U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Stress Addressing Correctional Officer

Programs and Strategies

in cooperation

with the

Corrections Program Office

ISSUES AND PRACTICES
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 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 National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 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

Project Advisers

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.

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.

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, DC 20036
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

iii

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.

These 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 these 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 addresses

monitoring, evaluation, and funding issues.

The various program models presented in this report provide options 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—such as reduced stress-related costs, improved officer performance, and increased institutional safety—

more than justifies careful consideration of this report’s observations and conclusions.

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director

National Institute of Justice

Foreword
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

v

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.

Acknowledgments
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

vii

Contents

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

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

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

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

Why a Stress Program Can Benefit Correctional Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Financial savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Improved officer work performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Increased institutional safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Improved relations with the union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Demonstrated concern for employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

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

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

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

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

What Causes Stress for Correctional Officers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Organizational sources of stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Work-related sources of stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Stress from outside the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

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

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

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

The Rhode Island Department of Corrections Stress Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Program overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Collaboration with the DOC’s human resources office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
C ONTENTS

viii

The Counseling Team, San Bernardino, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Contractual arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Program services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

The Massachusetts Department of Correction Stress Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

The Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff’s Department Peer Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

The substance abuse team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

The trauma and debriefing teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

The referral process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Texas’ Post Trauma Staff Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Program structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

An example of both teams in action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

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

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Mohawk: A test of the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

The aftermath: A formal program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Post Trauma Resources, Columbia, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Services to the South Carolina Department of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Technical assistance and training to other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

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

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Professional Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Recruitment and screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Training and monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Peer Supporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Recruitment and screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Initial training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Ongoing training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Supervisor Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Examples of supervisor training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Employee Assistance Program (EAP) training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Developing a Network of Reliable Referral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Outpatient counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Inpatient services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

ix

Chapter 5: Ensuring Participation: Involving Administrators, Unions, Officers, and 

Family Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

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

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

Collaborating With the Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Connecticut’s collaboration with the union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Unions, too, stand to benefit from a stress program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Outreach to Line Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Inservice training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Academy training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Schmoozing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Brochures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Postings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Badges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Involving Family Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Why involve family members? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

The Collier County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office’s Spouse Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

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

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Securing Trust: Guaranteeing Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Clinicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Peer supporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Pressure to reveal information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

The bottom line on confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Multiple Interventions May Be Needed after a Critical Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

An unproven intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Potential benefits of debriefings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

A smorgasbord approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

Reducing Organizational Sources of Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Barriers to changing the organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Organizational changes departments have implemented to reduce stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

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

Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

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

Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Process evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Impact evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
C ONTENTS

x

Managing Program Costs and Securing Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Identifying cost elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

Actual program budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

Funding sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Sources of Help in Setting Up or Improving a Stress Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Materials, agencies, and associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Individuals with experience in correctional officer stress programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

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

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

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

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

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

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

Appendix D: New York State’s Department of Correctional Services Scenario for Training EAP

Coordinators to Motivate Employees to Accept Professional Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

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

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

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

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

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

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 3–1. Selected Features of Seven Stress Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 7–1. Number of Referrals New York Correctional Facility Supervisors Made to the 

EAP During the 3 Months Before and After Supervisor Training in 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Exhibit 7–2. Sample Stress Program 1999 Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

1

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 highstress 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 wellbeing.

—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

Executive Summary
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

2

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 PostIncident 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

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

3
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

5

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

5

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—

— 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.

— Improve officer performance by enhancing

staff morale.

— 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 wellestablished and replicable stress programs.
C HAPTER 1: W H Y E STABLISH—O R E XPAND—A S TRESS P ROGRAM ?

6

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 stress3 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

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.

“A former Peer Stress

Program officer . . . dragged

out the scheduling sheet for

all 5 of our jails and all 700

employees and showed me

that only 2 were stress

leave—the first time the

number has been that low

in years.”

— Sheriff Dan Noelle, Multnomah

County Sheriff’s Department
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

7

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

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.
C HAPTER 1: W H Y E STABLISH—O R E XPAND—A S TRESS P ROGRAM ?

8

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

By reducing turnover [due to

stress-related disability], a

stress program can save

administrators money.“We

estimated that the program

saved the [San Bernardino

Sheriff’s] department $13

million by avoiding increases

in its unfunded liability to the

county retirement system.”

— Deputy Chief James Nunn of

the San Bernardino Sheriff’s

Department

“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.”

— Gary Johnson, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

9

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 Noelle—a 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

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.
C HAPTER 1: W H Y E STABLISH—O R E XPAND—A S TRESS P ROGRAM ?

10

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.
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

11

Chapter 2: The Extent and Sources of

Correctional Officer Stress

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

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.
C HAPTER 2: T H E E XTENT AND S OURCES OF S TRESS

12

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 builtin 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.”

The available empirical and

anecdotal evidence convincingly documents that stress

among correctional officers

is widespread and, in

many cases, severe.

The “organization” is a

major source of stress

for many officers, notably

understaffing, overtime,

shift work, and supervisor

demands.
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

13

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

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.

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 conflict9 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

“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.”
C HAPTER 2: T H E E XTENT AND S OURCES OF S TRESS

14

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.

There is a consensus in the 

literature and among correctional officers that the threat

of inmate violence, actual

inmate violence, inmate

demands and attempts

at manipulation, and 

problems with coworkers

are all stressful.
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

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

15

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.
C HAPTER 2: T H E E XTENT AND S OURCES OF S TRESS

16

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)

Excessive stress can result

in at least four serious 

problems for officers:

impaired health,

burnout, premature 

early retirement, and

impaired family life.
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

17

(1993a): 15–20; Philliber, S., “Thy Brother’s Keeper:

A Review of the Literature on Correctional Officers,”

Justice Quarterly 4 (1) (1987): 9–35; Lindquist, C.A.,

and J.T. Whitehead, “Burnout, Job Stress and 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.
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

19

Chapter 3: Program Case Studies

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:

KEY POINTS

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

• The programs’ most distinguishing features are whether they—

– Are in-house programs or externally contracted agencies.

– Offer professional counseling, peer support, or both.

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

– Conduct academy or inservice training.

– Serve family members.

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

hybrid arrangements.

• The wide variation in program operations creates a challenge for correctional administrators to decide 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.
20

Feature Annual Budget Clie

Agencies

Served Organizational Family 

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

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

(991) • academy training

• peer supporter training

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

• academy training• peer supporter training

Massachusetts: DOC in-house • peers • peer support $33,390 yes yes Stress Unit (4,031) • referrals to cliniciansMultnomah jail in-house • peers • peer support $87,280 yes yes County (Portland, (515) • critical incident debriefingOregon): Peer • referrals to cliniciansSupport ProgramTexas: Post DOC in-house • peers • peer support $36,966 yes yes Trauma Staff (24,500)b • chaplain • critical incident debriefingSupport Program • referrals to EAPNew York State: DOC in-house • peers • critical incident debriefing None yes yes Post-Incident (22,315) • referrals to EAPStress DebriefingSouth Carolina: DOCs contracted • professionals • critical incident debriefing Generally reimbursed an yes no Post-Trauma (4,850) • professional counseling hourly rate by workers’ Resources • staff training compensation; if denied,(PTR) • program planning DOC paysa.This program serves a few police officers every year.b. Excludes State jails.

EXHIBIT 3–1. SELECTED FEATURES OF SEVEN STRESS PROGRAMS
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

21

• 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 fulltime 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.

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).

There is considerable 

variation in the structure,

operations, and services of

the seven programs.
• 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

ADVANTAGES AND DRAWBACKS OF THREE PROGRAM

ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS

Advantages Drawbacks

In-house Programs

External Programs

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

22

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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.

This programmatic 

diversity means correctional

administrators 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.
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. 

The Rhode Island Department

of Corrections Stress Unit

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.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

23

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.
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 thirdparty 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

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

24
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

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

25
The Counseling Team, San

Bernardino, California

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 sameday 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

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

26

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.
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 providers 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—Byron

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 superintendent

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

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

27

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.”
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-onone. 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.”

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

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

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

28

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.
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. 

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

29

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.
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.

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

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

30

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.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

31

EXHIBIT 3–2. MULTNOMAH COUNTY PEER STRESS PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Sheriff Dan Noelle

Jail

administrators

Five private

psychologists

Stress Program Coordinator

Edward Stelle

Substance Abuse Team Trauma Team Debriefing Team

Team Coordinator Team Coordinator Team Coordinator

correctional officers correctional officers correctional officers

road deputies road deputies road deputies

records employees records employees records employees

Officers Program 

Manager

Deputies Program

Manager

Records Program 

Manager
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 offiC HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

32

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.
cers 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.

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

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

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

33

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.
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

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

34

EXHIBIT 3–3.TEXAS POST TRAUMA STAFF SUPPORT PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Institutional Division Director

Institutional Division

Deputy Director for Support 

Services

Elaine Smith

Victim Services Coordinator

Regional

Team

Regional

Team

Regional

Team

Regional

Team

Regional

Team

Unit Teams (87)
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.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

35

EXHIBIT 3–4.TEXAS POST TRAUMA PROGRAM PEER SUPPORT PROCESS

Warden 

authorizes 

unit team 

to be 

activated

Unit 

team

leader

contacts

warden

Team 

members

talk with

involved

officers

Unit team

leader

contacts

team 

members

Unit team

leader

recommends

activation

of regional 

team to 

warden

Unit team 

confers

Warden 

calls 

regional 

team

coordinator

Regional 

team

coordinator

confers with 

unit team

leaders

Regional 

team

coordinator

arranges 

for regional 

team to go 

on site

Regional 

team

conducts

debriefing(s)

Regional

team and 

unit team 

debrief

together

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.
• 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]

C HAPTER 3: PROGRAM CASE STUDIES

36

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.”
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.

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

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

37

EXHIBIT 3–5. UNIT STAFF SUPPORT OFFICER STATISTICS FOR 1998 BY REGION

EXHIBIT 3–6. REGIONAL STAFF SUPPORT TEAM STATISTICS FOR 1998

No. of Units No. of No. of Male No. of Female Minor Major Total Time

Region Reporting Responses Employees Employees Medical Medical Involved

I 99 292 221 178 99 33 258 hrs. 19 min.

II 67 279 512 354 113 9 162 hrs. 25 min.

III 44 131 75 72 40 12 68 hrs. 30 min.

IV 60 463 398 137 245 179 255 hrs. 21 min.

V 54 124 265 130 44 12 60 hrs. 53 min.

TOTALS 324 1,289 1,471 871 541 245 805 hrs. 28 min.

No. of No. of No. of Team Time

Region Debriefings Employees Members Involved

I 8 40 21 17 hrs. 15 min.

II 9 119 24 16 hrs. 30 min.

III 0 00 0

IV 9 345 28 16 hrs. 35 min.

V 10 154 39 11 hrs. 35 min.

TOTALS 36 658 112 61 hrs. 55 min.
New York State’s Department 

of Correctional Services 

Post-Incident Stress 

Debriefing Program

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

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

38

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.
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 directly involved in the incident showed up the first day. As a result of word

of mouth, their backups showed up the second

day. The third day’s session included institution

nurses and physician’s assistants who had found

it stressful to administer to correctional staff—

some of whom were their neighbors outside the

facility—rather than to the inmates they were

accustomed to treating.

Of the 400 staff members invited, 180 attended at least one

of 15 debriefing sessions lasting 2 to 6 hours each. All

sessions were held outside the prison complex. The sessions included group discussions and one-on-one support.

A mental health professional co-led every debriefing.

Referrals

After the sessions, debriefers referred 12 officers to EAP

coordinators, who arranged for professional counseling.

The facility EAP coordinator obtained professional help

for 10 to 15 officers who were referred to him or came to

him on their own asking for help. “They probably would

not have come to me for help if they had not attended the

debriefings,” he says, “or they might have waited until

things got a lot worse.” Later, he learned that several of

them saw the counselor to whom he had referred them

once a week for 2 or 3 months. Others talked to the

counselor once. Some brought their spouses to the first

one or two sessions.

An officer and a lieutenant, both of whom had been seriously injured, left the department for good. Six other

officers took disability leave, one for physical injuries

and five for stress-related reasons. Five of the six

returned to duty. One of the five no longer wanted any

inmate contact. One employee who planned never to

return to work did, in fact, return.

The aftermath: A formal program

After the Mohawk riot, the assistant commissioner made

PISD a formal, operational program. He critiqued the

PISD’s performance after the disturbance with the president of the local officers’ union and the facility EAP

coordinator. As a result, the administration sent a memo

authorizing any union president, EAP coordinator, chaplain, or department mental health specialist to contact

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

39

SOME FAMILY MEMBERS

PARTICIPATED IN THE

MOHAWK DEBRIEFING

There was no formal involvement of family members in the debriefings after the Mohawk riot.

However, when the president of the union local at

the time called officers at home, he asked if their

wives and husbands were having difficulty coping

with the crisis and for permission to talk with

them. The union president referred three wives

for followup professional counseling to Susan

Cooper, the county’s critical incident stress program director who co-led several of the debriefing

sessions.

Cooper also gave out her telephone number at all

the sessions she co-led. As a result, three or four

other wives called her later. She met one for coffee and talked to the others on the phone about

how to handle their children’s reactions to the

incident.
their facility’s deputy superintendents whenever they felt

PISD needed to be activated.

A September 1997 memorandum to all superintendents

from the commissioner introduced central control over

the debriefing process and clarified the procedure. The

memo instructed superintendents that, once they had

determined that debriefing sessions were necessary, they

were to notify the assistant commissioner, providing him

with the anticipated number of participants and the proposed schedule for the sessions. The assistant commissioner was then to assess the plan and provide technical

assistance as required.

The commissioner’s memo also stated that—

• The sessions should be held away from the facility. 

• All beepers and telephones should be turned off to

minimize interruptions. 

• A team member should escort participants who ask to

leave early to make sure they are all right.

• The EAP coordinator in each facility should keep a list

of community resources to which employees could be

referred for extended counseling.

Immediately after an incident, the facility EAP coordinator, union president, and administrator evaluate the event

and decide whether to ask the assistant commissioner to

assemble a debriefing team. The assistant commissioner

assembles individuals for the team who do not come

from the facility where the incident occurred so that participants in the debriefings will not feel word from the

debriefers will spread to the participants’ supervisors. In

addition, debriefers from the facility might be too emotionally involved themselves to be effective leaders

because they may know some of the employees who

were injured. One member of the team is always an 

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

40

LIEUTENANTS’ TRAINING

Several New York State Department of Correctional Services regional training coordinators have used a portion 

of their training budgets to hire Roger Johnson, who consults nationwide for the American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and criminal justice agencies, to provide a day-long training session 

for lieutenants on the issue of stress.The session is not supervisory training; rather, it is designed to help the

lieutenants deal with their own stress.

The training coordinator for one of the Department of Correctional Services’ nine hubs arranged for Johnson

to train lieutenants in the five prisons in her hub. The coordinator submitted a grant proposal to the lieutenants’ union local, which had funds for training purposes. The president of the union local agreed to pay 

the $1,500 to $2,000 for an offsite location, lunch, refreshments, and Johnson’s fee.

Two lieutenants who attended the session cited different advantages of the training:

“Lieutenants are more inclined to go if the training is just for lieutenants because they feel it’s for them.”

“Conducting the training offsite means an awful lot; the facility influence is on you if it’s [held] there. You

need to go away to focus.”

According to another lieutenant who attended,

I can still use what I learned there compared with other classes where you forget everything. It was

geared to the job, but I was interested on a personal level—for example, road rage: Why do I have this

reaction? Johnson taught relaxation techniques. I don’t use them a lot, but from them I learned to relax

physically: I see something that could be stressful, I take a breath, and I close my eyes. I don’t get upset

in traffic anymore.
EAP coordinator who can refer participants to further

sources of help. Another member is a licensed mental

health practitioner.

The department has since paid for additional officers to

receive training. While Mohawk was still fresh in their

minds, in January 1998 the facility’s executive staff

secured money from the central office to hire two specialists to train additional employees from the hub’s six

facilities in critical incident debriefing. The department

secured the training monies from the National Institute of

Corrections’ Short-Term Technical Assistance Project. In

May 1999, using $10,000 from the same source, the

DOC trained an additional 10 employees in each of the

department’s other 9 hubs to become certified critical

incident debriefers.

For further information, contact:

Bruce W. Baker

Assistant Commissioner

New York State Department of Correctional Services

1220 Washington Avenue

Building 2

Albany, NY 12226–2050

(518) 457–9887

Post Trauma Resources,

Columbia, South Carolina

Founded in 1982, Post Trauma Resources (PTR) is a private for-profit counseling and training organization with

annual revenues of about $700,000. About 5 percent of

PTR’s work is devoted to corrections.

Services to the South Carolina Department

of Corrections

The South Carolina Department of Corrections’ 4,850

correctional officers and 1,923 civilian employees supervise 20,959 inmates in 35 prisons. Post Trauma Resources

provides the clinical and training services for the DOC’s

in-house posttrauma program. 

Services after critical incidents

John Near, Director of Personnel for the South Carolina

DOC, first used PTR for trauma services after a 1986 riot

in which 28 employees were held hostage and several

were severely injured. Near arranged for Bergmann to

provide the involved officers with individual and group

debriefings. “As a result,” Near reports, “turnover was

very low; a high percentage came back to work pretty

quickly.” The department now uses PTR regularly for

debriefings after critical incidents. PTR staff also provide

debriefings to execution teams after every execution.

Although team members report they feel no undue stress

after having played their special role for so many years,

they chose to continue the debriefings, which are no

longer mandatory, because they realized that it is always

possible that they—or new members of the team—may

develop an adverse reaction.

Currently, when the DOC asks PTR to conduct a critical

incident debriefing, the counselors try to arrange an educational debriefing with the affected officers’ supervisors

after having debriefed with the officers. PTR staff use the

sessions to—

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

41

BRIEF PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The eight mental health professionals who work

for Post Trauma Resources (PTR), an independent,

for-profit organization, provide critical incidentrelated stress services to the South Carolina

Department of Corrections. In 1998, PTR staff

provided individual counseling to 15 to 20 correctional officers and conducted 15 debriefings, most

of them for execution teams.

Post Trauma Resources also helps other DOCs

across the Nation set up stress programs tailored

to their particular conditions and needs.The

organization provides technical assistance to the

DOCs in designing a program, trains program staff,

and provides ongoing technical assistance and followup training after the program is operational.

Post Trauma Resources provides trauma-related

individual counseling, debriefing, and planning services for all types of employers, from banks (e.g.,

after an armed robbery) to manufacturing plants

(e.g., after an industrial accident).
• Explain what the counselors have done with the officers.

• Describe possible symptoms the supervisors should

be attuned to among the officers over the next several

weeks (e.g., short attention span, anger toward management) and how to respond to these symptoms.

• Urge the supervisors not to take the officers’ anger personally but rather to let the officers vent—and provide

them with information on what is being done about the

incident. 

• Describe the possible long-term consequences, such as

hypervigilence, the incident may have for officers that

the supervisors should watch for. 

• Refer officers who exhibit these responses for possible

counseling.

The State workers’ compensation insurer reimburses PTR

on an hourly basis for some staff counseling and debriefing services. The plan covers anyone who is involved in

a life-threatening incident, suffers a physical injury, or

has psychological symptoms as a result of a critical

incident. If the insurer refuses to pay, the DOC picks 

up the bill.

Individual counseling

In the late 1980s, the South Carolina DOC developed 

a Post Assault Information Resource (PAIR) program.

Every prison identified a PAIR representative, usually 

a social worker, a human resources staff person, or an

associate warden. The department workers’ compensation

and human resources offices then trained the PAIR to

work with the human resources office to obtain appropriate care for injured employees. Lawrence Bergmann,

Post Trauma Resource’s director, trained the PAIRs

to identify employees suffering stress after a critical

incident.

Whenever an employee has been assaulted, the human

resources office automatically sends the person a letter

indicating the department offers free counseling services,

telling interested employees to contact their prison PAIR.

The PAIR then contacts the human resources office,

which calls or writes employees to describe and offer

PTR’s services. Injured officers may also contact the

department’s victim services coordinator, who can also

refer them to PTR.

Post Trauma Resources’ individual counseling to DOC

employees is short term, typically lasting three to six sessions. Occasionally, the counseling may continue for as

long as 6 months. For longer term counseling, officers

can go to the employee assistance program for treatment,

although they are entitled to only three free visits with

the EAP before paying according to a sliding scale.

Post Trauma Resources staff decide when an employee

they are counseling can go back to work and what percentage time. Bergmann submits periodic status reports to John

C HAPTER 3: P ROGRAM C ASE S TUDIES

42

A SAMPLE REFERRAL TO PTR FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING

A facility nurse referred an officer who was stabbed and was having difficulty sleeping and trouble going to work

to Post Trauma Resources.The officer brought his wife, who was pregnant, to the first session with Ruth Ellis,

one of PTR’s counselors. Ellis gave them the choice of coming separately or together to subsequent sessions.

Ellis saw the officer for five sessions, sometimes alone, at other times with his wife.The couple drove 2 hours

each way to attend the sessions.

Ellis found that the couple was not having marital problems, just difficulty coping with the officer’s job. After

counseling, the wife felt less anxious about her husband’s safety.The couple agreed they would contact each

other during the day so she could be reassured he was safe and he could feel good that she was not worrying

about him. She told him what she did and did not want to hear about the job—for example, nothing about

“blood and guts”—but he agreed to open up when he was afraid or upset.They agreed that, if he was concerned

about revealing the truth about his feelings, he would tell her, and they would decide together how best to 

proceed.
Near updating each client’s ability to return to work.

According to Near, “We don’t want anyone in the DOC

deciding when an officer is ready to come back to

work—that’s a conflict of interest and a confidentiality

problem. So it’s very important to contract out for this service.” Near says he has come to trust that PTR counselors

will return employees to work as soon as it is appropriate.

Technical assistance and training to 

other States

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has funded

PTR to help 12 States develop stress programs. (PTR has

prepared guidelines for NIC on how to develop a critical

incident debriefing program.) In most cases, the DOC’s

grant proposal to NIC requests PTR as the technical

assistance provider. Some departments of corrections

pay directly for PTR’s services.

After the site visit is over, Bergmann says, “I spend

weeks and months by telephone in an advisory capacity

conferring with program coordinators to get the system

going.” Bergmann returns to many of the same States to

retrain old staff and train new staff.

Virginia DOC

After a series of serious incidents in 1985, the Virginia

DOC issued a request for proposals for help in developing a critical incident response program. PTR bid and

won. After PTR worked with the department to set up a

program, the DOC hired Bergmann to return for 3 days

in 1992 (with a $13,000 grant the DOC obtained from

NIC) and 2 days in 1996 (with $6,000 paid for by the

department) to train new program staff and provide

refresher training for old staff.

According to Robin Hurlbert, the department’s director

of mental health programs, “Bergmann comes with a

complete program package—different levels of staff who

need to be involved, and so forth—but is still flexible to

adjust it to the DOC’s needs. He provides the tools and

the DOC decides which ones to use. Here we are in

1999, after several changes in DOC directors, and the

program is still working.”

Hurlbert reports that she still occasionally telephones

Bergmann for consultation. For example, she called him

to discuss how she could report breakdowns in security

without compromising officer confidentiality. Bergmann

suggested she ask the officer’s permission to report the

breach without mentioning anyone’s name. Hurlbert has

since done this, and no officer has refused permission.

Missouri DOC

After the Missouri DOC hired Diane Haslag to develop

and administer a stress program, the department sent her

to sit in on a training for peer supporters that Bergmann

conducted in Maine. Haslag also went to a conference in

California for program coordinators from 13 States and

Japan; Bergmann and two other trainers explained how

to plan and implement a stress program and how to train

line officers to provide peer support to other employees. 

At the conference, Haslag gave Bergmann a packet of

program designs and information for comment and asked

him questions about how to select, screen, and train peer

supporters. For example, Bergmann told her, if you have

X hours to train them, you need to cover topics A, B, and

C. If you have X plus 4 hours, you can also cover topics

D and E. Bergmann provided a list of criteria for the

needed characteristics of someone who would make a

good peer supporter.

According to Bergmann, PTR is “a change agent for

departments outside South Carolina.” Bergmann assists outof-State departments to tailor their own stress program to

meet their own needs. Bergmann stimulates them to think

about the important issues involved in establishing a program, asking them, for example, “What’s your State’s policy on workers’ compensation? How much money are you

prepared to spend? What have you already tried to do to

address officer stress?” After thinking through the answers

to these and other questions, the DOC chooses a model. By

acting in this catalytic capacity, Bergmann can say, “I did

3 days of training in Texas, and they did 90 percent of the

work itself.”

For further information, contact:

Lawrence Bergmann

Director

Post Trauma Resources

1811 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201

(803) 765–0700; (800) 459–6780

fax (803) 765–1607

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

43
While the organization and structure of the stress program are important, staff talent and dedication—professional counselors and peer supporters—make or break

the program. As a result, recruiting, screening, training,

and monitoring stress program staff—the subject of this

chapter—are of the utmost importance.

Professional Staff

Recruiting and training talented clinicians requires sensitivity and close attention.

Recruitment and screening

Most programs find new staff by word of mouth. Nancy

Bohl, The Counseling Team’s director, has never had to

advertise to fill new positions, relying instead on a list of

colleagues who have expressed interest to her over the

years in any available openings. Jennifer Wolf, a counselor with Post Trauma Resource in South Carolina,

reports that she already knew Lawrence Bergmann, the

program’s director, before she was hired because she had

been the administrator in South Carolina for juvenile

group homes and shelters. However, Wolf learned of the

job opening from a newspaper advertisement. Bergmann

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

45

Chapter 4: Program Staffing, Training, 

and Networking

KEY POINTS

• Most programs find new clinical staff by word of mouth. New staff typically receive on-the-job training.

Staff supervision is usually done by meeting with the program director.

• Some officers prefer counselors who have experience with corrections settings, but other officers do not

care. In any case, it is useful for counselors to learn about correctional work and visit some prisons or jails.

• Peer supporters require careful screening and 3 to 5 days of training.Training typically focuses on developing

active listening skills, refraining from giving advice, and recognizing when colleagues need a referral for professional help.

• Departments usually pay for peer supporter trainers and pay overtime to officers to cover for the peers

while they are trained. Some departments have obtained grants for hiring peer supporter trainers.

• Followup training for peer supporters is essential for maintaining their motivation and skills.

• Counselors and peer supporters alike are susceptible to burnout. Several steps can reduce the possibility of

burnout, in particular, setting limits on the time they spend providing support.

• Training correctional supervisors to recognize when officers may be experiencing difficulties and to refer them

to sources of help is an important adjunct to a stress program.

• Every program needs a network of referral resources, including licensed counselors and inpatient facilities.

Even counseling agencies may need to refer officers to outside psychologists if the agency becomes overloaded, lacks the needed expertise (e.g., to treat eating disorders), or is not conveniently located.
reports that he now hires experienced clinicians who no

longer want the headaches of solo practice.

Some counselors come to the program with experience

treating correctional officers or, more frequently, treating

police officers or other public safety personnel (e.g., emergency medical technicians, firefighters). Because not all

counselors have experience working with correctional officers or in prisons or jails, the California Department of

Corrections requires mental health professionals who provide services to victimized staff to at least tour a prison. 

Even if counselors lack corrections experience, they may

not find it difficult to work with correctional officers.

Julie Rathbun at The Counseling Team

in San Bernardino had no expertise in

corrections before coming to the

organization, but she had done critical

incident debriefings with a fire department as a psychology intern and had

done crisis intervention at a mental

health center. After she was hired,

Rathbun steeped herself in The

Counseling Team’s corrections literature. “I also learned from clients about

their corrections-related sources of

stress,” she says. “In any case, they have the same personal problems everybody has—relationship problems.”

Bergmann sees trauma as generic—staff do not have to

be experts in every kind of trauma or every profession.

“With good skills, sensitivity, and a minimum of subject

area knowledge,” Bergmann says, “we can float back and

forth among DOCs, banks, schools, and other industries

where employees can experience trauma.”

Some correctional officers report they prefer clinicians

who have some familiarity with prisons or jails, but other

officers say it makes no difference. Ultimately, it is the

counselor’s ability to help officers solve problems in a

caring manner that is probably the most important consideration in the therapeutic relationship with this type

of client (see the box “Favored Approaches to Treating

Correctional Officers”).

Training and monitoring

Most new clinicians fill in their gaps in correctional

experience through conversations with other counselors

and on-the-job observation. New clinicians at The

Counseling Team spend 3 months

accompanying a veteran staff member

to debriefings. A new counselor at Post

Trauma Resources sat in on four counseling sessions that Bergmann conducted, observed him facilitate two

debriefings (one at a bank), and

attended a 2-day training session he

ran for critical incident debriefers in

Virginia. Bergmann also conducts case

reviews every week with new staff.

Directors of counseling agencies supervise clinical staff

primarily through regular or ad hoc meetings to discuss

how cases are progressing and how to deal with problematic clients. Bohl reviews evaluation forms filled out by

clients to identify difficulties counselors may be experiencing.

C HAPTER 4: P ROGRAM S TAFFING , T RAINING , AND N ETWORKING

46

FAVORED APPROACHES TO TREATING CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Nancy Bohl, director of The Counseling Team, reports that counseling correctional officers is problem-solving

oriented—“some of it is not even therapy in a clinical sense. Many officers simply want guidance on ‘What do I

do?’” John Carr, Family Service Society director, describes his approach as “problem solving, cognitive, reality

testing, not psychodynamic, fuzzy, or long term. Deal with the content and affect: What’s the problem, and how is

it affecting you? Help them choose among possible options.These clients are highly motivated to change because

their jobs are on the line.”

It is the counselor’s ability to

help officers solve problems

in a caring manner that is

probably the most important

consideration in the therapeutic relationship.
Peer Supporters

Recruiting, screening, and training

peer supporters is time consuming

and requires funding (see the box

“Training Peer Supporters Requires

Money”). This commitment of time

and money is one of several limitations involved in using peer supporters as the principal

component—or one of several components—of a stress

program. However, if the screening and training are well

done, and if followup training is provided, a peer support

program or component can bring many benefits to officers

and the department (see the box “Using Peer Supporters:

Benefits and Limitations”).

Recruitment and screening

Some stress programs accept applicants for peer supporter

positions solely on the basis of their desire to help troubled

colleagues. However, some would-be peer supporters, in

addition to not being competent (for example, they constantly feel compelled to give advice), may have inappropriate motives for joining the program. According to an

assistant warden in Texas, “Some officers get on trauma

teams to score points with wardens.” James Hollencamp,

coordinator of the Massachusetts DOC’s Peer Stress Unit,

observes that “Some younger officers

are attracted by not having to work

weekends (although they must be on

call).”

Program staff suggest that peers be

selected based on some combination

of the following criteria:

• Reputation as someone whom others already seek out

for informal peer support.

• Nomination by other officers.

• High-quality social skills and ability to empathize.

• Ability to withhold advice.

• A capacity to listen and suggest options.

• Ability to keep confidences.

• Availability 24 hours a day.

• Previous use of the program.

• Ability to complete the training program successfully

(trainers have an excellent vantage point from which to

identify inappropriate candidates).

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

47

TRAINING PEER SUPPORTERS REQUIRES MONEY

Training peer supporters requires funding to pay for the trainers’ fees and overtime for other officers to

cover for the peers while they attend the training. If the peers travel for the training, money may be required

to pay for per diems.

DOCs and sheriff’s departments can sometimes secure outside funding to pay for training peer supporters.

• In 1995,Texas’ Institutional Division secured a $6,000 grant from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)

to hire Post Trauma Resources (see the last case study in chapter 3) to provide a 3-day off-site training 

program for the first 26 regional staff support team members.

• In 1999, the New York State Department of Correctional Services obtained $10,000 from NIC to train 10

employees in each of the department’s 9 regions to become certified critical incident debriefers.

• Sheriffs in California can have peer supporters trained for free. Nancy Bohl,The Counseling Team’s director,

arranged for the California Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Commission to certify her organization’s 3-day training course for peer supporters. As a result, sheriff’s departments in California can receive

reimbursement from STC for the counseling team’s $175 training fee whenever they send officers to attend

the course.

The formality of the process

for recruiting and screening

peer supporters varies considerably among programs.
Program staff recommend that individuals of all ranks be

encouraged to become peer supporters because many

officers are reluctant to turn to someone of higher or

lower rank for support.

The formality of the process for recruiting and screening

peer supporters varies considerably among programs.

Prospective unit (facility) team members in Texas’ Post

Trauma Program complete an application form (see

appendix A). Members serve 1-year renewable terms.

Current peers in the Rhode Island Department of

Corrections Stress Unit refer potential new peers to Mark

Messier, the program coordinator, and

to John Carr, the unit’s clinical supervisor. Messier and Carr interview

applicants, asking why they think they

would be good peer supporters.

Messier also talks to their colleagues

“to find out if the person really cares

about his or her brothers and sisters

and would do anything for them.” According to Carr,

“Everyone has a reputation, and it’s easy to find it out in

a closed system [like a prison].”

The Massachusetts Department of Correction’s selection

procedure is very formal, perhaps because the peers are

regular paid officers reassigned to the Stress Unit as fulltime peer supporters. The Massachusetts DOC’s Human

Resources Department recruits new or replacement staff

for the Stress Unit by posting positions throughout the

department. The last time an opening was posted, an

interview panel, consisting of current unit staff and

Dennis Cullen, the DOC’s deputy director of human

resources, received 15 applications and recommended

3 to the commissioner for final selection. 

Panel members look for applicants who have already

helped other employees. The committee checks applicants’ records to see if they have

abused sick time (because they might

do the same as Stress Unit staff).

Candidates who make the initial cut

return for a second interview with the

panel. At his second interview in 1998,

Dick Gould recalls being asked, “What

would you do if a correctional officer

comes up to you and says he is gay and coming out of

the closet”? Gould’s answer: “It’s your business, and you

might want to keep it confidential in this business—no

one needs to know. But if you’re willing to take a lot of

guff, then go ahead.” Later, as a program staff member,

more than one officer came to Gould with this concern.

C HAPTER 4: P ROGRAM S TAFFING , T RAINING , AND N ETWORKING

48

USING PEER SUPPORTERS: BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS

Benefits Limitations

• Can provide instant credibility and ability to

empathize.

• Can assist fellow officers who are reluctant to talk

with mental health professionals.

• Can recommend the program to other officers by

attesting credibly to its confidentiality and concern.

• Are frequently more accessible than professionals

because they are often already in the facility.

• Can detect incipient problems because of their daily

contact with fellow officers.

• Are inexpensive compared with using professionals.

• Cannot provide the professional care that licensed

mental health practitioners can.

• May try to offer counseling that they are not

equipped to provide.

• May be rejected by officers who want to talk only

with a professional counselor.

• May be avoided by officers concerned that their

problems will not be kept confidential.

• Require time, effort, and patience to screen, train,

and supervise.

• May expose themselves and the department to 

legal liability.

Who trains the peer 

supporters is extremely

important.
Initial training

Who trains the peer supporters is extremely important.

According to Debbie Liles, Texas Department of

Criminal Justice assistant director for administrative

review, “It’s difficult to find experienced post-trauma

trainers for correctional programs—that was the toughest

problem [for us when we began the program], finding

trainers who knew corrections.” Liles eventually discovered Post Trauma Resources’ Lawrence Bergmann (see

the case study on Post Trauma Resources in chapter 3).

Edward Stelle, the chaplain who supervises the

Multnomah County Peer Support Program, says, “I realized [to make the program work] I needed the best people

in the United States to help us out.” So Stelle brought in

Roger Solomon (a well-respected trauma expert), an

Oregon State trooper turned psychologist and a police

trainer from Long Beach, California, to train the peer supporters. Later, he had Nancy Bohl (see the case study in

chapter 3) come four times to train other new peer team

members. “It didn’t matter what they charged,” Stelle says,

“because I wanted the best. In addition, the peers themselves felt the program was a good one because they were

being trained by top-notch people.”

Training peer supporters generally focuses on—

• Developing skills for active listening.

• Discouraging peers from giving advice.

• Recognizing and assessing colleagues’ problems.

• Determining the need for referral to professionals.

• Selecting the proper resource as a recommendation for

professional assistance.

According to Gina Buonamici, assistant personnel officer

with the Florida Department of Correction,

[Larry] Bergmann [of Post Trauma Resources]

uses role playing in the training [of peer supporters]: how to respond to someone after a crisis

through basic listening, clarifying, and feedback

skills. Bergmann passes out the scenarios for different players [see appendix B] and tells them to

respond. Afterwards, Bergmann and the participants critique the role playing in terms of what

were effective steps the peer took or failed to take.

Ongoing training

According to Edward Stelle,

Once you have the program running, train over

and over and never stop because peers then become

better and better—and they won’t stay [actively

involved] unless they feel they are doing something

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

49

A TRAINEE’S VIEW OF PEER COUNSELING TRAINING

The Counseling Team provides a 3-day training course for peer supporters based on the organization’s 160-page

training manual. Kristy Paine, a lieutenant with the Riverside (California) Sheriff’s Department, went through the

training. Paine reports,

The trainers asked each of us to reveal something we didn’t want the world to know. That got us on the

road to trusting each other, and it made us realize how hard it is for an officer to open up to a peer supporter. So it taught us what an officer who comes to us is going through. We talked about emotional

things and saw we weren’t alone in experiencing them. One trainee talked about his guilt feelings about

his brother’s suicide because the brother had been asking for help.

The training also helped us to learn the supporter’s function—we don’t fix everything for officers, they

make their own decisions. [Nancy] Bohl [The Counseling Team’s director] said the supporter doesn’t give

answers, we explore alternatives. Cognitively, I knew that, but she gave us a model that we’re not there to

solve problems, just provide options. They have to deal with the solution. But you can’t wait for them to

come up with options; you have to help them come up with options.
positive. Peers keep asking me,

“When will we be trained again?”

because they keep running into

new problems, such as an officer

who is avoiding all the other officers on the shift because he feels

left out.

Because training is a big undertaking

due to shift problems, Stelle brings in

a consultant to do the training onsite

at different times during the same

visit. 

Every 3 months, San Bernardino’s

counseling team asks the peer support coordinators within each corrections agency and police department with

which it contracts to send a notice offering a free 3-hour

followup training session to all peer supporters, with

one of the agencies taking responsibility for sponsoring

the event and bringing refreshments. By inviting peer

supporters from several prisons and jails (as well as

police departments), the counseling team can assemble

enough peers to make the training cost-effective.

Family Services Society in Rhode Island takes the

same approach of inviting all the peers in both the

DOC and the law enforcement agencies that the organization serves to the 2-hour followup training sessions it

offers every other month. The training addresses topics

the peers themselves have expressed an interest in,

such as confidentiality, suicide indicators, and domestic

violence.

The Regional Staff Support Teams in Texas use the operations manual as a guide to formulate and conduct annual

training for unit team members within their respective

regions. In 1997, unit team training consisted of a role

play of a reenacted incident from start to finish. The

peers travel to one location within the region for the

all-day training.

Monitoring

Programs have found ways to keep

track of peer support activity without

compromising the confidentiality of

the process. Some programs ask peer

supporters to complete contact sheet

logs without recording the names of

the officers with whom they have

talked. The Counseling Team’s

checklist asks for whether the person was uniformed or civilian, male

or female, and a family member or

coworker. Peer supporters also

record the stress-related issue for

which support was given, ranging

from problems with coworkers to

financial concerns to alcohol abuse.

According to Nancy Bohl, the

forms are useful for determining

whether—

• Peers are overworked.

• Too many peers work the same shift, leaving other

shifts uncovered.

• Temporary departmentwide problems need to be

addressed—for example, a rash of officer divorces

in one department prompted Bohl to offer the peers

a seminar on marriage and family support.

Supervisor Training

A number of corrections departments train supervisors—

typically, sergeants and lieutenants—to recognize signs

of stress among officers and refer the officers to sources

of help. This training is important because— 

• supervisors are in an excellent position to spot changes

in officer behavior that may suggest problems, and,

• in their position of authority, supervisors’ recommendations that officers seek help may carry more weight

than when other line officers, including peer supporters,

make the suggestion.

Examples of supervisor training

As part of the Rhode Island DOC’s

contract with Family Service Society,

John Carr and Mark Messier explain

to midlevel staff during their annual

inservice training how supervisors can

identify troubled employees. Carr tells

them, “Work from your strength [as a

trained supervisor]—observation and

C HAPTER 4: P ROGRAM S TAFFING , T RAINING , AND N ETWORKING

50

“Once you have the program

running, train over and over and

never stop, because peers then

become better and better—and

they won’t stay [actively

involved] unless they feel they

are doing something positive.”

— Edward J. Stelle, coordinator of the

Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department’s

Peer Support Program

Programs have found

ways to keep track of peer

support activity without 

compromising the 

confidentiality of the process.
awareness of human behavior and changes in behavior.

If the officer agrees he has a problem, refer the person to

the Stress Unit; if there’s no problem, you’ve shown you

cared.” Messier gives them the list of peer supporter

names and locations, telling the supervisors that the

peers can talk with officers at the supervisors’ request.

Two California sheriff’s departments have given Nancy

Bohl a block of time in their academies for correctional

officers and road deputies who are becoming sergeants

to focus on opportunities to help troubled officers.

Appendix C outlines the agenda Bohl follows.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

51

ADDRESSING STAFF BURNOUT

Because of the intense involvement in other people’s problems required of therapists, the counseling profession

in general can easily lead to burnout. Peer supporters can also be subject to burnout. Clinicians and peer supporters in correctional officer stress programs may be especially vulnerable to burnout because much of the

counseling they do and support they provide revolve around issues of injury and death and because counselors

and supporters may periodically have to work long hours, including nights and weekends.

According to James Hollencamp, the Massachusetts Stress Unit’s coordinator, “Our biggest problem is dealing

with burnout of our own staff because they won’t take time off because they feel needed by their clients.The

peers are entitled to 4 weeks’ vacation a year, but few ever take all the available time.” 

There are several steps peer supporters and clinicians can take to prevent burnout:

• Get daily physical exercise.

• Meet with or telephone each other to discuss and resolve problems of work overload. The Counseling Team

teaches trainees that “Just because you’re a peer doesn’t mean you can’t be stressed by a client. Go talk

to a peer yourself.” Dick Gould, one of the Massachusetts DOC Stress Unit’s five peers, tells the other peer

supporters,“If you get overloaded with pressure, call me.”

• Get professional help when personal problems develop. John Carr, Family Service Society’s director, says,

“Helpers are the last people to ask for help. How can I have marital problems when I’m handling three 

domestic violence cases a week?” 

• Debrief together after providing support or counseling after a critical incident. In Texas, members of the regional

team debrief the unit team after a crisis to make sure the peer supporters are all right. Similarly, New York

State’s debriefing teams meet among themselves after each session to make sure no one goes home upset.

• Above all,set limits on how much time to spend providing support or counseling, and refuse on occasion to accept

assignments. According to Dick Gould,“We have a tendency to try to fix everything.” Kristy Paine, a lieutenant

with the Riverside (California) Sheriff’s Department, says,“I learned [during peer training with The Counseling

Team] that it’s OK to say my plate is full, and I can’t help you.We were taught a graceful way out: Tell them,‘Your

problem is very important, but I have my own problem just now. So let me refer you to someone else.’ ”

Employee Assistance Program (EAP) 

training

Each New York State Department of Correctional

Services facility typically has three employees (uniformed or civilian) who have been appointed as full-time

EAP coordinators. The coordinators are the employees’

liaison to sources of help for everything from debts to

illness. However, the coordinators may not initiate a

conversation with an officer about a problem without

permission from a supervisor.
As a result, a number of EAP coordinators periodically conduct 2- to 3-

hour training sessions for supervisors

to familiarize them with the EAP’s

services, explain how supervisors can

identify employees needing assistance,

and provide strategies for motivating

employees to take advantage of these

services. Two pages from the EAP’s

39-page coordinators instruction manual (reproduced with permission in

appendix D) provide the EAP coordinators with a scenario in which a supervisor helps a

hypothetical employee, Joe, whose work performance

has declined, to take advantage of the EAP’s services.

Coordinators use the scenario to show supervisors how

they can motivate officers to accept referrals for help.

According to a sergeant who attended the training,

I made use of the ideas twice in the 6 months after

the session. I referred two officers to the EAP

because the training reinforced

doing this and what to watch out for.

After both officers returned from

taking some time off, I could see

they were back to their normal

selves. One officer thanked me for

the referral. Either they didn’t know

about the EAP’s services or they

were too embarrassed to go until

I suggested it.

Developing a Network of

Reliable Referral Resources

Because of lack of time or expertise, no stress program

can provide all the counseling services officers, civilians,

and their family members may need. Peer programs in

particular need access to psychologists to whom they can

refer officers who need professional help. Peer support

programs and professional counseling organizations alike

C HAPTER 4: P ROGRAM S TAFFING , T RAINING , AND N ETWORKING

52

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AS A REFERRAL RESOURCE

Some programs refer officers exclusively to their department’s employee assistance program (EAP), often

because there is no funding for independent psychologists. Edward Stelle, coordinator of the Multnomah

County Peer Support Program, sometimes refers officers to the EAP because it can provide up to 10 free

counseling sessions, whereas the sheriff’s department will pay for only four visits to one of his pool of 

independent psychologists.

The Regional Staff Support Teams that are part of the Texas Institutional Division’s Post Trauma Program refer

officers in need of professional counseling to the EAP; teams are not allowed to refer them to individual psychologists or organizations because it would seem like favoritism. The Institutional Division’s EAP permits

employees only one free visit to assess their needs and then refers officers to professional counselors. While

callers have to give their names, the difficulty is not confidentiality but locating services employees can afford.

A.T. Wall, director of the Rhode Island DOC, says the EAP which serves correctional officers and other State

employees “is a good program, but staff rely on it far less than the DOC Stress Unit. They go to the stress

program because it feels like home: it is specific to corrections. Staff [also] may not trust the EAP.” San

Bernardino Deputy Chief James Nunn reports,“There is a county EAP, but no one uses it because they’re afraid

it’s not confidential. They’re afraid the county will have access to their records.” Clyde Kodadek, a supervisor

with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, adds that,“because The Counseling Team is geared toward safety

professions, it has more credibility than the EAP.”

“I referred two line officers

to the EAP because the

[supervisor] training 

reinforced doing this and

what to watch out for . . .

both officers returned from

taking some time off.”
need access to quality inpatient services. Selecting these

outside resources is important. If officers conclude these

clinicians and hospitals are incompetent or not confidential, the entire stress program may be

compromised.

Program staff can select outside service

providers based on 

• professional qualifications,

• ability to respond quickly, and 

• third-party insurance coverage. 

Most stress programs identify promising resources by

word of mouth from other professionals or from officers

who have used the services. Program staff typically

encourage officers they refer to report

their opinions of the practitioner or

facility.

Outpatient counseling

Even stress programs that have their

own in-house clinical staff, such as

Family Service Society, Post Trauma

Resources, and The Counseling

Team, sometimes need access to

qualified outside counselors. First,

these programs typically offer only

short-term counseling. Second, even

if they can offer unlimited treatment,

most programs need access to outside

clinicians during times of overload or

for specialty areas, such as family

therapy, child therapy, and eating disorders. Finally, some programs may

be too far away from an officer’s

home to travel to conveniently.

Inpatient services

Most programs have a single psychiatric hospital and

one or more substance abuse treatment facilities to which

they refer officers. Family Service Society uses Butler

Hospital, a private psychiatric facility affiliated with

Brown University in Providence.

Robert Hamel, Butler’s day program

(“partial hospital”) director, gives correctional officers special attention

when they arrive. Hamel often meets

the officer in his own office and does

the intake evaluation himself. He

makes sure officers are seen right

away and do not have to remain in the

waiting area where they can be seen.

Hamel says officers tell him, “I’ll be

embarrassed coming here if anyone finds out.” Hamel:

“Do you know anyone who’s been here?” Officer: “No.”

Hamel: “So you know no one will report you’ve been

here.” Hamel then explains the pertinent statutes and the hospital’s rules

regarding confidentiality.

Butler serves 10 to 12 correctional officers a year in the day hospital and 1 or

2 as inpatients. Having access to a day

hospital option can be especially important. “This is my treatment preference,”

John Carr says, “because it’s not as

intimidating to officers as confining

them 24 hours a day in a facility—by

profession they are keeper of the keys,

and being locked up frightens them

because of its loss of control. In addition, they can still be connected to the

community and their family evenings

and weekends.” (See the box “Rhode

Island’s Stress Unit Arranges for an

Officer to Be Hospitalized”)

Even if the program has highly talented

staff, officers will not beat down the

program’s doors for service unless the staff find a way to

gain support from the corrections community. The following chapter suggests how to win over corrections

administrators, unions, and line officers.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

53

Even stress programs that

have their own in-house 

clinical staff sometimes

need access to qualified 

outside counselors.

“This [day hospitalization] is

my treatment preference

because it’s not as intimidating to officers as confining

them 24 hours a day in a

facility—by profession, they

are the keeper of the keys,

and being locked up frightens them because of its loss

of control. In addition, they

can still be connected to the

community and their family

evenings and weekends.”

— John Carr, director,

Family Service Society
C HAPTER 4: P ROGRAM S TAFFING , T RAINING , AND N ETWORKING

54

RHODE ISLAND’S STRESS UNIT ARRANGES FOR AN OFFICER TO BE

HOSPITALIZED

A Rhode Island DOC officer called Mark Messier, the Stress Unit coordinator, to say he was thinking of killing

himself. Messier met with him immediately and then called Robert Hamel, the director of Butler Hospital’s day

program, to say,“I have a guy who is very troubled. He hit another officer. Can you see him?” Hamel:“Bring him

in.” Messier went to the hospital with the officer.

The officer had a long history of discipline problems. Recently, he had been calling in sick, had lost 10 pounds in

two weeks, and was breaking down in tears. A gambling problem had put him $100,000 in debt and was causing

panic attacks.

Hamel did the intake interview with Messier sitting in. Hamel, in consultation with a psychiatrist, decided the

officer would not benefit from hospitalization but would benefit from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. partial hospitalization custodial care. The officer agreed. Messier called Barry Levin, the DOC’s Human Resources Coordinator,

who agreed to advance him 5 days’ vacation time.

After a neurological workup to see if he had any physiological problems, the officer was diagnosed with bipolar

depression. The officer saw a psychiatrist daily for a week and was given one medication to calm him and another medication for impulsiveness. Hamel assigned him a nurse who taught him relaxation techniques and coping

strategies for his anger. The officer told Hamel,“The coping strategies are rocket science to me—they’re great!”

The officer returned to work after a week.

Hamel says,“If this had been a normal admission without my intervention, or if it had occurred at any other

hospital, the officer would have waited hours to be seen, been hospitalized, picked a fight, gone AMA [left against

medical advice]—and been lost to treatment.”
Chapter 5: Ensuring Participation: Involving

Administrators, Unions, Officers, and 

Family Members

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

55

KEY POINTS

• Stress programs need to market their value to commissioners and sheriffs and to wardens and jail 

administrators.

— As discussed in chapter 1, there are compelling reasons (notably, saving money and improving institution

safety) for administrators to seriously consider implementing or expanding a stress program.

— Wardens and jail administrators who have seen how a stress program benefited their facilities are in the

best position to promote the program with other wardens and jail administrators in the agency.

— It is important to gain the support of lieutenants and captains because they decide whether to give peer

supporters time off to help other officers—and whether to allow troubled officers time to meet with the

peers.

• Corrections administrators and program staff need to involve the officers’ union in the program.

— The officers’ union is usually in a position to oppose the program (e.g., by badmouthing it) or provide

tremendous support (e.g., by telling members it is truly confidential).

— Unions have much to gain by supporting the program, including improved relations with management and

reprieves for officers about to be disciplined or terminated.

— The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) makes a former police 

officer and experienced trainer available to run seminars for correctional officers on reducing stress.

• Outreach to line officers is essential to getting them to participate.

— Marketing strategies have included letters, inservice and academy training, brochures, postings, and 

announcements.

— The best sales approach is word of mouth.

• Offering services to family members is the humane thing to do and benefits the institution.

— Family members often experience stress because of the correctional officer’s work.

— Supportive family members can reduce the officers’ stress and help officers avoid bringing family

problems to work.

— A “spouse academy” can teach husbands and wives how to relieve officers’ stress and spot signs of stress

that may require professional attention.
To be effective, a stress program needs to have 

• the support of top correctional administrators,

• the involvement of union officers,

• the trust and confidence of line officers and civilian

employees (the program’s primary “clients”), and

• involvement of family members as clients and 

supporters.

This chapter describes the contribution each of these four

groups can make to the program’s success, along with

strategies program coordinators have used successfully to

enlist their support.

Securing Top Administration

Support

Clearly, without support from administrators, a stress

program will not succeed. This includes support not only

from State commissioners of corrections and sheriffs but

also from individual facility wardens and jail managers.

Chapter 1 identifies several compelling reasons for

administrators to consider implementing or expanding a

stress program, including saving money and improving

facility safety. Talking with administrators—several of

whom are identified throughout this report—who have

actively supported and funded stress programs can also

help convince reluctant commissioners and sheriffs of a

program’s benefits.

Commissioners can require wardens, and sheriffs can

order jail administrators, to conduct specific activities.

However, as Ed Owens, deputy director of support 

services for Texas’ Institutional Division, says,

You need a sales job because wardens could do it

by the letter, not the spirit. And, if there’s no spirit,

employees will see through the program as meaning nothing. Since we gravitate toward the attitudes

of the person at the top, if the warden thinks people

who need help are weak, employees won’t admit

C HAPTER 5: E NSURING P ARTICIPATION

56

HOW CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS CAN SHOW SUPPORT FOR

THEIR PROGRAM

The best way for administrators to support the program is to promote it publicly.

A.T. Wall, the Rhode Island DOC director, describes the program when he teaches the inservice program,

asking,“Aren’t you more worried about the guys who aren’t getting help—when you depend on them for

your safety—than about the staff who are dealing with their problems?”

Administrators also need to support the program in less visible ways. In particular, they need to— 

• Ensure that wardens, jail administrators, and midlevel supervisors give peer supporters release time both to

receive training and provide peer support.

• Never ask program staff for personal information about officers who have used the program.

• Provide adequate funding—when the administrative assistant to Dan Noelle, Multnomah County sheriff, told him

the Peer Support Program was going over budget, he told her not to worry, that he would find the added funds.

However, administrators have to be careful not to allow their support to be “the kiss of death.” A.T. Wall cautions,

“We have to be careful because if staff see it as a management program, they could come to mistrust it.” In particular, administrators should never become involved in the program’s operation. Dan Noelle says,“I try not to interact

with the actual business [of the program] because I want employees to feel that their relationship with the program

is something management won’t destroy. The peer is the officer’s friend, and I don’t want to jeopardize that.”
they need help. As a warden I had to tell officers,

“You’re tough, but I won’t think any less of you—

I will think more of you—if you get help.”

To convince wardens of the Post Trauma Program’s

value, Elaine Smith, the program’s coordinator, got on

the training agenda for each region’s

monthly wardens meeting to introduce

them to the program operations manual and the programs. 

• Smith asked the wardens to identify

critical incidents in their facilities

and then asked, “Who took the officers to the hospital?” Answer: “I

sent a captain—and lost his services

for the rest of the afternoon.” Smith:

“If you had a peer team, the captain

would not have to go. A peer could

do it—and also offer consolation

and enhance the employee’s coming back to work the

next day.”

• Smith told the wardens of an officer who was “cold

cocked” by an inmate who had never given him any

trouble before. “He was embarrassed to heck in front of

his peers. He remained preoccupied and distracted for

weeks because he felt he should have been alert at the

time and should have seen the blow coming.” Smith

tells the wardens, “The officer just needed time off to

talk with a peer; instead, he was a security risk in one

of your facilities.”

Of most value, Smith asked the regional prison coordinators to invite one or

two wardens from other regions who

had already called on the regional support teams for help after critical incidents at their facilities to attend their

wardens meeting. These “sold” wardens told their colleagues how the

debriefings had benefited them.

One warden talked about an incident

in which a female officer was raped

in his facility, and the unit team and

regional team both responded to the incident. According

to an attendee, the warden, a well-respected, long-time

prison administrator—and a 6-foot, 4-inch former

Marine—made an extremely effective pitch for the program. The warden explained that the unit team members

were at the prison to support the officer before she even

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

57

GETTING MIDDLE MANAGEMENT’S SUPPORT IS ALSO CRUCIAL

It is important to gain the support of lieutenants and captains because they are in a position to decide whether 

to give peer supporters time off to help other officers—and whether to allow troubled officers to meet with the

peer supporters. After signing a contract with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, Nancy Bohl, The

Counseling Team’s director, spent an entire day orienting 14 command staff to her organization’s services.

Commanders asked,

“Will you respond 24 hours a day to crises?” “Yes.”

“Will you help staff adjust to an officer—the third one in a few months—diagnosed with terminal cancer?”

“Yes.”

“Right now?” “Yes.”

The commander called Bohl the next morning. Bohl drove over that afternoon and spent 3 hours with the

officer’s coworkers. Bohl also arranged to get on the agenda of the department’s monthly commanders and

executive staff meeting to describe The Counseling Team’s services.

As with wardens, seeing is believing for supervisors. If a program can relieve a lieutenant or captain of having to

deal with a problem officer, the supervisor will make more referrals in the future.

Wardens from other

regions who had called on

the regional support teams

for help after critical incidents at their facilities

told their colleagues how 

the debriefings had 

benefitted them.
left the facility, and they went home with her. As a result,

he felt he did not have to worry about this. He said the

peer supporters calmed the unit staff who were upset,

letting them vent. The warden told the other wardens

that he was surprised to find employees admitting

they needed help. Later, the warden heard directly from

several employees that they felt the teams’ involvement

showed that the system cared about them. Employees

felt, he said, “Look what the warden did for us.”

Wardens and jail administrators typically have three

principal concerns about a stress program:

• Some officers will abuse the program to get time off

from work; 

• Officers may confide policy breaches or illegal activity

to peer supporters which will not be reported to supervisors; and 

• Peer supporters will spend too much time away from

their posts talking to other officers.

Programs have adopted different strategies for addressing

these concerns. At monthly wardens meetings, Elaine

Smith made clear that—

• Peers do not investigate incidents. Although some negative information about wardens may come out, peers

are told not to discuss the criticisms with the officer or

anyone else.

• The program permits team members to provide support

only with permission of their immediate supervisor or

after contacting the team leader, typically when an officer needs immediate help.

All stress program coordinators clarify for wardens and

jail administrators that peer supporters must tell supervisors if they hear information from other officers that

would compromise institution safety or that involves

criminal activity.

Collaborating With the Union

As the bargaining unit and officers’ primary representative

with management, the officers’ union is in a unique position to stymie or promote a stress program. Union leaders

can demand that officers be paid overtime or given compensatory time whenever they provide peer support, and

they can tell their members that the peer supporters or

counselors do not keep visits confidential and are a tool of

management. It is therefore essential to obtain union support in the planning or early stages of the program.

Connecticut’s FOCUS program is a case in point.1

Connecticut’s collaboration with the 

union 

There are 4,100 correctional officers and 2,900 civilians

in the Connecticut Department of Correction’s 23 facilities. In 1999, the department planned a new stress program funded by the National Institute of Justice (with

in-kind contributions from the DOC) called Families,

Officers and Corrections Understanding Stress (FOCUS).

The program offers 2-hour inservice and after work seminars to officers and their family members on financial

management, parenting skills, conflict resolution, and

other topics based on the results of a survey of officer

stress. The department has contracted with its existing

EAP provider to offer followup counseling for officers

and family members as needed.

Officers in Connecticut are represented by three

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME) locals, each covering a different

region of the State. A FOCUS committee consisting of

the presidents of the three locals or their delegates, the

stress program director (representing the DOC), the liaison with the DOC’s contracted EAP program, and, initially, the DOC’s personnel officer responsible for workers’ compensation decisions first met as often as twice

weekly for 3 hours to guide the development of the program. At these meetings, the three union delegates proposed significant changes in the original program plan:

(1) The original grant proposal called for surveying officers in 4 of the State’s 23 facilities. The

unions asked to add the supermaximum security

facility to the list and to substitute a jail for one

of the original four prisons. (The Connecticut

DOC runs the State’s jails.) The union felt that

including officers in these facilities would broaden officer representation. The DOC agreed to the

changes. 

C HAPTER 5: E NSURING P ARTICIPATION

58
(2) The unions objected to providing the EAP

with $60,000 of the $100,000 Federal grant.

According to Michael Minney, president of one

of the three unions, “Initially, the EAP was going

to do the survey, but our members felt that it

should not because [with its vested interest in

increasing referrals], the EAP could appear to

have a conflict of interest that would damage the

program’s credibility.”

(3) The FOCUS committee had planned to offer

the seminars to officers on weekends, during lunch,

or after work. The committee proposed using time

during the annual week-long mandatory inservice

training when the program would have a captive

audience and there would be no additional cost to

the DOC. Facility administrators determine what

will be taught during 2 days of electives, so they

could agree to include stress training. The DOC’s

inservice training committee and

the relevant deputy superintendent

agreed to use one of the days for

stress training at the five facilities.

The unions were also concerned management might use against their members any information from the survey

that suggested the presence of alcohol

abuse among officers or, if the results

indicated officers did not experience

unusual stress, claim that officers were overpaid.

Management, in turn, was concerned the unions might

bring up any findings that suggested officers hated their

supervisors or, if the results showed extreme stress

among officers, ask for salary increases. As a result, the

union and DOC signed a memorandum agreeing that

neither party would use the results of the survey during

contract negotiations.

Reflecting their participation in the FOCUS program as

an equal partner with management, the unions will make

crucial contributions to the stress program’s success:

• The unions offered to contribute $9,000 to the grant—

$3,000 from each local—if the money were needed. 

• According to Robert Parziale, the president’s liaison to

the FOCUS committee from one of the three locals,

“The unions will promote the program to officers by

letter, roll call, direct mailings, newsletters, union

meetings, and the union Web page. The union has been

telling officers that the program is for them, not a hidden agenda to help the DOC.”

• The union mailed a one-page memorandum (see exhibit 5–1) to all members in the five facilities involved in

the survey, signed by the DOC commissioner, the three

union presidents, and the EAP contract manager,

describing the program and urging

members to answer the program’s

forthcoming survey questionnaire. The

memorandum asked the officers to

“please encourage your family member(s)/significant other to participate in

the educational programs as they are

developed in response to the questionnaire.”

According to Maria Houser,

Connecticut’s deputy commissioner

for administration, union support was essential “to get

the word out to staff that this isn’t management bull.”

Parziale adds,

The program would have been dead in the water

without union support. Most officers are skeptical of

the DOC’s motives, so they would have refused to

take the survey without union support—they were

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

59

FAILURE TO INVOLVE THE UNION EARLY CAN BE COSTLY

According to Commander Lynne Pierce of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department,“We involved the union too late;

we should have done it earlier. For example, we could have avoided some political issues if we had the union on

board when we went for permission to sole source the [stress services] contract to The Counseling Team.

Union officers were suspicious of the arrangement because they did not believe that management could be

doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. And we have yet to work out with the union under what 

conditions a supervisor’s telling an officer to see The Counseling Team will be a mandatory referral.”

According to Maria Houser,

Deputy Commissioner for

Administration, union support was essential “to get

the word out to staff that

this isn’t management bull.”
60

EXHIBIT 5–1. UNION MEMORANDUM

C HAPTER 5: E NSURING P ARTICIPATION
already afraid [about taking it] because of confidentiality concerns—for example, [afraid about] reporting that their supervisors are a source of stress.

Parziale adds that the unions have taken a risk in supporting the program: “We’re going out on a limb if the program fails. People . . . could think the

union sold out to management.”

Michael Minney agrees about the risk

but for a different reason: “If officers

don’t buy into the program and [do

not] believe it to be confidential, they

could give a false sense of security to

DOC [by not reporting stress on the

questionnaire].” However, union officers and DOC administrators alike

believe that the FOCUS program may

have spinoff effects that will improve

labor-management relations in other

areas. According to Parziale, “FOCUS

is a way to collaborate, not fight.

FOCUS [union] committee members can [now] talk

with deputy commissioners and wardens civilly on

other issues because FOCUS got them working together.”

Unions, too, stand to benefit from a 

stress program

Unions increasingly ask for employee stress programs

as part of their labor-management contracts with correctional administrators. In addition to securing an

important employee benefit by including stress programs in the contract, unions benefit from a stress 

program because administrators may be willing to put

suspensions or terminations on hold while they offer 

an officer a chance to go to the program and recover. 

• According to Dennis Cullen, the Massachusetts

DOC’s deputy director for employee relations, “In

deliberations with the union on a proposed suspension, stewards may say they want to get the person

into the Stress Unit, and I may put the suspension on

hold until the person returns to work and functions

productively or goofs up again.”

• According to Richard Ferruccio, second vice president

of the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional

Officers, “The program helps us in disciplinary cases—

we can represent the officer better by explaining that the

person is getting help.” Like a court diversion program,

the union can sometimes delay a disciplinary hearing if

the person is getting help: if the person remains in counseling, discipline is held in abeyance; if the person’s performance is satisfactory after returning

to work, the hearing is never held.

“Both parties win,” Ferruccio says:

“The employee corrects his or her

behavior, and the department gets a

better employee and doesn’t have to

replace a valued worker.”

Outreach to Line

Officers

Without effective outreach to make

officers aware of the program, it will

not be used. Outreach may not be a

problem when the department mandates attendance at

critical incident debriefings. However, for officers to

initiate contact with the program, they must be familiar

with what it is and does. 

Departments that plan new programs need to keep several points in mind when marketing their services:

• gain the support of management and labor (see above)

before attempting to win over line officers,

• make outreach an ongoing program activity, not a

one-time effort,

• be patient, and 

• use several strategies for making officers aware of the

program.

Programs have used a wide range of approaches to

encourage officers to use their services.

Letters 

When sheriff’s departments first contract with San

Bernardino’s Counseling Team, all staff receive a letter

with their next pay check that presents the organization’s

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

61

According to Richard

Ferruccio, second vice president of the Rhode Island

Brotherhood of Correctional

Officers,“The program helps

us in disciplinary cases—we

can represent the officer

better by explaining that the

person is getting help.”
C HAPTER 5: E NSURING P ARTICIPATION

62

A UNION PROVIDES STRESS TRAINING

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), an affiliate of the American

Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), represents 130,000 correctional officers

nationwide. Since 1989, AFSCME has sponsored a consultant, Roger Johnson, to provide 6 to 10 half-day seminars a year on “Stress Survival for Correctional Personnel” at the request of correctional conferences and

workshops and national and local AFSCME conventions. Local AFSCME councils and employee assistance 

programs also request Johnson’s services.

For AFSCME events, the national union or local union council pays Johnson’s fee and travel expenses from its

training and education budget. Employee assistance programs use their discretionary money to fund the seminars. Participants hear about the seminars largely by word of mouth or by talking with Johnson informally during

the conventions.

Johnson is a retired New York City police officer with a master’s degree in social work. He was assistant chief therapist for the New York City Police Department’s Counseling Unit. A Marine infantry squad leader in Vietnam from

1965 to 1966, Johnson also worked in a Military Police unit at the Army disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth.

Currently, Johnson is director of programs for the Albany, New York, chapter of the National Safety Council.

Context

Johnson describes the effects stress can have on the mind and body to his audiences and discusses techniques

for reducing stress, including progressive muscle relaxation, exercise, and meditation. Johnson turns out the

lights and turns on a relaxation tape.

Johnson emphasizes that “stress is your responsibility—don’t blame the system, take charge. Your response is

what is critical, not what happens to you.” When correctional officers say they are afraid to go to their EAP

because they will lose their jobs, Johnson tells them,“That could be a form of denial. If you’re under considerable stress, you don’t have much to hold on to anyway. What’s important is that you take some action.”

Johnson tells the officers they have to lose their cynicism and negativity. “Prison isn’t the world—you need to

forget the prison; take your glasses off when you leave.” However, this takes practice, he warns them.

Participant Reactions

Johnson’s hope is that participants “take one or two things away from the workshop—for example, removing

the salt shaker from the dinner table.” Sergeant Dan Jensen from Wisconsin attended Johnson’s session at a

1998 national AFSCME convention in Austin. “I had been disappointed in other stress workshops, but word of

mouth said Roger’s was good. It wasn’t a lecture—do this and that to cope with stress; instead, he gave options

and said you pick. As a result of the workshop, I now take 40 minutes to walk my dog after work, and I come to

work early to use the inmate gym—and I lost 40 pounds. I’ve kept the weight off, and I feel less stress.” Jensen

reports he kept the booklet Johnson distributed on stress and still refers to it occasionally [pulling it out in

5 seconds for this interview].

Participants come up to Johnson after the seminars to ask him for referrals. He refers them to their clergy,

Employee Assistance Program (EAP), or the Institute of Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) in New York City

“because its approach is hands-on problem solving. Correctional officers don’t want psychological mumbo

jumbo,” Johnson says;“they want to take control of their problems.” The institute headquarters can refer callers

to trained therapists all over the country.
services and explains how to access

them. Any Massachusetts DOC officer

being disciplined (e.g., for tardiness) is

made aware of the Stress Program in

the letter of discipline.

Inservice training 

The Counseling Team and Rhode

Island’s Family Service Society 

conduct outreach during inservice

training.

Academy training 

The Massachusetts DOC Stress Unit sends male and

female peer supporters to give a 2-hour presentation to

every new academy class. The male staff member, a

former heavyweight boxer well known in the area,

makes clear that the program is not for “wimps.” The

female staff member makes clear that the program is

also for women. When one officer needed to see a program staff member 2 years later, he still had the telephone number from his academy packet. 

Schmoozing 

Counseling Team staff do “jail-alongs,” hanging out with

officers and having coffee. By chatting with officers they

used to work with, the peer supporters in the Massachusetts

DOC’s Stress Unit get to meet new officers.

Brochures 

Texas’ Post Trauma Program distributes brochures about

the program to officers during inservice training. The

Riverside County Sheriff’s Department distributes an

attractive flier on its Peer Support Program to every

employee (see appendix E).

Postings 

Mark Messier, the Rhode Island DOC Stress Unit coordinator, sent a memorandum to every warden and deputy

warden asking them to post an attached updated list of

peer supporters in visible areas in their buildings. The

list provides each peer’s name, building, shift, telephone

number, and pager number. The list of Stress Unit program coordinators and lead facility

peers are posted on bulletin boards 

and central control areas of the five

Multnomah County jails.

Announcements 

When the Massachusetts DOC Stress

Program moved to a new location in

1985, the superintendent sent a memorandum to all staff advising them of

the move and reminding them that—

This program is open to all Department of Correction

staff and their families. Referrals will be treated with

the utmost confidentiality. The administration and

Union are strong supporters of the Stress Program

because it has been a great educational and treatment

tool.

The memo ended with the instruction, “TO BE READ

AT ROLL CALL FOR THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE

DAYS.”

Badges 

While responding to a critical incident, Texas unit team

members wear badges that read “Unit Staff Support

Officer” and show the peer’s last name.

The best sales approach remains word of mouth. Officers

in the Massachusetts DOC ask other officers, “Who’s

that guy who comes into the Charles Street Jail?” “Tom

McNeeley.” “What’s he doing here?” “Talking with an

officer who’s having some problems.” “Oh. How do I

reach him?”

Involving Family Members

Working in a prison or jail can take a tremendous toll on

a correctional officer’s family and significant others—

even when it does not affect the officer. Family members

may experience stress because 

• rotating shift work and overtime disrupt family 

activities; 

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

63

When sheriff’s departments

first contract with San

Bernardino’s Counseling

Team, all staff receive a 

letter with their next pay

check that presents the

organization’s services and

explains how to access them.
C HAPTER 5: E NSURING P ARTICIPATION

64

• the officer needs to feel in complete control in the

home (“Your kids aren’t inmates,” one wife told her

husband after he barked orders at

his children); 

• they are afraid the officer will be

hurt or killed; 

• the officer has been hurt; or 

• their friends and other family members think all officers are brutal

Neanderthals.

Why involve family members?

By training, counseling, and otherwise

supporting family members, stress programs can do much

to ensure that these husbands and wives not only receive

the help they need but also remain or become sources of

support rather than an additional source of stress for their

officer spouses. Family members can add to an officer’s

stress if they resent the officer’s odd hours, moodiness, or

unwillingness to share experiences on the job, or if family

members keep expressing their fears about the officer’s

safety. Cathy Carlson, the Safety Office return-to-work

coordinator for the California Youth Authority, reports that,

After inmates killed a civilian employee, a lot of

wives said to their husbands, “You’re never going

back there to work again.” So I asked Nancy [Bohl]

if the officers could bring their family members

to any individual counseling they

went for. The staff appreciated that

opportunity.

Finally, because family members are

often the first to recognize when an

officer needs help, they can play a crucial role in encouraging the officer to

seek assistance before the problem

becomes severe. Family members are

more likely to recognize stress and

refer the officer to help if the signs of

stress-related problems and the availability of services to treat these difficulties have been properly explained to them. (See the

box “A Wife Describes the Spouse Academy.”)

The Collier County (Florida) Sheriff’s

Office’s Spouse Academy

The Collier County Sheriff’s Office manages two jails

with a rated capacity of 754 inmates supervised by 189

correctional officers. The department used a Corrections

and Law Enforcement Family Support (CLEFS) grant

from the National Institute of Justice to develop a stress

prevention and reduction program for correctional and

law enforcement officers. When the grant ended in

A WIFE DESCRIBES THE SPOUSE ACADEMY

Carol Johnson, the wife of a correctional officer, attended one of the Collier County Sheriff’s Department

Spouse Academies. Johnson went because she wanted to know what went on with her husband’s work.“The

most important benefit was that it felt good to learn what to do if my husband is involved in a critical incident.” 

Johnson also learned that officers could make three free visits to see Riccardo Rivas, a psychologist who led some

of the sessions. Johnson went home and encouraged her husband to make an appointment with Rivas because the

officer was experiencing considerable stress after having failed by five points the academy test to become dually

certified as a peace officer. In addition, they had a new baby to contend with. “If I hadn’t attended the academy,”

Johnson said,“I would not have referred him because I wouldn’t have known about the free counseling.” Johnson’s

husband went. Later, he told his wife it was helpful. Since going, Johnson has noticed that he relaxes more and

takes the dogs out for more frequent walks.“Some nights he comes home and, instead of conking out, takes the

baby out with the stroller. Last night he said he wanted to go out with his cousin for 2 hours.”

What was the reaction of Johnson’s husband to his wife’s attending the academy? “He felt it was good I went—

he was proud; he even walked in with me to register.”

Because family members

are often the first to recognize when an officer needs

help, they can also play a

crucial role by encouraging

the officer to seek assistance

before the problem

becomes severe.
December 1998, Sheriff Don Hunter continued

to fund one component, a semiannual Spouse

Academy for the wives and husbands of correctional and law enforcement officers.

Hunter personally sent every officer’s spouse a

letter announcing the availability of the academy, stating, “The academy . . . will also provide

me with a means to ensure an agency climate

with less stress for each of us.” Spouses were

given two options: an academy held from

6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on four consecutive

Wednesdays and an academy held from 9:00

a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on two consecutive Saturdays.

Edward Ferguson, the agency’s career development counselor, reports that some women telephoned, saying, “I’m officer so-and-so’s significant other, and I heard of this academy. Can I

come, too?” Ferguson accepted them, as well.

Each of the academies enrolled more than 35

family members. Ferguson ran the academies.

Acey Edgemon, a corrections lieutenant, facilitated and taught in the academies. Exhibit 5–2

is an outline of the academy content. As shown,

the academy addressed the psychological makeup of law enforcement and correctional officers,

critical incident stress management, and services available under the agency’s employee assistance program.

Snacks, lunch, and child care were provided at

the academies. Each participant also received a

comprehensive notebook of materials on stress

reduction and agency benefits and materials provided by

Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS). 

Hunter spoke at the beginning of each academy. At the

end of the course, he handed each graduate a certificate

of attendance and a photo ID card stating that “I, Don

Hunter, Sheriff of Collier County, hereby certify that

___________ is a Family Member of Collier County

Sheriff’s Office.”

Edgemon reported that “spouses on their registration

forms told us over and over that they had no idea what

their husbands and wives did in the jail—they were outside the loop. So we offered them a tour of the jail after

the academy was over.”

Riccardo Rivas, one of seven psychologists on the

agency’s insurance carrier list and a principal speaker at

the academy, offered his clinical services. As a result,

two officers’ wives made appointments to see him after

attending the Spouse Academy, one making a total of

eight visits over 2 months. Since the academies were

held, “We had about a dozen officers asking when the

next one is because they want their spouses to attend,”

Edgemon reports. “About a dozen spouses called, too.”

Hunter plans to spend $3,000 for each of two more

spouse academies to cover Rivas’ fee, food for participants, materials, and postage. Hunter feels the academy

provides two benefits. 

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

65

EXHIBIT 5–2.ACADEMY OUTLINE
C HAPTER 5: E NSURING P ARTICIPATION

66

First, it removes the anonymity of

the agency because the spouses get

to meet some of its administrators

[including Hunter], and they gain

confidence that the agency can take

care of its spouses’ needs. 

Second, a spouse academy can

instruct the officers’ husbands and

wives in specific types of stress

management they can practice in

their daily lives and with their

[corrections] spouses. When officers know they can talk to their

spouses about work problems, and

when the spouses are interested

and have finesse responding, the

officers’ stress levels are reduced. 

Why are these two goals important? 

Many officers bring their family problems to work

and vice versa. If I can create cohesion in the family and galvanize a relationship, it makes for a

healthier organization. A healthier organization 

can lead to reduced sick time,

which reduces the need for over

time and the cost of corrections 

to the taxpayer. 

Gaining the participation of administrators, unions, officers, and family

members is only part of the work

involved in making the stress program

a success. The following chapter identifies three other activities programs

must successfully undertake to function effectively.

Note

1. For further information about

the Connecticut Department of

Correction FOCUS program, contact Michael McGarthy,

Personnel Officer, Central Office, 24 Wolcott Hill Road,

Weathersfield, CT 06109, telephone number (860)

692–6808; or Lawrence Mens, Contract Manager, E.T.P.,

Inc., 111 Founders Plaza, East Hartford, CT 06108–3212,

telephone number (800) 767–6171.

“If I can create cohesion in

the family and galvanize a

relationship [by offering a

Spouse Academy], it makes

for a healthier organization.

A healthier organization can

lead to reduced sick time,

which reduces the need for

overtime and the cost of

corrections to the taxpayer.”

— Collier County (Florida)

Sheriff Don Hunter
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

67

Chapter 6: Three Other Keys to Program

Success

In addition to the importance of staffing the program

properly and securing the participation of administrators,

union officials, line officers, and family members, stress

programs will not be fully effective unless they secure

officers’ trust in the staff members’ ability to keep information confidential; provide an array of followup services after critical incidents, not just debriefings; and work

with the department to reduce organizational sources of

stress.

This chapter describes how stress programs have tackled

each of these undertakings.

Securing Trust: Guaranteeing

Confidentiality

The perception and reality of confidentiality are the most

indispensable requirements of any stress program’s

KEY POINTS

In addition to finding topnotch staff and gaining the involvement of key participants, stress programs need to

tackle the following three activities if they are to be fully effective.

• Programs need to convince officers they can trust the program to maintain confidentiality.

— Clinicians are required to keep records confidential. However, there are circumstances in which counselors

must report what clients have told them.

— Because they are unlicensed, peer supporters have no legal protection if their department or a court

orders them to reveal conversations with fellow officers.

— There are ways clinicians and peer supporters can maintain records of their contacts with officers and still

maintain confidentiality.

• Debriefings should be only one of several responses to critical incidents.

— Some clinicians and researchers argue that, by themselves, critical incident debriefings do not prevent

long-term stress among trauma victims.

— Critical incident debriefing experts report there should be multiple responses to reducing stress after a

critical incident, ranging from humanitarian assistance, to educational debriefings, to followup individual

counseling, to return-to-work strategies.

• Departments need to address the stress stemming from the corrections organization itself.

— Some corrections departments have reduced stress through organizational change.

— The principal areas in which departments can reduce stress relate to shift work schedules, understaffing,

and mandatory overtime.
effectiveness. If officers suspect program staff are

reporting them to supervisors without permission, the

program’s reputation will be quickly killed within the

entire facility or department. However, the rules of 

confidentiality are different for licensed clinicians

and peer supporters.

Clinicians

As a general rule, State law considers information that

clients give to licensed mental health practitioners to be

privileged communication that the counselor may not

share with anyone else without the client’s permission.1

As Ellen Kirschman, a psychologist

who treats law enforcement officers,

notes, “Licensed mental health professionals are required by statute and

their professional codes of ethics and

conduct . . . to keep all records confidential. If they do not, they risk losing

the license they need to practice, and

they open themselves up to lawsuits.”2

Clinicians, and stress programs that use clinicians, can

take special steps to ensure that client communications

and records remain confidential:

• Minimize or refuse mandatory referrals (see the box

“Accepting Mandatory Referrals Carries Risks”).

• Secure informed consent from all clients at the beginning of the first counseling session.

• Prepare and disseminate a written confidentiality policy.

For example, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections

“Operations Memorandum on the Departmental Stress

Program” notes that 

. . . it shall be the policy of the department to

insure that all employees who participate in the program shall remain

anonymous . . . and all records shall

be kept strictly confidential. Only

in the event of extreme danger to

life or serious bodily harm to the

employee, or to others from the

employee, can information be

revealed, and only to prevent said

danger.

As the policy statement suggests, there are circumstances

in which mental health professionals must by law break

confidentiality:

C HAPTER 6: T HREE O THER K EYS TO P ROGRAM S UCCESS

68

THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING CLINICAL RECORDS

To make sure their services remain confidential, some clinicians may be tempted to keep no records. However,

counselors must maintain appropriate client records to ensure good client care,* provide evidence of a clinician’s

use of appropriate treatment in case of a lawsuit (e.g., after a client commits suicide), and meet the requirements

of some State statutes and licensing boards.

Jon Benson, a clinical psychologist who has treated officers from the Multnomah County jail, reports that

“I keep regular notes [on the officers]—a treatment plan, log, issues addressed—in order to meet State and

ethical standards [for proper and effective treatment].”

In addition to keeping proper records, it is critical to store them properly—that is, keep them physically inaccessible to anyone but authorized individuals. Programs need a written policy for how the information will be

stored, who may have access to it, and how they gain access (e.g., by computer code, lock combination).

Programs can consult with professional counseling organizations, including The Counseling Team and Family

Service Society, for suggestions about how to write a watertight policy.

* Section 1.23 of the American Psychological Association’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (Washington, D.C.: n.d.)

states,“Psychologists appropriately document their professional and scientific work in order to facilitate provision of services by them or

by other professionals, to ensure accountability, and to meet other requirements of institutions and the law.”

The perception and reality

of confidentiality are

the most indispensable 

requirements of any stress 

program’s effectiveness.
• If the client is a threat to someone else, the counselor

must warn the intended victim and the police.

• If the client reveals he or she is

abusing a child or elderly person,

the counselor must tell the appropriate protective service agency and the

police. 

• If the client is suicidal, or so disabled that he or she cannot care for

him- or herself, the counselor must take steps to find

support for the person.

• If counselors treat clients for a work-related emotional

injury, they must submit monthly reports to the workers’ compensation agency, and

these files become public record.3

Clinicians and peer supporters may

also be obligated by State law or

department policy (as well as by ethical concerns) to report information

that relates to institution security.

Bonni Rucker, an assistant warden and

Regional Staff Support Team member with Texas’ Post

Trauma Support Program, gave an example in which

confidentiality was legitimately broken.

I helped run a debriefing after a trailer

full of inmates on a work assignment

tipped over. Before the debriefing, the

officers involved were very upset at

having messed up, but then they heard

that the inmates were faking their

injuries. As a result, at the debriefing

the officers talked about getting back

at the inmates. I tried to steer the officers in a positive direction in terms of their obligation to follow

the department’s policy to take any inmate who says

he or she is sick to medical for treatment. But I also

told the warden [what the officers were saying]

because of the risk of injury to the

inmates. As a result, the warden did

not let the inmates return to work for

several days until tensions died down.

Peer supporters

Confidentiality is a more complicated

issue for peer supporters. On the one hand, no program

involving the use of peer supporters will survive if peers

talk about individuals they support to other people. On the

other hand, unless specifically addressed by State statute,

communication between peer supporters and correctional

employees is never privileged conversation under the law,

regardless of department rules, because peers are typically

not licensed mental health professionals. As a result,

supervisors and courts have the legal right to ask what

was said during these conversations.

Departments also cannot offer immunity from civil and

criminal litigation to peer supporters who co-lead a

debriefing and are later asked to testify at departmental

hearings or in civil or criminal proceedings about what

they heard. Participants in debriefings should be told this

and warned against making comments that could be construed as admissions of wrongdoing, such as “If only I

had . . . ” or “I should have. . . . ” Licensed clinicians

who conduct debriefings are protected, however.

As with licensed counselors, peer supporters have a positive duty to report when employees being offered support

appear to be a danger to themselves or others or say they

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

69

ACCEPTING MANDATORY

REFERRALS CARRIES RISKS

If a program accepts mandatory referrals, correctional supervisors may demand to be kept

informed of whether an officer sought assistance, is making progress, or is fit to return

to duty* because the department, not the 

officer, may be considered the client. As a

result, the Rhode Island DOC’s “Operations

Memorandum on the Departmental Stress

Program” notes that participation in the Stress

Unit is strictly voluntary and “an employee’s

decision to participate/not participate in stress

counseling activities shall have no bearing on

the established disciplinary process.”

* Appelbaum, P.S., and T.G. Gutheil, Clinical Handbook of

Psychiatry and the Law, second edition, Baltimore:Williams

and Wilkins, 1991: 5.

There are circumstances

in which mental health 

professionals must by law

break confidentiality.

Confidentiality is a 

complicated issue for peer

supporters.
have committed child or elder abuse, domestic violence,

or a felony. According to Sergeant William Gatzge, a

coordinator with the Multnomah County Peer Stress

Program, “Confidentiality is the most talked about issue

and concern [among officers]. But we’ve never had a

breach yet. But, if someone gets into saying they’re 

suicidal or doing illegal acts, I tell them, ‘this won’t 

stay confidential.’ ”

Pressure to reveal information

Mark Messier, the peer coordinator of the Rhode Island

DOC Stress Unit, says, “Supervisors occasionally ask me

what’s going on with an officer, or when is he coming

back to work, and I tell them I don’t know.” Supervisors

sometimes also ask department benefits administrators

when officers will be coming back to work. 

EXAMPLES OF WHAT TRUE CONFIDENTIALITY MEANS

• Patricia Carr is the wife of John Carr, the Rhode Island DOC Stress Unit clinical supervisor. As a peer supporter and a licensed clinician with the DOC, she says,“Officers come to me and say, ‘John must have told

you what a mess I was in,’ but John doesn’t tell me anything, and I don’t tell him about the officers who seek

my help.”

• According to Mark Messier, coordinator of the Rhode Island DOC Stress Unit,“Guys I’ve helped 11 years ago

come up to thank me, but I pretend I don’t know what they mean to protect them. Later, I take them aside

and tell them not to expose themselves—or me. People in an inservice class have yelled when I explain that I

have helped officers deal with marital problems,‘Yeah, that was me!’ and I have to play dumb to keep the other

officers’ confidence that the program is confidential.”

• Richard Harding, a Massachusetts officer who has used the Peer Stress Unit, reports that “Dick Gould 

[a Stress Unit peer] has never—and I mean never—discussed another client with me.”

C HAPTER 6: T HREE O THER K EYS TO P ROGRAM S UCCESS

70

PROGRAM LOCATION IS IMPORTANT TO CONFIDENTIALITY

The program’s offices need to be accessible yet private.

• The Counseling Team’s main office in San Bernardino is located in a three-story office building with other

agencies and businesses.

• Rhode Island’s Stress Unit office provides 24-hour access and it is only 1 or 2 minutes’ drive from every facility.The office is in the central distribution building where officers come to pick up uniforms and supplies.The

only indication the program office is located in the building is a cryptic sign which reads,“DSU” (Department

Stress Unit).

• The Massachusetts Stress Unit’s main office is located in a National Guard Armory 3 miles from the nearest

correctional institution.

Both The Counseling Team and Post Trauma Resources (PTR) have branch offices. For example, PTR has part-time

satellite offices in small towns within a 20- to 60-mile radius of its main office in Columbia. In one office, the organization shares with a chaplain space donated by a hospital. In the other locations, PTR rents shared space with other

organizations.The satellite offices enable PTR staff to provide ongoing counseling to personnel in correctional agencies and other organizations for whom traveling to Columbia would be difficult or impossible.
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

71

Barry Levin, Rhode Island’s DOC

human resources assistant director,

reports, “I get pressure from some

supervisors asking why an officer is

not back at work yet. Some deputy

wardens tell me how much it’s costing

them in overtime to cover for the officer. I tell them the person isn’t ready

yet.”

John Near, the South Carolina DOC’s

director of personnel, says that some

supervisors call him and say, “So and

so has been out of work 6 months, and

I just saw him at the grocery store.

What’s up?” Near then calls Lawrence

Bergmann, director of Post Trauma Resources (PTR),

who may say to Near, “The officer’s physical appearance

is not the whole story” or “This is news to me; maybe he

is ready to come back.” Near calls the supervisor back to

relay Bergmann’s response but emphasizes that the decision to return is PTR’s call.

Reporting

Reporting can be a concern in terms of maintaining 

confidentiality. For example, to get reimbursed, PTR

counselors have to send clinical information to the workers’ compensation provider. As a result, Larry Bergmann

has developed a special form (see exhibit 6–1) to minimize the information his staff have to provide. Post

Trauma Resources counselors always warn clients of this

obligation. Ruth Ellis, one of the counselors, reports that

“Plenty of clients are concerned about what goes into the

note that I send, so I let them see what I have written.”

The discussion of monitoring in chapter 7, “Evaluation,

Funding, and Technical Assistance,” provides detailed

information about reporting procedures that provide useful information to administrators and coordinators without

compromising officer confidentiality.

The bottom line on confidentiality

To minimize legal complications and avoid jeopardizing

the entire stress program, program staff should consult

with a local attorney regarding their State laws and applicable court rulings pertaining to confidentiality.

Multiple Interventions

May Be Needed After

a Critical Incident

Critical incident debriefings are

intended to provide immediate support

and referral to professional counseling

services to reduce the chances that

employees will develop long-term

emotional problems.

An unproven intervention

It appears that debriefings may not

help to prevent long-term emotional

problems among trauma victims. While many victims

report feeling better after a debriefing, scientific studies

conducted with emergency service personnel suggest

there is no difference in terms of long-term psychological

health between individuals who have experienced a traumatic event and received a debriefing and similar individuals who have not been debriefed. Some researchers feel

there is convincing evidence that debriefings can even

be harmful in some cases for some participants.4

Researchers have also suggested that most individuals

exposed to critical incidents—especially those without

preexisting emotional problems—do not develop serious

stress reactions or other symptoms.5 In fact, exposure to a

critical incident may have positive effects for some individuals, including emotional growth and feeling more

experienced about life, more self-assured, and more competent. As a result, debriefings, these researchers argue,

should focus on survivor strengths, coping skills, and the

use of social support. This suggests that debriefers

should remind participants that most officers do well

after a critical incident and should use the debriefing to

identify who needs help rather than using the debriefing

to provide help.

The empirical research that casts doubt on the effectiveness of debriefings has not been conducted with correctional officers. The nature of correctional work is different in important respects from the work of firefighters,

emergency medical technicians (EMTs), and other public

safety personnel—the types of individuals with whom

debriefings’ effects have been researched. Correctional

Scientific studies conducted

with emergency service 

personnel suggest there is

no difference in terms of

long-term psychological

health between individuals

who have experienced a

traumatic event and received

a debriefing and similar 

individuals who have not

been debriefed.
C HAPTER 6: T HREE O THER K EYS TO P ROGRAM S UCCESS

72

EXHIBIT 6–1. POST TRAUMA RESOURCES SESSION—PROGRESS NOTE FORM
officers are also different from the

victims of natural disasters who have

been studied. For example, after an

inmate attack, officers typically go

back to spending at least 40 hours a

week locked up with members of the

very same population that has attacked

them. As a result, it is possible that

some of the research that has found

that debriefings do not benefit trauma

victims may not apply to correctional

officers. Nevertheless, it remains true

that there have been no scientific

studies that show that debriefings are

effective in helping correctional officers cope with critical incidents.

Potential benefits of debriefings

While there is no evidence that debriefings can, in the

long run, relieve the emotional consequences of critical

incidents among correctional officers, there is anecdotal

evidence that debriefings can provide three other benefits

to some officers.

First, debriefings may relieve inappropriate feelings of guilt. For example,

when a teacher was raped by an

inmate, another teacher who did not

leave the classroom to go to her aid

when he heard the screams felt

extremely guilty. At the debriefing,

he felt some relief when he was told

he should not have left to get help

because there was an open toolbox in

his room to which inmates could have

gained access.

According to Susan Cooper, who coled six debriefings after a major riot at

the Mohawk prison in New York State,

“[T]he dispatchers who came to the

debriefings had feelings of helplessness and guilt because they had heard what was going on

[during the riot] but had been unable to be there [at the

scene]. The officers gave them terrific support to relieve

their guilt [feelings].” The chart sergeant during the

Mohawk riot reported, “I went home at 4:00 a.m. and sat

in the bath debating whether I had failed. I expressed this

concern during the session. What helped was other people telling me ‘thanks to you this and this happened.’ So I

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE

Some stress programs attempt to “inoculate” correctional personnel against stress during academy training.

However, according to Lt. Gary Cornelius, programs and recreation supervisor for the 1,200-bed Fairfax County

(Virginia) Adult Detention Center, most recruits are not ready to believe they will experience stress on the job.

The best time to reach them for prevention purposes, he says, is after they have been on the job for 6 to 8

months and have experienced some of the stresses but are not yet burned out.

Cornelius, the author of the American Correctional Association’s (ACA’s) book Stressed Out: Strategies for Living

andWorking with Stress in Corrections (see chapter 7 in this report, “Evaluation, Funding, and Technical Assistance”),

conducts a 1-day inservice training session for ACA member departments. Cornelius’ training capitalizes on the firsthand experience of correctional officers (and other personnel) in prisons to provide them with strategies for avoiding stress, or reducing the consequences of stress, before stress-related problems become debilitating. In addition

to discussions of the nature of stress and coping mechanisms, Cornelius talks about how stressed-out correctional

workers are prone to inmate manipulation and how good stress management can improve institution security.

San Bernardino’s The Counseling Team conducts similar inservice training for the sheriff’s departments and State

institutions it serves. Supervisors typically request the team to provide sessions on specific topics, such as staff

emotional involvement with inmates.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

73

“I went home at 4:00 a.m.

and sat in the bath debating

whether I had failed. I

expressed this concern during the [debriefing] session.

What helped was other people telling me, thanks to you

this and this happened....

The session helped build

my confidence to return.”

— the charge sergeant 

during the Mohawk riot
got support at the session from the others. I would go

again. The session helped build my confidence to return.”

Second, debriefings can quash rumors

and let everyone know what actually

happened. Elaine Smith, coordinator

of Texas’ Post Trauma Staff Support

Program, reports that “rumors fly

without a debriefing in which everyone learns what actually happened.”

An officer who was very hostile to his

corrections administration said, “I still

benefited from it [the debriefing]. I

was able to connect my experience

[during the riot] with what everyone

else was doing. I got a fuller picture

of what happened and understood what happened better.

I hadn’t known what happened in the other parts of the

riot.”

Finally, debriefings demonstrate that the administration

cares. A New York State correctional officer said after a

debriefing following the Mohawk riot, “The most important benefit was knowing people here care enough to

help out. Bob [the union president] first but the administration, too.” Deleta Jones, a Texas DOC officer taken

hostage and held at gunpoint, said, “Initially I felt the

debriefing was just another TDCJ [Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice] requirement, like

filling out a report, so I might as well

go. I didn’t expect the leaders to be

so supportive—really caring, not just

going through the motions. They were

genuinely concerned about the welfare

of the employees.”

While debriefings may provide these

benefits, correctional administrators

can conduct unstructured responses

to critical incidents that may achieve

the same goals. Furthermore, according to Richard Gist, assistant to the director of the

Kansas City, Missouri, Fire Department, who has

researched and written extensively about debriefings,

“An organization would be healthier if issues like these

[quashing rumors, showing concern for personnel] were

addressed every day as a part of competent management,

command, and supervision.”

C HAPTER 6: T HREE O THER K EYS TO P ROGRAM S UCCESS

74

SHOULD SUPERVISORS ATTEND—OR LEAD—DEBRIEFINGS?

Most experts believe debriefings should not mix ranks. However, some debriefings involve ranking officers as participants or leaders. For example, an assistant warden in New York State attended a debriefing because the warden wanted to set an example of a top administrator participating to make clear the department approved of the

process. After the negotiated release of an officer whom an inmate had taken hostage, Richard Watkins, a Texas

warden, reported,“I went to the first debriefing, too,” adding,“There is no support system for wardens.”

A line officer who attended a debriefing that was co-led by a captain reported that 

Even though the captain was great, I would not use them in the future. Even if they come from another facility, supervisors are supervisors, while lieutenants are thinking about becoming captains [and are therefore

not entirely trustworthy in terms of keeping what they hear confidential].You need to keep the supervisors

out in the future and separate the ranks.

Another line officer reported,“As soon as I saw a captain there [as one of the debriefers], I lost faith in the

process.” 

All ranks come to the same debriefing held by the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department’s peer debriefing team.

However, the trauma team sounds out the line officers in advance to make sure they are comfortable with having

ranking staff present.The one time line officers expressed concern, the debriefing team held two separate debriefings.

“Programs must go beyond

simply providing a debriefing

to include a ‘menu’ of 

post-trauma interventions

and activities.”

— Larry Bergmann, director,

Post Trauma Resources
A smorgasbord approach

Lawrence Bergmann and others recommend that, since

there is no empirical research that shows debriefings help

officers deal with trauma in the long run, a more promising response may be for programs to “go beyond simply

providing a debriefing to include a ‘menu’ of post-trauma

interventions and activities” (see the box “Post Trauma

Resources Menu (PTR) of Responses to a Critical

Incident”). According to Bergmann, “Factors used in

making decisions for options include the magnitude and

severity of the victimization, immediate needs of survivors, number of survivors that develop stress-related

symptoms, and prior preparation of the organization to

manage such incidents.” After an incident in a South

Carolina prison in which three employees were taken

hostage and three other employees were injured, PTR

provided 10 responses, including a telephone hotline, an

immediate onsite response, psychological and educational debriefings, a final onsite meeting, post-trauma counseling, and return-to-work assistance.

Finally, the response to critical incident stress should

include organizational change within the DOC or sheriff’s department designed to prevent similar incidents

in the future or to improve the agency’s response to

future critical incidents. Departments also need to reduce

organizational sources of chronic stress so that critical 

incidents do not become the final straw in a correctional

officer’s inability to cope.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

75

POST TRAUMA RESOURCES MENU OF RESPONSES TO

A CRITICAL INCIDENT

Post Trauma Resources (PTR) chooses from among a variety of interventions in helping officers and departments

respond effectively to critical incidents. Below is a partial list of the organization’s menu of available responses.

• Telephone hotline, providing 24-hour crisis counseling to all employees between the time the institution first

notifies PTR of the incident and when the first onsite services are provided.

• Telephone check-ins, before going onsite, with individuals reported to have been most affected by the incident

or to be currently experiencing emotional symptoms independently of the incident to make sure they are all

right, to provide basic information about initial stress reactions, and to offer further help.

• Humanitarian assistance, including coordinating the benefits to which the individuals are entitled.

• Immediate onsite response, assisting employees in leaving the site of the incident, reconnecting with their families,

and resting.

• Crisis intervention, involving spending time individually with critical incident responders.

• Psychological debriefing, the group meetings that have been the mainstay of critical incident response.

• Educational debriefing, more like a seminar or workshop that teaches basic information and support skills after

an incident to individuals with less exposure to the crisis.

• Post-trauma individual counseling that focuses on developing the skills necessary to facilitate recovery.

• Followup debriefings, 10 days to 3 weeks after the initial debriefings, to determine who is experiencing continuing difficulties and refer them to counseling.

• Telephone followup to check in with officers and show continued concern for those still struggling with recovery.

• Return-to-work strategies for helping employees increase their exposure gradually to the prison or jail and tasks 

associated with the incident and for monitoring their reactions carefully.
Reducing

Organizational

Sources of Stress

Correctional agencies themselves can

be a significant source of stress for

many officers. Interviews with individual officers conducted for this publication and surveys of correctional officers (see chapter 2,

“The Extent and Sources of Correctional Officer Stress”)

have documented that organizational sources can cause

significant stress for many officers including 

• rotating work shifts,

• lack of opportunity for career advancement,

• frustration with supervisors’ leadership styles and

demands,

• understaffing, and 

• mandatory overtime.

Barriers to changing the

organization

Unfortunately, stress program staff and

volunteers often lack the time to work

with management to eliminate organizational sources of stress. Some program directors feel they have to maintain scrupulous neutrality between

labor and management, and suggesting organizational changes might make them seem prolabor. The Massachusetts Stress Unit’s charter includes

a statement that because of “its unique involvement

with the employee, [the Stress Program] shall not take

any role adversarial against the Management or the

Union, and will maintain impartiality and neutrality with

groups or causes unacceptable to Management, labor

representatives, and Department employees.”

Despite these obstacles, some programs have addressed

sources of stress attributable to the way correctional systems operate. (See the box “Striking While the Iron Is

Hot.”) Indeed, the supervisory training discussed in chapter 4 is an organizational response to officer stress.

C HAPTER 6: T HREE O THER K EYS TO P ROGRAM S UCCESS

76

STRIKING WHILE THE IRON IS HOT

The best time to institute organizational change is after a critical incident (e.g., riot, hostage taking, officer suicide) when administrators and local government leaders will want to be seen as individuals who care about the

wellbeing of correctional staff and may therefore support steps to prevent a recurrence of the incident.

After inmates killed an officer at a California Youth Authority facility, staff blamed management for the murder

because they felt the killing would not have occurred if there had been adequate staff on duty. After 2 weeks of

debriefings, Nancy Bohl suggested to upper management that the department should get staff involved in the

institution’s policymaking process to reduce the officers’ anger. As a result, the facility broke the staff into several

groups, assigning each group to examine one department policy and recommend how it could be improved. The

Youth Authority then implemented the feasible suggestions. According to Cathy Carlson, the facility’s Safety

Office return-to-work coordinator,

It was a terrific idea. For example, the facility used to have inmates go to the Youth Authority hospital and

crowd into the waiting room, tying up officers who had to transport the inmates and leaving their facilities

short staffed. One staff group said, why not have a nurse go to the facilities and have onsite sick call? We

implemented the change.

Bohl also recommended that the superintendent and assistant superintendent make themselves visible—“talk to

the staff, go to the control centers, let them know you’re here just as they are.” They did. Later, Carlson and the

assistant superintendent brought food they baked to the institution on Thanksgiving and Christmas.“We piggybacked this idea off Nancy’s idea to be visible,” Carlson said.“Staff have said to me,‘My gosh, the super was in

the control center at 6:00 a.m. this morning and actually chatted with me.’ ”

Despite obstacles, some 

programs have addressed

sources of stress attributable

to the way correctional 

systems operate.
Organizational changes departments 

have implemented to reduce stress

Administrators in several departments have taken steps to

modify their organization’s operating procedures.

Make overtime voluntary

In 1999, the West Virginia Department of Corrections

Commissioner locked down a prison for 8 days to alleviate stress on overworked staff. The prison administration

had required officers to stay on the job to work the next

shift several times a week. Some of the officers were

sleeping in their cars. The commissioner informed the

officers that overtime at the facility was strictly voluntary.6

Improve the shift schedule

An organizational development specialist with The

Counseling Team suggested a 3–12 shift arrangement to

one sheriff’s department—working three 12-hour shifts

and then having 3 days off. The specialist distributed a

questionnaire to nine sergeants asking them how the new

plan would affect them. The sergeants opposed it because

they would never see each other. As result, the department

changed the plan to 5 days on, 7 days off. The union

agreed to modify the collective bargaining agreement to

accommodate the change. Officers find the new arrangement is like having a mini-vacation every other week.

Show sensitivity to the work of high-stress 

correctional units

According to Ed Owens, deputy director of support services for Texas’ Institutional Division, supervisors learned

from the Post Trauma Staff Support Program that members of the tie-down team handling executions needed

to be encouraged to rotate out of the assignment if they

grew to dislike it because some of them, although they

had become uncomfortable doing the work, were afraid

to report that they did not want to do it anymore. Post

Trauma Resources reported to the South Carolina DOC

that some correctional officers in the maximum security

facility were experiencing sadness after executions

because they had come to know the inmates on death

row. As a result, the department moved the execution site

to another facility. The Rhode Island DOC has John Carr,

director of the Family Service Society, coordinate the

bimonthly inservice training for the DOC’s crisis negotiation team. Carr talks to staff during the training, sending

a message that the DOC understands that what they do 

is stressful, that some of them may have difficulties coping, and that help is available if they need it. Other positions that may create unusually severe stress include

those of disciplinary hearing officer, working the receiving area and mental health and protective custody units,

and working the complaint desk in a jail.

Still other organizational changes departments can take to

reduce officer stress include—

• Providing adequate training when a jail changes to

direct supervision.7

• Conducting team building exercises involving correctional officers and teachers, officers and medical staff,

and officers and other nonuniformed employee units so

the officers can understand the programming and medical needs of the civilian units, and civilian staff can

understand the custody concerns of officers. 

• Training newly promoted officers to perform well in

their new positions.

• Providing debriefings for officers who fail to get promoted to discuss why they were passed over and to let

them share their disappointment and frustration.

No matter how well structured and well operated a stress

program may be, without convincing evidence that it

benefits officers and the department, it may experience

funding cutbacks or even be jettisoned. The final chapter

which follows suggests methods of evaluating the program and securing adequate funding.

Notes

1. Appelbaum, P.S., and T.G. Gutheil, Clinical Handbook

of Psychiatry and the Law, second edition, Baltimore:

Williams and Wilkins, 1991: 5. 

2. Kirschman, Ellen, I Love a Cop: What Police Families

Need to Know, New York: Guilford Press, 1997: 182.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

77
3. Kirschman, I Love a Cop, 183–185.

4. See, for example, Gist, R., and B. Lubin (eds.),

Response to Disaster: Psychosocial, Community, and

Ecological Approaches, Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis,

1999.

5. Individuals with preexisting emotional problems may

be more vulnerable to severe stress reactions after a

trauma. Debriefers and counselors should try to identify

these individuals and provide special care for them.

6. “Commissioner Locks Down Prison to Improve Staff

Morale,” The Corrections Professional 3 (20) (1998): 2.

7. Bickle, Bruce, “Stress and the Direct Supervision Jail

Officer,” American Jails, September/October 1998:

66–70.

C HAPTER 6: T HREE O THER K EYS TO P ROGRAM S UCCESS

78
Chapter 7: Evaluation, Funding, and 

Technical Assistance

This chapter examines how to monitor and evaluate stress

programs, how to estimate program costs, and where to

get help in planning or improving a program.

Monitoring

Administrators of any program are often reluctant to

monitor or evaluate their efforts because of lack of time,

lack of expertise, or concerns about confidentiality.

However, as two very different correctional staff explain,

tracking program performance is essential:

“The important thing [with providing stress services]

is: How successful was the program?”

—Maria Houser, deputy commissioner for administration, Connecticut Department of Correction

“Jim Hollencamp [the Massachusetts DOC’s Stress

Unit coordinator] makes the [stress] program work

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

79

KEY POINTS

• Monitoring program activities is essential for convincing administrators to support the program and for learning how it may need to be improved.

• Conducting an impact evaluation is also important for learning whether the program is achieving its goals and

for convincing administrators to continue to fund—or increase funding for—the program.

— An evaluation by the Connecticut Department of Correction involves surveying 4,100 employees to compare before-and-after self-reported stress levels, absenteeism, drinking behavior, intentions of resigning, and

other attitudes and behaviors.

— Using department records, the Collier County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office compares before-and-after rates of

absenteeism, sick time, job-related accidents, and disciplinary reports among officers, and compares the

findings with those for officers in another sheriff’s department that has no stress program.

• Logic suggests that stress programs save departments of corrections and sheriff’s departments money by

reducing sick time and stress-related disability retirements. A few empirical studies add concrete evidence to 

this hypothesis.

• Most stress programs share certain cost elements, such as personnel and trainer fees.

— However, program costs among programs vary considerably, depending on how much programs rely on 

volunteers and inkind services.

— Some programs have obtained outside funding from State and Federal agencies and from officer unions.

A number of sources of help are available for setting up or improving a stress program, including program and 

government materials, articles, public and private agencies and associations, and stress program coordinators 

and correctional officer stress experts.
because he keeps all the statistics

which validate the program.

Without him, the DOC doesn’t

know it’s getting its money’s

worth.”

—Dick Gould, member of the

Stress Unit

Programs can collect and report several types of information related to professional counseling and peer support without breaching

confidentiality, including—

• Number of clients or contacts.

• Nature of the clients’ problems (e.g., domestic violence,

alcohol abuse, marital difficulties, suicidal tendencies).

• Whether assistance was provided on or off duty.

• Type of client (correctional officer, civilian employee,

family member, child).

• Number and types of referrals.

Unit staff support team members in

Texas complete an incident log (see

appendix F) on which they record— 

• Date, shift, number, and gender of

employees affected by a critical incident.

• The type of critical incident.

• Any medical attention that was

required.

• The time involved in providing support.

• Whether the regional team was notified.

Unit team members turn in their logs to their unit team

leaders. Unit team leaders submit the information to the

regional team coordinator. Exhibit 3–5 in the case study

describing the Texas Post Trauma Program in chapter 3

shows the annual report Elaine Smith, the program coordinator, submitted to the department for 1999 that incorporates these data.

Evaluation 

Programs can implement two types

of evaluations: a process (or formative) evaluation and an impact (or 

outcome) evaluation.

Process evaluation

When information gathered by program monitoring is used to judge

the quality, adequacy, or appropriateness of program

operations, the assessment is referred to as a process

evaluation. The focus of a process assessment is the

implementation of the program, not program impact.

When Elaine Smith scans the Texas DOC’s Emergency

Action Center daily printout of serious incidents to make

sure wardens activate unit teams whenever one of eight

mandated types of incidents occurs, she conducts a

process evaluation. Smith also sends questionnaires each

year to the regional teams and facility administrators asking for comments on the program’s effectiveness. The

regional teams, in turn, obtain comments from officers

who have participated in debriefings. 

Another process evaluation tool is to

determine whether supervisory training

results in increased referrals to the

stress program or employee assistance

program (EAP). Exhibit 7–1 displays

data provided by the New York State

Department of Correctional Services’

EAP program indicating the dates on

which it provided training to frontline

supervisors (sergeants) in eight prisons

along with the number of officers and supervisors referred

to the EAP during the 3 months before and 3 months after

the training (excluding the month in which the training

was conducted). By comparing the two sets of data, it is

possible to determine whether referrals increased after—

and presumably because of—the training. As shown, there

was a slight overall increase from 20 referrals before the

training to 25 after the training. Anecdotal information—

often a valid source of data for a process evaluation—also

suggests that referrals may have increased after the training. According to the State EAP assistant program manager, “Anecdotally, it appears that after supervisor EAP

C HAPTER 7: E VALUATION , F UNDING , AND T ECHNICAL A SSISTANCE

80

“The important thing [with providing stress services] is: How

successful was the program?”

— Maria Houser, deputy 

commissioner of administration for

the Texas prison system

Another process evaluation

goal is to determine whether

supervisory training results

in increased referrals to the

stress program or employee

assistance program (EAP).
Correctional Supervisors Before Month of After

Facility Trained Training Training* Training

Cape Vincent 8 1 0 0

Coxsackie 27 2 2 4

Gouverneur 8 1 1 1

Greene 30 2 0 3

Orleans 32 1 0 3

Otisville 10 10 2 8

Riverview 10 1 0 0

Watertown 7 2 5 6

Total 132 20 10 25

training, referrals increase dramatically, but then they fall

back.” According to an EAP coordinator who has conducted the training many times, “I’ve seen a big increase

in referrals [since the training was first offered]. I’ve been

[EAP] coordinator for several years and never had any

before, and now I’ve had six in the last year.”

Impact evaluation

An impact evaluation is designed to show the effects a

program has had on its clients and the department as a

whole. Two examples of impact evaluations follow.

Connecticut Department of Correction evaluation

In 1999, the Connecticut Department of Correction

planned a new stress program funded by the National

Institute of Justice to offer officers seminars addressing

five topics, such as parenting skills, financial management, and conflict resolution. Two evaluators from the

University of Connecticut designed a questionnaire for

measuring what the seminars achieve (see appendix G).

The evaluators will survey 4,100 employees in five facilities before the seminars begin. A followup survey will be

given to the 1,000 officers who attend the seminars and

to 300 randomly selected officers from among the 3,100

officers who fill out the initial questionnaire but do not

attend the seminars. The surveys will compare beforeand-after self-reported stress levels, absenteeism, drinking behavior, intentions of resigning, and other attitudes

and behaviors.

The evaluators will ask the officers to record a number on

their answer sheet on both the pre- and post-questionnaire—

the last four digits of their Social Security number, the last

four digits of their home telephone number, and their birthday. These identifiers will not only enable the evaluators to

compare individual officers in terms of initial and followup

stress but also to compare stress levels among facilities.

The evaluators will not make adjustments for officers

who answer the initial questionnaire but not the followup questionnaire—for example, because they were transferred to other prisons, retired, or were sick. These

unavailable officers may be personnel who benefited

from the seminars more or less than other officers (for

example, if they retired because of stress). As a result,

the survey findings may not be entirely valid.

Collier County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office

evaluation

The Collier County Sheriff’s Office used a Corrections

and Law Enforcement Family Support (CLEFS) grant

from NIJ to develop and evaluate a stress prevention and

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

81

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

* Referrals during the month in which training took place may have occurred before the training, after the training, or both.
reduction program for its correctional and law enforcement

officers. The evaluators, two researchers from Florida Gulf

Coast University, use agency records

to examine changes before and after the

program in terms of 

• absenteeism,

• sick time,

• tardiness,

• job-related accidents,

• civilian complaints (primarily for

road deputies),

• disciplinary reports, and 

• positive supervisory reports.

The evaluators have already used three other before-andafter measures of program effectiveness:

• Stress measured by the Occupational Stress Inventory

(OSI), Index of Family Relations (IFR), and Index of

Clinical Stress (ICS).

• Alcohol- and drug-related problems as measured by

the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST).

• Overall personal health and job and family satisfaction

as measured by a general health survey the evaluators

developed.

A psychologist hired under the grant administered the

tests to 33 law enforcement and 44 correctional officer

recruits during their preacademy

training and again at the end of the

recruits’ 16-week field training experience. The same battery of tests was

also administered to 262 law enforcement officers and 97 correctional officers who received inservice training in

stress reduction and stress resolution

training.

The psychologist is also collecting

data from a voluntary group of correctional officers and their spouses who

agreed to be tracked annually over a 

3-year period. Each pair has been

administered the Hilson Spouse/Mate

Inventory and the Hilson Relationships

Inventory for Public Safety Personnel.

The evaluators are using two comparison groups:

(1) Treatment groups of law enforcement and correctional officers in preacademies and law enforcement and

correctional officers in a 40-hour inservice training

program.

(2) A group of 63 officers from the Charlotte County

Sheriff’s office, a comparable county in southwest

Florida 50 miles from Collier County, who have not

received stress education.

C HAPTER 7: E VALUATION , F UNDING , AND T ECHNICAL A SSISTANCE

82

FOCUS GROUPS CAN HELP IDENTIFY CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STRESS

Departments of corrections and sheriff’s departments can tailor their inservice stress training to their 

employees’ particular needs if they first determine what the most serious sources of stress are for their

employees—institution by institution.

As part of its new stress program, the Connecticut Department of Correction has asked the researchers who

will evaluate the program’s effectiveness to run 10 focus groups to identify what officers consider to be their

primary sources of stress. John Rogers, one of the researchers, suggests that the focus groups will also serve as

a marketing tool for the program: “As members share information about the program with their coworkers,

this will increase officers’ buying into the survey that will follow.” The researchers developed a sampling plan for

deciding which officers to include in the focus groups based on gender, race, shift, facility, rank (officers and

sergeants), and length of service. The DOC agreed to arrange for the focus group members to participate on

released time. The unions will hand out and collect the questionnaires.

The evaluators [of the

Collier County (Florida)

stress program] are examining changes before and after

the program in terms of

absenteeism, sick time, tardiness, job-related accidents,

civilian complaints (primarily

for road deputies), disciplinary reports, [and] positive

supervisory reports.
More modest evaluations

Program coordinators can also implement less comprehensive, but still useful, evaluations.

For 3 years, the South Carolina DOC tracked 28 employees who were held hostage or injured during a riot in 1986

and compared their retirement and sick time usage with

other employees who were not involved in the riot. There

was less turnover and sick time among the riot-involved

employees—all of whom had received individual or group

debriefings from Post Trauma Resources—than among the

uninvolved employees.

Edward Stelle, coordinator of the Multnomah County

Sheriff’s Department Peer Support Program, compared

the number of correctional officers on sick leave in July

1997 with those on sick leave in July 1998, a year after

the program had substantially increased its effort to provide peer support to correctional officers. Stelle found

there were 40 officers on sick leave in 1997, 24 of whom

had problems related to stress. In 1998, there were 20

officers on sick leave, only 2 of whom had stress-related

problems.

Managing Program Costs and

Securing Funding

Most DOCs and sheriff’s departments have incomplete

information about how much their stress programs cost

because of difficulty estimating expenses: separate budget

line items for the operation of in-house programs generally do not exist; staff, office space, and equipment may be

shared with other department units; and in-kind contributions of space, supplies, and personnel are often used.

Independent mental health professionals who consult to

correctional agencies may also have difficulty estimating

their counseling costs because officers typically constitute only a part of their practice, reimbursement varies

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

83

DO STRESS PROGRAMS SAVE DOCS AND SHERIFFS MONEY?

Common sense suggests that stress programs save DOCs and sheriff’s departments money by reducing the

need for overtime to cover for officers who take sick time, disability leave, or early retirement because of stress.

While no one has demonstrated empirically that a stress program can save a DOC or sheriff’s department

money, a study conducted by the San Bernardino Sheriff’s department suggests it can.

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 every critical incident, Nunn would see officers’

names on the retirement list, with each premature retirement costing $750,000 to $1 million in unfunded liability to the retirement fund.* As a result, the department contracted for stress services with The Counseling Team

in San Bernardino.

Nunn looked at the number of stress-related retirements that officers and deputies took after critical incidents

for a 10-year period before the contract and found they cost the county $20 million. For 6 years after the program had been in place, there were none. The sheriff’s department estimated that it had saved $13 million by

avoiding increases in its annual fee for membership on the retirement board.

* Most correctional officers in California work for the State and are part of the Public Employee Retirement System, a huge retirement fund.

Employers and employees contribute money into the fund. When employees retire, the fund sends them a monthly check for the rest of

their lives. However, the employers’ contributions are calculated under the assumption that their employees will, on average, retire after

20 to 40 years of work. When an officer retires after, say, 8 years because of a work-related, stress-related disability, the extra money for

the added 12 years of checks is not available in the fund—creating a so-called unfunded liability. The fund raises the employer’s contribution to the fund for the next year to make up for this loss. Reducing early retirements precludes the need for the sheriff’s department to

pay more into the fund each time an officer retires prematurely.
according to a given officer’s insurance coverage, and

staff may provide pro bono services to the departments

they serve by way of free counseling, training, or crisis

intervention.

Identifying cost elements

Many programs, however, share certain cost elements:

• personnel; 

• consultants (e.g., trainers, clinicians); 

• rent and utilities; 

• vehicles (or mileage reimbursement if personal cars

are used) for responding to emergencies and meeting

clients away from the program’s offices; 

• equipment and supplies (e.g., beepers, business cards,

program brochures, training materials, coffee); 

• telephone, fax, and postage; and 

• travel (e.g., to conferences and seminars).

Newly begun programs will incur some one-time startup

costs that established programs typically no longer have

to pay for, such as the purchase of office furniture, computers and duplicating machines, and initial staff training.

Actual program budgets

As shown in exhibit 7–2 and explained below, there is

considerable variation in program budgets.

• In 1985, the Rhode Island DOC signed a 1-year $6,000

contract with Family Service Society as a test. Under

the most recent 3-year contract (July 1, 1997, through

June 30, 2000), the State reimbursed Family Service

Society at the rate of $55 per counseling and training

hour not to exceed $16,500 per fiscal year.

• The San Bernardino Counseling Team’s contracts with

correctional agencies provide for charging $60 to $125

for each hour of critical incident response time and $175

for each officer who attends the program’s peer supporter training course. The contracts provide for free shortterm counseling for employees on an as-needed basis

with caps that depend on the size of the department.

• With one exception, the Massachusetts DOC does

not have to pay additional salaries for its stress unit

because the five full-time peer supporters are correctional officers who were transferred into the unit and

not replaced by new hires in the institutions from

which they came. (With more than 4,000 correctional

officers, the department has no difficulty transferring

existing officers to take the place of the transferred

peer supporters. Smaller departments that need to hire

C HAPTER 7: E VALUATION , F UNDING , AND T ECHNICAL A SSISTANCE

84

Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Contract with Family Service Society $16,500

Massachusetts Department of Correction

Coordinator’s salary (half-time) $12,240

Beepers ($90 a week per peer) $17,280

Total budget $29,520

Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department

Counseling $50,000

Training $10,000

One-third coordinator’s and secretary’s salaries $27,280

Total budget $87,280

Texas Institutional Division

Coordinator’s and secretary’s (half-time) salaries $36,966

New York State Department of Correctional Services no cost

EXHIBIT 7–2. SAMPLE STRESS PROGRAM 1999 BUDGETS
new staff to replace transferred officers or to pay current officers overtime to cover for them will, of course,

incur a considerable cost in adopting this type of peer

support program.)1 Stress unit members receive no

overtime, and they are all at maximum salary of

$44,000. Members receive $90 a week for carrying a

beeper. Furthermore, the department called a former

correctional officer out of retirement to coordinate the

unit, paying him $12,240 for a 20-hour week with no

fringe benefits. Assuming four of the five unit members carry a beeper in any 1 week for 48 weeks a year,

the total expenses for the stress unit come to $29,520.

• The Multnomah County Sheriff supports the Peer

Support Program with $50,000 for outside psychologists to provide free counseling to officers (capped at

four visits per officer), $10,000 for training, $20,280

for one-third of the coordinator’s 30-hour week (he

receives no fringe benefits), and about $7,000 for a

part-time secretary. The total program budget comes to

about $87,280. The money comes out of the sheriff’s

administrative budget.

• With the exception of the coordinator, who spends

80 percent of her time on the Post Trauma Program,

and a secretary, who spends half time on the program,

Texas’ Post Trauma Program consists entirely of volunteers. In 1999, the director’s and secretary’s salaries

pro rated for the time they spent on the program was

$36,966. When regional and unit team members travel

for training, individual wardens arrange transportation

in State vehicles and meals in the prison nearest the

training site. When overnights are needed, regional

Institutional Division coordinators pay for hotels and

food from their security operations budgets. 

• The New York State Department of Correctional

Services’ all-volunteer program has no expenses. The

department has twice secured Federal grants for training.

• The State workers’ compensation carrier reimburses

Post Trauma Resources $70 per hour for each approved

counseling hour. The carrier reimburses PTR $127 per

staff hour for critical incident debriefings. The DOC

pays the bill if the carrier rejects PTR’s claim. The

DOC reimburses PTR separately for execution team

debriefings, awarding the contract after a competitive

procurement.

The program costs identified above do not reflect the cost

of paying officers overtime to cover for peer supporters

during training. Some departments pay peers overtime if

they are called in from home or remain on the job after

their shift ends to provide support after a critical incident.

Funding sources

Many programs are funded entirely by the correctional

agency or agencies they serve. However, some programs have secured supplemental funding from other

sources. The three unions representing correctional officers in Connecticut each offered to contribute $3,000 

to the department’s new stress program in return for

extending the stress survey of 4,100 officers from four

to five institutions (see the section “Collaborating With

the Union” in chapter 5).

Several DOCs have secured funds from the National

Institute of Corrections (NIC) for training peer supporters

and other staff. For example, the Texas Institutional

Division secured a $6,000 NIC training grant, and the

New York State Department of Correctional Services

twice arranged for NIC to pay up to $10,000 to experts to

provide critical incident debriefing training for several of

its employees. Finally, sheriffs in California can obtain

reimbursement from the California Standards and

Training for Corrections Commission for The Counseling

Team’s fee to train their peer supporters. 

Sources of Help in Setting Up or

Improving a Stress Program

There are several resources for learning more about setting up, expanding, or improving a stress program. The

list of resources below is based on a limited search and 

is therefore not comprehensive.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

85
Materials, agencies, and 

associations

Stress programs have prepared a

number of materials, some of which

have been included in the appendixes to this report, that can be useful

in planning or improving a stress

program for correctional officers.

Other program materials, along with

additional materials of assistance in developing a stress

program, are listed in appendix H.

Publications

The notes to chapter 2, “The Extent and Sources of

Correctional Officer Stress,” reference literature that

discusses correctional officer stress. Woodruff, L.,

“Occupational Stress for Correctional Personnel: Part

One,” American Jails 7 (4) 1993: 15–20; “Part Two,”

7 (5): 71–76, presents recent research findings on the

effects of stress on correctional officers. 

Individuals with experience

in correctional officer stress

programming

The individuals identified in the chart

below are available to provide technical assistance related to stress programming by telephone. In addition,

chapter 3, “Program Case Studies,”

provides the names of program coordinators after each case study who are also available to

provide telephone consultation.

Note

1. Of course, by not replacing officers transferred to the

stress unit, it is possible that the stress levels of remaining personnel may increase as they struggle to take on

the work of the departed officers.

C HAPTER 7: E VALUATION , F UNDING , AND T ECHNICAL A SSISTANCE

86

. . . [C]hapter 3,“Program Case

Studies,” provides the names of

program coordinators after

each case study who 

are available to provide 

consultation over the phone.

INDIVIDUALS WITH EXPERIENCE IN STRESS PROGRAMMING FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

The following individuals have agreed to respond to telephone calls or faxes for technical assistance with developing or improving

a stress program for correctional officers. The individuals are members of the project advisory board, program staff interviewed in

the preparation of this report, or both.

Name Title or Position Address Telephone Numbers Areas of Experience

Bruce W. Baker Assistant New York State Dept. of (518) 457–9887 • Program planning and startup

Commissioner Correctional Services • Program coordination

Building 2

1220 Washington Ave.

Albany, NY 12226–2050

Lawrence Director Post Trauma Resources (803) 765–0700 • Program coordinator training

Bergmann 1811 Bull Street (800) 459–6780 • Peer supporter training

Columbia, SC 29201 fax: (803) 765–1607 • Program design and planning

bergmann@post • Critical incident debriefing

trauma.com • Individual counseling

www.posttrauma. com

Nancy Bohl Director The Counseling Team (909) 884–0133 • Services for small departments

1881 Business Center Dr. fax: (909) 384–0734 • Peer support

Suite 11 • Organizational change

San Bernardino, CA 92408 • Critical incident debriefing

• Peer training

• Individual counseling

John Carr Director Family Service Society (401) 723–2124 • Peer training and supervision

33 Summer Street fax: (401) 723–0566 • Critical incident debriefing

Pawtucket, RI 02860 • Individual counseling
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

87

INDIVIDUALS WITH EXPERIENCE IN STRESS PROGRAMMING FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

(CONTINUED)

Name Title or Position Address Telephone Numbers Areas of Experience

Gary Cornelius • Lieutenant Adult Detention Center (703) 246–4440 • Nature of correctional officer stress

• Programs and Fairfax County Sheriff’s fax: (703) 273–2464 • Author, Stressed Out: Strategies for 

Recreation Office Living and Working with Stress in

Supervisor 10520 Judicial Drive Corrections

Fairfax,VA 22030 • American Correctional Association 

(ACA) trainer

James Stress Unit Massachusetts Department (617) 727–8563 • Program coordination

Hollencamp Coordinator of Correction

91 Everett Street

Concord, MA 01742

Roger Johnson Director of Safety and Health (518) 438–2365 • Nature of correctional officer stress

Programs Council Inc. fax: (518) 453–2339 • Providing stress seminars

Northeastern New York

845 Central Ave.

Albany, NY 12206

Jess Maghan • Associate Department of Criminal (312) 413–7691 • Nature of correctional officer stress

Professor Justice (MC 141) • Officer training

• Editor, The 1007 West Harrison Street

Keepers’Voice Chicago, IL 60607

John Maloy Superintendent Training Academy (518) 453–1885 • Officer training

New York State • Employee Assistance Program 

Department of (EAP) operations

Correctional Services • Prison warden

1134 New Scotland Road

Albany, NY 12208–1097

Michael A. Director, American Federation of (202) 429–1285 • Nature of correctional officer stress

Marette Corrections United State, County and • Stress seminars for line officers

Municipal Employees

1625 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

Elaine Smith • Victim Services Institutional Division (936) 437–8588 • Program startup

Coordinator Texas Department of • Program coordination

• Post Trauma Criminal Justice • Program monitoring 

Staff Support P.O. Box 99 • Peer supporter training 

Coordinator Huntsville,TX 77342–0099

Edward J. Stelle • Chaplaincy Multnomah County (503) 255–3600, • Program startup

Coordinator Sheriff’s Department ext. 406 • Program coordination

• Coordinator, Peer 12240 Northeast Gleason • Individual counseling 

Support Program Portland, OR 97230
Glossary

Critical incident An event that affects performance, exceeds the individual’s coping skills, and 

creates stress for even normal individuals.

Debriefing A specially structured meeting, usually in a group setting, for employees who have

been involved directly or indirectly in a critical incident. Sessions are led by individuals trained to conduct debriefings, with a licensed mental health worker present

or acting as a coleader. Generally held within 72 hours after the incident, the 1- to

8-hour session allows employees to discuss their behavior during the incident and

the thoughts and feelings the incident caused.

Defusing A meeting held immediately following a critical incident with employees who

have been affected directly or indirectly by the incident. A defusing provides information about possible stress reactions, emphasizes that most reactions are normal,

identifies resources for further help, and assesses the need for debriefing.

Educational debriefing Workshops in which participants are given information about the facts of the event

and told psychological help is available if needed.

Employee assistance A program that provides referrals for counseling or, less commonly, actual 

program (EAP) counseling for employees experiencing problems that may affect their ability 

to perform their jobs.

Peer supporters Correctional employees, uniformed or civilian, who typically listen to coworkers’

problems and decide whether to refer them for professional counseling. Because they

have no training as clinicians and no protection against requests to disclose conversations with other officers, peer supporters should never engage in counseling.

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

89
Appendixes

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

91

Appendix A: Texas’ Post Trauma Staff Support Program— 

Unit Staff Support Officer Application Form
A PPENDIX A ( CONTINUED )

92
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

93

Appendix B: Post Trauma Resources Case Study and Role 

Profiles for Debriefer Training
A PPENDIX B ( CONTINUED )

94
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

95
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

97

Appendix C: The San Bernardino Counseling 

Team’s Supervisory Training Syllabus
A PPENDIX C ( CONTINUED )

98
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

99
A PPENDIX C ( CONTINUED )

100
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

101
A PPENDIX C ( CONTINUED )

102
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

103

Appendix D: New York State’s Department of Correctional Services Scenario for Training

EAP Coordinators to Motivate Employees to Accept Professional Help
A PPENDIX D ( CONTINUED )

104
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

105

Appendix E: Riverside County (California) Sheriff’s Department 

Peer Support Program Brochure
A PPENDIX E ( CONTINUED )

106
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

107

Appendix F: Texas Post Trauma Staff 

Support Program Incident Log
A PPENDIX F ( CONTINUED )

108
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

109

Appendix G: Connecticut Department of Correction 

Stress Program Questionnaire
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

110
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

111
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

112
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

113
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

114
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

115
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

116
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

117
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

118
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

119
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

120
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

121
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

122
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

123
A PPENDIX G ( CONTINUED )

124
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

125

Peer Support Training Manual

The Counseling Team

This 160-page manual provides extensive information on peer supporter services, basic support methods, listening

skills, critical incident stress, grief and bereavement, assessment and referral, and suicide. The Counseling Team

charges a $15 handling and postage fee for the manual. 

The Counseling Team

Suite 11

1881 Business Center Drive

San Bernardino, CA 92408

(909) 884–0133

fax (909) 384–0734

Post Trauma Staff Support Program Operations Manual

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

This 15-page manual presents detailed lists describing the responsibilities of program participants and criteria for their

appointment (see the Texas case study in chapter 3), as well as several forms included in an appendix. 

Elaine Smith

Victim Services Coordinator

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Institutional Division

P.O. Box 99

Huntsville, TX 77342–0099

(409) 437–8588

Critical Incidents Standard Operating Procedures

Shelby County (Memphis, Tennessee) Sheriff’s Office

In addition to describing procedures and each group’s responsibilities, this manual includes sources of employee 

benefits, ranging from the National Sheriff’s Association to workers’ compensation to support groups.

Donald Gregory

Shelby County Division of Corrections Training Academy

993 Dovecrest Road

Memphis, TN 38134

(901) 377–4545

fax (901) 387–5761

Appendix H:Additional Materials for Developing a 

Correctional Officer Stress Program
A PPENDIX H ( CONTINUED )

126

Stressed Out: Strategies for Living and Working with Stress in Corrections

American Correctional Association

This book by Gary F. Cornelius discusses the nature of correctional officer stress and provides concrete approaches for

preventing and treating stress. The advice reflects first-hand knowledge of the correctional environment—the author is

a lieutenant in charge of programs and recreation for the Fairfax County (Virginia) Adult Detention Center.

American Correctional Association

4380 Forbes Boulevard

Lanham, MD 20706

(301) 918–1800

Preventing Inappropriate Staff/Inmate Relationships

Arizona Department of Corrections, December 1994

This lesson plan for training officers in how inappropriate staff-inmate relationships begin includes indicators of a

developing relationship and methods of intervening. 

National Institute of Corrections 

Training Center

(800) 877–1461, ext. 110

Promising Practices and Strategies for Victim Services in Corrections

National Center for Victims of Crime

This 210-page curriculum for training correctional agencies to respond to victimized staff includes a student manual

that addresses the culture of corrections and provides correctional program options and sample State agency policies

and procedures for responding to critical incidents. The curriculum includes trainer lesson plans to help workshop 

participants educate others about staff victimization issues. 

Trudy Gregorie

Director

Victim Services and Program Development

National Victim Center

Suite 300

2111 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22201

(703) 276–2880

fax (703) 276–2889
A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

127

A

academy (see training; spouse academy)

Addressing Correctional Officer Stress

audiences 5

organization 19

purposes 5

sources of information 6, 11

administrators 5–9, 33, 36, 39–40, 56–58, 59, 61, 76

alcohol problems 30, 32

American Correctional Association 73, 126

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME) 40, 58, 62

B

benefits of stress program 5–9

drawbacks 9–10

financial savings 6–8

improved officer work performance 8

improved relations with union 9

increased institutional safety 8–9

budgets (see funding)

burnout 16, 17, 51

C

California Youth Authority 7, 27–28, 76

case studies 19–43

selected features 20

chaplains 31, 32–33, 34

collaboration among agencies 25, 42, 58–61

Collier County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office 8–9,

64–66, 81–82

commissioners (see administrators)

confidentiality 56, 58, 63, 67–71

counselors 68–69

peers 69–70

pressure to violate 70–71

reporting contacts 71–72, 107–108

Connecticut Department of Correction (Families, Officers

and Corrections Understanding Stress [FOCUS]) 9,

58–61, 79, 81, 82, 109–124

Counseling Team (see San Bernardino)

critical incidents

debriefings 24, 25, 27–28, 32, 36, 39, 71,

73–75, 89

educational debriefings 41–42, 75

referrals after 27, 35, 29, 40–41, 42

services 24, 24–25, 27, 34–36, 38–41, 41–42

training as debriefers 38, 41, 93–95

vignettes 24–25, 27–28, 35–36, 38–39

D

debriefings (see critical incidents)

disability, stress-related 7–8, 16

E

employee assistance program (EAP) 22, 26, 33, 35,

38–40, 51–52, 58–59, 80–81, 89, 103–104

evaluation

impact 81–83

process 80–81

F

Families, Officers and Corrections Understanding Stress

(FOCUS) (see Connecticut Department of Correction)

family members 63–66

effects of stress on 16, 63–64

services for 20, 35, 39, 42, 59

why involve 64

Index

Note: Stress programs are listed by jurisdiction, not by official title (e.g.,“San Bernardino,” not “The Counseling Team”).
Family Service Society (see Rhode Island Department 

of Corrections)

funding 20, 23, 33, 42, 47, 56, 83–85

H

help (see technical assistance)

I

inmate violence 11–12, 14

inservice training (see training)

International Association of Correctional Officers 9

J

jail administrators (see administrators)

L

labor (see unions)

legal liability (see confidentiality)

M

marketing the program (see outreach)

Massachusetts Department of Correction (Stress Unit) 

9, 21, 28–30, 48, 51, 63, 70, 76, 79–80, 84–85

models 20, 21, 22–23, 43

monitoring 79–80

Multnomah County (Oregon) Sheriff’s Department (Peer

Support Program) 6–7, 8, 9–10, 21, 30–33, 49, 49–50,

52, 56, 63, 68, 70, 74, 83

N

National Institute of Corrections (NIC) 6, 85

New York State Department of Correctional Services

(Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program) 10, 38–41,

51–52, 74, 85, 103–104

O

organizational stress

sources 12–14, 76

ways of reducing 76–77

outreach 34, 55–56, 59–60, 61, 63, 105–106

overtime 12, 77

P

Peer Support Program (see Multnomah County [Oregon]

Sheriff’s Department)

peer supporters

benefits and limitations 48

costs 84–85

legal liability 69–70

monitoring 50–51, 107–108

recruitment 31, 33, 47–48, 91–92

referrals to professional help 24, 30, 32–33

roles and services 23–24, 24–25, 28–30, 30–33,

34–36, 58, 89

training 25, 26, 31, 34, 43, 49–50

Post-Incident Stress Debriefing Program (see New York

State Department of Correctional Services)

Post Trauma Resources (see South Carolina Department

of Corrections)

Post Trauma Support Program (see Texas Institutional

Division)

program structure (see models)

R

referrals (see also peer supporters, critical incidents) 

36, 39, 40–41, 42–43, 49, 52–54, 62, 63

Rhode Island Department of Corrections (Stress Unit) 

9, 12, 19, 21, 23–25, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53–54, 56, 61, 63,

68, 69, 70, 71, 77, 84

I NDEX

128

Note: Stress programs are listed by jurisdiction, not by official title (e.g.,“San Bernardino,” not “The Counseling Team”).
S

San Bernardino (California) (The Counseling Team)

7–8, 8, 19, 21, 26–28, 50, 51, 52, 57, 61, 63, 64, 70, 73,

76, 77, 83, 84, 97–102, 105–106

services 20

counseling 24, 26–27, 33, 42–43, 46, 53, 65

critical incident (see critical incidents)

inpatient 24, 25, 30, 32, 39, 40, 53–54

inservice training (see training)

location of 21, 26, 28, 40, 70

peer support (see peer supporters)

shift work 13, 77

South Carolina Department of Corrections (Post Trauma

Resources) 21, 41–43, 49, 70, 71–72, 75, 77, 83, 85,

93–95

spouse academy 64–66

staffing (see also critical incidents) 20, 24, 28, 31–32,

33–34, 38, 45–46

stress

among line officers

effects of 16

extent 11–12

sources of 12–16, 76

susceptibility to 15

among supervisors 9, 13

assessing extent of 82, 109–124

Stress Unit (see Massachusetts Department of

Correction; Rhode Island Department of Correction)

substance abuse (see also alcohol problems) 32

success stories (see vignettes)

supervisors 9, 34, 40, 50–51, 52, 57, 58, 74

supervisory training 50–51, 97–102

T

technical assistance 85, 87

articles on correctional stress 16–17

experts 23, 25, 28, 30, 33, 37, 41, 43, 62, 86–87 

program materials 86, 125–126

publications 73, 86

terms used in the report 89

Texas Institutional Division (Post Trauma Support

Program) 8, 21, 33–37, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57, 63,

69, 74, 77, 79, 80–81, 85, 91–92, 107–108

The Counseling Team (see San Bernardino)

training

academy 25

debriefers (see critical incidents)

inservice 25, 26, 59, 63, 73

peer supporters (see peer supporters)

supervisors (see supervisory training)

turnover 7–8, 41

U

understaffing 12

unions

benefits of program to 61

importance of involving 9, 58, 59, 85

participation 38–40, 58–61, 63, 85

service provider 62

V

vignettes 27, 29, 32, 42, 54

W

wardens (see administrators)

A DDRESSING C ORRECTIONAL O FFICER S TRESS

129

Note: Stress programs are listed by jurisdiction, not by official title (e.g.,“San Bernardino,” not “The Counseling Team”).
About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research agency of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ is authorized 

to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs; development of technology; and both national and international 

information dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to:

• Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will improve and strengthen the criminal justice 

system and reduce or prevent crime.

• Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches for improving criminal justice.

• Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to be successful if 

continued or repeated.

• Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as by private organizations to 

improve criminal justice. 

• Carry out research on criminal behavior.

• Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency. 

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of

1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in technology, and a new 

international focus. Examples of these new initiatives include:

• Exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, violence within the family, sentencing reforms,

and specialized courts such as drug courts.

• Developing dual-use technologies to support national defense and local law enforcement needs.

• Establishing four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and a Border Research and 

Technology Center. 

• Strengthening NIJ’s links with the international community through participation in the United Nations network of

criminological institutes, the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network, and the NIJ International Center.

• Improving the online capability of NIJ’s criminal justice information clearinghouse. 

• Establishing the ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program—formerly the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) 

program—to increase the number of drug-testing sites and study drug-related crime.

The Institute Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the 

Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice 

professionals and researchers in the continuing search for answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice. 

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice,

please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site 

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.