing team meet with involved officers in a secured area away from the incident, such as a conference room. Staff come without phones or radios. One of the two team members who are trained debriefers conducts the debriefings, and either Edward Stelle or one of five psychologists (see below) attends. The debriefing team conducted 10 debriefings attended by 42 officers in 1998. The referral process Peer team members give officers in need of assistance Edward Stelle's telephone number, explaining that he can arrange free professional counseling for them. The officers then call him anonymously. Stelle refers them to one of the five psychologists. While Stelle counsels many officers and family members himself, "It's only a band-aid," he says, "because they need to see a professional, which I arrange. So, in effect, I'm doing intake." Stelle gives the officer the psychologist's telephone number and assigns the officer a number. The officer then calls the psychologist for an appointment and gives the counselor the number. The psychologist sends Stelle the bill with only the officer's number on it. Stelle approves it and forwards it to the department's fiscal office. The sheriff provides Stelle with $50,000 a year to reimburse the counselors. To stay within budget, Stelle has told the psychologists to permit only four free visits. Stelle occasionally refers officers first to the department's EAP because the program allows 10 free counseling sessions. But if officers call him back to say the EAP was not helpful, he refers them to one of the psychologists. In 1998, peer supporters referred 67 employees to Stelle for possible followup counseling. Stelle referred 43 of them to the private psychologists and 3 to the EAP. According to Ken Spencer, I referred one person to Stelle who had a gambling problem and was suicidal, and Stelle got him into inpatient treatment and then into outpatient counseling. He's now back at work. Two other officers would have been terminated because of drinking problems--and might be dead--if I hadn't referred them to inpatient treatment. --------------------------- Trauma Team Members Also Handle Personal Crises Members of the trauma team respond to individual employees having personal problems, not just work-related problems. An officer at home called Lieutenant Ron Bishop, coordinator of the corrections trauma team, to report that his wife just found out he had had an affair years earlier-"Can you come down?" Bishop went. He talked first with the officer, who repeated that the affair was years ago. Bishop answered, "But it's only today for your wife." The wife agreed to go to a park to talk alone with Bishop. She expressed her anger and disappointment. Bishop told her she could get marriage counseling through the EAP. Later, Bishop found out she and her husband had gone for counseling. The couple is still married and has had two more children. For further information, contact: Edward J. Stelle Director Peer Support Program Multnomah County Sheriff's Office 12240 Northeast Glisan Portland, OR 97230 (503) 255-3600, ext. 406 --------------------------- Texas' Post Trauma Staff Support Program Brief Program Overview Unit (facility) teams consisting of screened and trained correctional officers in each of the facilities of the Institutional (prisons) Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice provide immediate support to affected employees after a critical incident. Team members discuss possible normal reactions, provide referral to sources of professional help, and assist with practical matters such as transportation and child care. Unit Team leaders inform facility administrators if a formal debriefing is needed. Administrators then contact one of five trained regional teams consisting of regional DOC staff (including a department psychologist and chaplain) to come on site to conduct the debriefings. Onduty unit team members responded to 1,289 incidents in 1998 involving 2,342 employees. Altogether, regional teams conduct an average of three debriefings a month. Since the team members are all volunteers, the only program costs are the program director's salary and per diem expenses for travel associated with conducting debriefings and attending training. The Institutional Division within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice operates 87 facilities, which in 1999 housed 124,000 inmates. The division employs 24,500 correctional officers in its prisons. Program structure As shown in exhibit 3-3, Texas' Post Trauma Staff Support Program has two tiers: unit teams and regional teams. Each Texas facility has a unit staff support team selected by the facility's warden, which acts as a "first responder" after a critical incident and provides immediate support to affected employees. Each facility's unit team includes at least two employees (typically a male and a female) per shift. A team leader, who must have a rank of at least sergeant but usually is a captain, trains the other team members, conducts monthly team meetings, monitors completion of incident logs, and serves as the unit's liaison to the regional team (see below). There were 1,100 unit team officers in 1999, an average of 14 per facility. Five-member regional staff support teams, one team for each of the Institutional Division's five geographic regions in the State, include a department psychologist, assistant regional director, chaplain, health service representative, and an open slot (e.g., for a deputy warden) who serve for renewable 2-year terms. Regional teams respond to critical incidents 24 hours a day. Each team member is assigned a permanent, specific role, such as team coordinator and lead debriefer. Institutional Division Victim Services Coordinator Elaine Smith ensures that Post Trauma Staff Support members participate in all required training. She meets at least annually with regional team members to discuss how to improve the program's effectiveness and how to increase awareness of the program. A Post Trauma Coordinating Committee, chaired by Smith and made up of Institutional Division coordinators, meets quarterly to discuss the program and make final selections of regional team members. Procedure Exhibit 3-4 shows the Post Trauma Program's procedure for activating the unit and regional teams. Unit team responsibilities Typically, a unit team leader learns about an incident almost immediately by word of mouth. The unit team leader contacts the facility administrator, who authorizes the leader to activate the rest of the team. When contacted, unit team members immediately are relieved of their duty posts. The facility administrator decides when the team members may return to their posts. Team members, who are identified by program badges they wear while on duty, obtain any needed first aid for affected officers (accompanying them to the medical office or hospital) and then talk with them. Team members-- --Provide information about symptoms that may occur after a critical incident, identify normal reactions, and assess the correctional officers' need for a debriefing. --Distribute information packets about reactions to critical incidents and sources of help. --Put employees in touch with needed followup assistance, from the nurse to the EAP to the human resources department. --At the request of the administrator or affected officers, help employees with practical matters that the officers cannot or do not want to take care of, ranging from transportation to phone calls. --Inform their unit team leader regarding the involved officers' condition. Regional team responsibilities Based on the information provided by the unit team leader, facility administrators decide whether to activate their regional staff support team. If they do, they telephone the regional team coordinator, who coordinates the other team members' visit. After arriving, the regional team coordinator-- --Schedules a debriefing time and private location in consultation with the facility administrator. --Meets with the unit team leader to review the incident and ensure that affected employees are notified to attend and are told where and when to go. --Ensures that all affected employees are present or accounted for before the debriefing begins. --After the debriefing, arranges and runs a debriefing for all Post Trauma Program members involved in providing assistance. Followup During and after the critical incident debriefing--which is mandatory--the regional coordinator may refer affected employees to professional care providers primarily through the facility's EAP or human resources department. The unit teams meet once or twice a month to review what has happened to officers involved in each incident. If any of the involved employees needs help, the team assigns someone to talk to the person immediately and to follow up 2 or 3 days later to see if the person is experiencing emotional difficulties as a result of the incident. An example of both teams in action "We had a hostage situation at 7:00 p.m. one night at my facility," Warden Richard Watkins recalls. "An offender's common law wife smuggled him a derringer, and the inmate used it to take an officer hostage, intending to force the officer to escort him through the gate." According to the officer, Sergeant Deleta Jones, The offender held a two-shot derringer to my side and instructed me to take him to the back gate. The offender stated that he would kill me if I made any sudden moves or tried to alert anyone. Fearing for my life, I began to walk in the direction of the back gate with the offender. As we were walking, I was able to make eye contact with the two officers who were coming down the slab. When the two officers were close enough to us, I alerted them by yelling, "This offender has a gun. Run!" All three of us ran, but the offender grabbed one of the other two officers and injured him before he could free himself. Later, the inmate grabbed a fourth officer and held him hostage. After negotiations by a trained negotiator, for approximately an hour, the offender surrendered his weapon and the hostage. A member of the unit team took the injured officer to the hospital. The team leader called other team members at home and had them go to the hospital. Jones continued: A [unit] team member asked me, "Are you OK? Do we need to talk?" But I was not upset. I was more concerned about my staff and the officer who was hurt. I took the injured officer to the emergency room in his car. Then Elaine [Smith] called me at the hospital to ask if he was OK. Elaine hung up. When she found out I was a victim, too, she called me back. A unit team member then came to the hospital to support me and the officer. The next day, a unit team member called me to see if I was still OK. The facility sent out a communication that was read at turnout for a debriefing [by the regional team] for those directly involved in the incident. We had the debriefing 2 or 3 days later. Eight officers were involved. We took turns describing what we did and our feelings during the incident. The session was beneficial because there were people there who understood what I had gone through. I was surprised when one of the two officers I had run into on the slab said to me and to the group that, because of my actions, "I gotcha back" became a reality-that is, I had covered his back [by telling him to run]. He is not a talkative guy, but he said he was very grateful I let him know the offender had a gun. Exhibit 3-5 shows the activities of unit teams during 1998. As shown, 324 unit teams in the 5 regions responded to 1,289 incidents involving 2,342 employees (1,471 male employees and 871 female employees). The total time team members spent responding was more than 805 hours, or more than 20 40-hour weeks. Exhibit 3-6 shows that, in 1998, regional teams conducted 36 debriefings involving 658 employees. The 112 regional team members who participated contributed nearly 62 hours, not counting travel time. The types of incidents for which regional teams conducted debriefings included escapes, hostage situations, employee and inmate deaths, suicides and attempted suicides, employee illnesses, and assaults on staff. --------------------------- A Unit Team Offers Support Lieutenant Billy Reese, a unit team member, tells about an incident his team addressed. A correctional officer on his way home from work was killed instantly when he ran into a tree. Two other officers who knew him and happened to be driving to work were the first to arrive at the scene. They called 911 and then came to work, deeply affected. The unit team leader contacted me, and I went immediately to their duty posts to ask the shift supervisor to relieve them, which he did. I then took the officers to a conference room and asked how they were doing. They talked for 30 minutes and then said they were OK. Then I hooked up with another unit team member, and together we took up a collection in the facility to buy flowers. We took them to the wife's house. We offered our condolences and said we were available to help. We went back to the house again the next day, and we went to the funeral parlor and the funeral. We kept in touch after the funeral. The only request the wife made was to have her husband buried in his uniform. The unit team leader made the necessary arrangements with the department administrators. If it hadn't been for the peer team, we would not have gone to the wife's home, and I wouldn't have talked with the two other officers because they were not working on my shift. --------------------------- Does the Two-Tier Approach Have Advantages? According to Ed Owens, the Institutional Division's deputy director for support services, the two-tier system makes it possible to have a response based on the severity of the incident and employees' needs. If an incident has not created severe stress, the unit team can handle it with just peer support. If an incident has had a severe impact, the regional team can address it with a professionally led debriefing. In addition, Owens says, having a separate unit team within each facility enables wardens--"who go through a metamorphosis when they have been promoted and end up feeling they are independent"--to feel, "I have my team--these are my folk." For further information, contact: Elaine Smith Victim Service Coordinator Institutional Division Texas Department of Criminal Justice P.O. Box 99 Huntsville, TX 77342-0099 (936) 437-8588 --------------------------- New York State's Department of Correctional Services Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program Brief Program Overview After a critical incident, the assistant commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services selects from a pool of staff who are certified debriefers five or six individuals whom he sends to the facility to conduct debriefings. The team refers involved employees, as needed, to the State's employee assistance program for followup professional counseling. In 1998, the New York State Department of Correctional Services had 22,315 correctional officers and 9,156 civilians employed in 70 facilities. In the early 1990s, a small group of correctional officers, on their own time and at their own expense, had undergone training to conduct critical incident debriefings as part of the voluntary firefighting work they did off the job. The group had urged the department to establish an in-house critical incident debriefing process. As a result, in 1993 the assistant commissioner organized these trained employees into a Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program (PISD). However, the program remained dormant until a riot at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, in effect, served as a pilot test of the approach-and the impetus to formalize it. According to a correctional officer at the prison, "As terrible as Mohawk was, it got the [PISD] program instituted statewide." After the Mohawk experience, the PISD model was used again successfully in another facility after an inmate raped a female staff member and in still another facility after an inmate stabbed an officer 10 times. Mohawk: A test of the system The Mohawk Correctional Facility is a 1,305-bed medium security institution with 19 buildings on 75 acres. At the time of the riot, it had 440 security staff (not all on duty). There were 350 inmates in the yard at the time of the incident. Once the yard was secured, staff identified 150 of these inmates as actual participants in the incident. Eleven staff were seriously injured; eight others were less seriously hurt. The riot On Thursday, July 17, 1997, a young inmate in disciplinary housing hanged himself using a sheet tied around a cover on the smoke detector in his cell. The inmate left a suicide note to be mailed to his mother. Other inmates spread the rumor that officers murdered the young man and set it up to look like a suicide. At the same time, a severe thunderstorm disabled Mohawk's entire phone system, including the inmate telephones. Inmates concluded that administrators had deliberately turned off the phones to prevent them from discussing the "murder" with outsiders. The facility's executive staff went to the housing units to assure them that the inmate's death was a suicide. On July 19, a large group of inmates, infuriated by their misconception of an "inmate murder," assaulted a number of officers. After the inmates had been confined to one yard, they used a bar to pry up the containment fence in an attempt to crawl into the rest of the facility. Chemical agents were used to stop the inmates, and they were contained within the yard. After Correctional Emergency Response Teams from other facilities arrived, the inmates were removed from the yard in groups of 10. Logistics After the riot ended, the president of the correctional officers union local at the time went to the commissioner to request that the PISD policy on offering debriefings be implemented. The commissioner agreed, authorizing the facility superintendent to go forward with debriefings when facility operations returned to normal. The superintendent in turn authorized the union president and the EAP coordinator at the facility to initiate the process and to schedule the debriefings. Working from a list of employees who had been on duty the afternoon and evening of the riot, the union president and the EAP coordinator in person and by phone invited dozens of employees to attend the debriefings, which were also announced at the beginning of every shift and at lineup for several days. All told, 400 staff were invited to attend. Debriefings While the union president and EAP coordinator assembled officers for the debriefings, the department's assistant commissioner convened the debriefing team. A line officer from another facility received an e-mail from his supervisor telling him to go to Mohawk "for a day." The officer was selected because he was the EAP coordinator at his prison and a trained debriefer who had conducted more than 50 debriefings as part of his volunteer public safety work outside the department. He remained as lead debriefer for 6 days, went back a week later for 2 more days, and then returned for 2 final days in August to check on the well being of the most severely affected officers. According to a captain certified in critical incident debriefing who co-led several sessions during the first week, Twenty-five officers direc