The
Costs and Consequences of Low Staffing
Samuel Rapoza, CCS, CCHP
Low staffing is an issue familiar to most jail and prison administrators. Recruitment and retention have become prime concerns for many correctional agencies because the effects of high staff turnover hold disastrous implications for any department. This is obviously, in part, an issue of money, but it is also true that the financial burdens of low staffing can often blind those affected to the other effects that staffing issues can have on a department and its workforce. It is this unseen damage inflicted upon the culture, morale, and brand of an agency that can fester and prove to be toxic for a workforce. Recognizing these effects and understanding the danger they present to a workforce is the first step in preventing a staffing problem from spiraling into a crisis.
Though low staffing is not a problem that is particularly new to corrections, it is something that has been exacerbated in recent years. Private sector businesses must compete to obtain and retain the most qualified and skilled employees and their success is dependent on their ability to do so. Large investments have been made into researching job advertisement techniques, brand recognition, workplace development, and the corporate culture’s effect on staff retention. This is often because there is such a large financial stake on the part of company executives, investors, and shareholders. Given that a business’s success is partly reliant on the talent that it attracts, new companies whose sole purpose is to help source these skilled employees have been created.
However, corrections are a profession unlike any other and constantly presents a new host of challenges and demands staff who are equally skilled and motivated to handle such issues. High levels of staff turnover generally have two categories of outcomes: costs and consequences. Many of these are not mutually exclusive and are intrinsically linked. For example, an agency affected by high turnover may have to drastically increase mandatory overtime. This in turn creates a financial burden but also affects staff morale and causes burnout, which can further exacerbate the turnover rate. The cyclical effect staffing has on a department and its workforce is akin to a “department drowning” where struggling and flailing is a result of the panic caused by the sinking situation. But the thrashing only serves to quicken the process and ultimately contributes to it.
Costs
Costs are often thought to be the most recognizable outcome of low staffing. However, it is not that this outcome is necessarily the easiest to see, but that it is the simplest to quantify. The loss of institutional knowledge when a seasoned officer exits an organization is much harder to quantify as there is no metric to measure it. Furthermore, a loss of staff knowledge is much harder to replace. Five new officers from an academy are not the equivalent of five seasoned officers. The cost of staff turnover is not merely of a financial nature but also that of human and social capital.
The knowledge, skills, and relationships held by each officer hold a value that is impossible to quantify. Ignoring the human and social capital lost by staff turnover is a crucial mistake for any correctional or jail executive, administrator, or manager. The loss of this type of value, although difficult to measure, can be recognized. The result of losing experienced staff members is like a “black hole effect” where its presence can often be detected solely by its effect on surrounding observable celestial bodies. These effects are part of the ‘consequences’ of staff turnover.
Correctional facilities do not have the luxury of scaling the services they provide to accommodate their lower staffing levels. A store can change its hours or close on certain days when faced with low staffing, even if temporary. However, a facility that houses 1,500 inmates has no reasonable means to adjust its services when faced with low staffing. This often results in a drastic increase in overtime. Every correctional administrator assumes a certain level of overtime which the budget will accommodate. However even if overtime expectations were previously accounted for in a budget, it is easy to see how the financial cost of paying staff 1.5 or 2 times their normal rate, consistently, for a prolonged period, would strain any budget.
Many correctional facilities are already facing financial woes and an increase in the frequency of overtime inevitably results in cuts being made in some other areas of operations. The implications of continued financial strain on a department are vast as everything from staffing, training, and security equipment to inmate services, collective bargaining, and facility maintenance are affected. There is also the cost of recruiting, training, and other aspects of onboarding new officers to replace those who have exited the agency.
The financial impact of low staffing is the easiest to quantify, study, track, and adjust, yet it will also have an immediate effect on every other area of the department as well. It is the consequences of staff turnover that can present a bigger challenge for an organization and cause considerable damage to the long-term health of its workforce.
Consequences
The consequences resulting from the various associated costs of staff turnover can range from immediate and observable ones to others which may be both harder to identify and prolonged in nature. Operational disruption is likely one of the most common and consistent consequences observed in a department facing low staffing levels. As staffing levels drop to a dangerously low degree, it will be impossible for a facility to continue to operate at a normal level. Logistical limitations force administrators to make difficult choices regarding where they focus the efforts of their staff. This can potentially result in the reduction or even cancellation of services and programs offered to inmates. Financial restrictions can also result in disruptions to normal services provided to inmates. Deviations from the known routine inmates are accustomed can have the potential to encourage inmates to participate in some type of disruption as well as have a negative impact on the inmate climate in the facility. Even a “non-violent” disruption such as a hunger strike or work stoppage can pose potential dangers to staff and inmates.
Predictably, overtime can contribute to staff burnout beyond that of mere exhaustion. Staff may take on an apathetic view towards their duties. Those with many years of correctional experience have learned that inmates are constantly watching them. If staff are burned out, then inmates are likely to recognize that and take advantage of it. Gang activity, assaults, gambling, and other dangerous activities can go unchecked when that occurs. Inmates may also try to convince an officer to bring in contraband. Burned-out and tired staff may be more inclined to make mistakes such as this as they may feel hopeless and trapped in their job.
Other consequences of low staffing may be more subtle in their initial observable cues but can certainly fester and present a much more difficult problem for administrators to manage. Low employee morale can be an incredibly difficult issue as the underlying cause of it can be completely subjective for each employee. Low staffing, however, can contribute directly to a widespread morale problem that has implications beyond staff turnover. An increase in sick time use by staff, conflicts between staff, poor results from facility inspections or audits, negative social media posts, and even increases in the use of force can all be signs of a severe morale and culture problem amongst the staff.
The effect of staff burnout can often appear suddenly. Staff burnout can be very hard to correct because it can lead to officers starting to resent the administration for not solving the problem. A spike in overtime is nothing new to corrections but when the spike continues and there appears to be no end in sight, the officer’s confidence in the administration’s ability to solve the problem is called into question.
This can strain the relationship between the line officers and upper management. When officers begin to feel they are shouldering the burden of carrying their department through a rough period they are facing, heightened feelings of bitterness towards their duties and the administration can begin to fester. Staff feel neither valued nor respected, which ultimately can hasten staff turnover rates. This, of course, makes the overtime worse, which then multiplies the original effect of the low staffing. Once again, the department can appear to be “drowning”. This is another way in which low staffing can start to affect an agency’s work culture.
Work Culture
Departmental culture is the set of values, ideals, traditions, and guiding moral fabric that binds the department and the employees together. It can also refer to an informal set of rules and social etiquette amongst the staff. Where a department can set forth its goals and vision with mission statements, policies, and procedures, oftentimes it is not the administration that solely defines the departmental culture; rather it is a culmination of many factors. Of course, every administrator hopes their department promotes and fosters a culture that is supportive, caring, and inclusive. But for many, that is not what their employees and candidates experience.
The culture within a department can either stifle any hopes for advancement and restrict an officer’s ability to contribute more towards operations, or it can create an environment where officers are not only encouraged to invest more of themselves into the department, but also give them an outlet towards doing so. There are many ways in which a department can foster a toxic culture amongst its employees, but chief among them is allowing its employees to feel undervalued, unappreciated, and unheard. Simply put, a lack of perspective and empathy towards an employee is the first step towards creating a feeling of resentment and bitterness towards the administration.
Correcting a problem such as this can be a very difficult task and is not something that can be solved by money alone. Employees all have their own individual motivations for working within their chosen profession. When leaders fail to understand what factors drive employees to work at their agency beyond just a paycheck, they fail to understand those employees and what drives them. People choose their professions for intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Extrinsic factors include things such as pay, career opportunities, and benefits while intrinsic motivators include recognition, achievement, and working for an organization whose goals and values align with theirs. When employees find only extrinsic reasons to be with an organization or company, then they may become less engaged, perform only to a minimal level, and leave when a better opportunity presents itself. To put it simply, they have a job and not a career, and they view themselves as employees only and not necessarily as professionals.
Organizations that foster strong work cultures put a strong emphasis on values. An agency can declare what its values are, but if that does not align with what is done in practice, it can lead to a severe disconnect with the employees. An employee who feels that the values of their employing agency do not coincide with their own may find their motivation for working there to be only a monetary one.
By examining companies and organizations that foster strong work cultures several common core principles can be observed. These organizations typically have very active involvement and support coming from executive level. They develop and maintain talent management programs. Leaders are held accountable and there is a strong emphasis on values. These organizations also provide some method of tracking top talent. Combined, these facets of strong work cultures promote accountability and provide an example of leadership. They recognize, value, and cultivate performance and they also place a strong emphasis on the organization’s mission. This can be achieved by creating links between the organization’s mission and the role of each individual employee. The better employees understand the mission and how their roles are vital to its success, the more they “buy in” to the organization. This can lead to employees having a stronger sense of value in their own work and promote more engagement within their organization.
Staff burnout can be very hard to correct because it can lead to officers starting to resent the administration for not solving the problem.
Employer Brand
Work culture and morale issues from low staffing can affect a department’s employer brand. An employer brand can be described as the perceptions, beliefs, and principles about an employer organization that are held by both the current and potential employees. An employer brand is vital to not only maintaining a quality workforce but also to recruiting efforts to maintain one. When examining an employer brand, it is important to remember that it is not defined by the organization itself but by its employees and candidates for employment.
It was reported that a 2012 survey conducted by Corporate Responsibility magazine found that 75% of those polled would not take a job with a company that had a bad reputation, even if they were unemployed. Before taking a position with an employer, many people can be expected to perform a certain amount of due diligence and research on that employer. A poor employer brand can dissuade candidates from even filling out an application. According to a 2015 Careerar survey, 75% of candidates do some type of research into an employer’s reputation and brand before applying. Furthermore, many have stated they would not take a job with a company that has a bad reputation.
For any correctional department, the officers are not only the backbone of its operation, but also, they are its greatest asset as well. This holds true for recruitment efforts as well, and a department’s employees can be its best recruiters. In a perfect situation, officers who feel valued will also keep their ear to the ground with regards to recruiting new candidates. Staff who enjoy their jobs, feel valued, and are proud of their professions are more likely to actively approach potential candidates.
The nature of social media platforms allows users greater access to departments but also the freedom to leave negative comments. An overabundance of negative comments on routine posts made by or about that department can often originate with a disgruntled employee or based on information received from one. Because many departments will experience instances of this, it is important to recognize the potential benefit of having current employees to facilitate recruitment efforts. A department’s employees can either be its greatest asset for recruitment or its biggest obstacle.
It should be the goal of the administration to maintain a good working dynamic for all staff. It is this culture that current employees will cite when asked about their jobs. This could either be free advertising for a department or serve to undermine any recruitment measures already implemented. For this reason, it is crucial to try and identify and resolve any workplace culture problems before they create a toxic workplace.
Conclusion
The effects of low staffing and high staff turnover are present in both obvious and subtle ways. Where the cost of these problems can seem clear, it is the less obvious consequences that can inflict more severe damage. The loss of human capital is not easily replaced. The knowledge and skills of an employee can only be replaced with time, and when staff turnover increase to a level beyond what may be anticipated or predicted with a staffing analysis or succession planning, serious operational and social disruption can result. Interventions to improve morale and workplace culture can sometimes take months or years to see any change or benefit. The longer these issues are left to fester, the more time and effort will be required to correct them. Recognizing the potential impact that high staff turnover and low staffing can have on a workforce is one of the most important steps in maintaining a healthy workforce during a potentially serious staffing crisis.
________________________________
Samuel Rapoza, CCS, CCHP is a Captain with the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office in Massachusetts. He has over 19 years of experience working in corrections and currently serves on his agency’s Recruitment and Retention committee. He holds a certificate from Cornell University in Recruitment and Talent Acquisition. For more information, he can be contacted at rapoza609@yahoo.com.
References
(2012) Bad Reputation: 75% Would Refuse Job Offers [daily news], Retrieved from https://www2.staffingindustry.com/Editorial/Daily-News/Bad-Reputation-75-Would-Refuse- Job-Offers-23086
David, T.D. (2015). 2015 Employer Branding Study: 9 Key Findings [news], Retrieved from https://www.careerarc.com/blog/38-percent-of-employees-who-were-let-go-share-negative-views-of-employers-new-careerarc-employer-branding-study/