Contributing Factor: Constant Threat of Danger

The ever-present threat of danger that COs experience for the entirety of their shift is different from their direct exposure to violence. The threat of danger is always there, always in the back of their mind, causing officers to be hyperaware of their surroundings. Hypervigilance wreaks havoc on the human body. These individuals are constantly on guard and stressed out. Researchers agree that the threat of danger is a major contributor to the high rate of PTSD found among COs (Ellison et al., 2022; Lavender & Todak, 2021; Regehr et al., 2021).

Contributing Factor: Social Factors

Researchers also agree that various social factors contribute to the high rate of PTSD found among COs. For example, Regehr et al. (2021) found that low public opinion of the work that COs do can be a contributing factor to PTSD. This factor is important because it can cause COs to isolate further. A low public perception can also negatively affect a CO’s confidence, both inside and outside the facility. This negative perception is likely due to the stereotypical portrayal of COs: lazy, abusive, and uneducated. While this portrayal is false, the public is rarely presented with a different, more positive view because jails and prisons are far removed from public life.

Ellison et al. (2022), who conducted a study of 1,327 COs working in 20 different facilities, found low perceived levels of support from correctional administration, a perceived unreasonably high workload, a perceived high level of interaction with the incarcerated population, low institutional resources, and facility size to be contributing factors to the high PTSD rates among COs.

Treatment

In a recent study, public safety professionals including COs were found unlikely to seek formal mental health treatment even when they were experiencing severe mental health symptoms (Carleton et al., 2020). We know that PTSD is a risk in corrections settings, and we’ve discussed some contributing factors that enhance the risk of experiencing PTSD. So, what can we do, as individuals and as professionals, to fight back? First and foremost, we must do away with the negative mental health stigma in corrections. Formal mental health treatment and use of social support systems have been shown to be the most effective treatments for PTSD. But it is equally important to show respect and compassion to friends and colleagues who are utilizing these treatment mechanisms. We are a family; we must support our brothers and sisters.

Effective Mechanism: Problem-Focused Strategies

Problem-focused coping strategies, particularly seeking formal mental health treatment, have been found to be the most effective at combating the rate and symptoms of PTSD in COs (Harney & Lerman, 2021). Formal mental health treatment is recommended to treat and prevent myriad mental health disorders and symptoms and often involves helping patients develop healthy coping mechanisms in response to PTSD symptoms.

Suicide

Suicide is a deep, dark secret found within the public safety field, especially in corrections. It is one of the most unfortunate, heartbreaking aspects of the profession and is more common than realized. According to Fusco et al. (2021), COs are statistically more likely than the public to witness or learn of the suicide of a coworker or supervisor. This is significant because the experience of losing a friend or coworker in this manner is a traumatic event, which can contribute to PTSD symptoms. Carleton et al. (2022) found that a large percentage of the COs surveyed self-reported suicidal ideations, plans, and attempts far more frequently than the public. In that study, over 26% of the COs surveyed self-reported having suicidal ideations, over 11% self-reported suicidal plans, and over 5% self-reported suicide attempts. Carleton et al. (2022) determined that the rates identified and reported in their study were much higher than the rates found in the public.

Frost and Monteiro (2020) conducted a fascinating, qualitative study in response to over 20 back-to-back CO suicides and studied the contributing factors that led to the suicide of each officer. They found that the officers who committed suicide were most likely white, male, age 40-49, frontline staff, and committed suicide with a firearm. They found that the institution where two-thirds of the officers worked had an extremely high level of violence, even when compared to other institutions within the study. When asked about staff assaults, an officer said “Yeah, most of us, yeah most of us have all been...it’s [facility name] ...nobody escapes that place without getting assaulted” (Frost & Monteiro, 2020, p. 1289). The statement “escapes that place,” points to the mental health of the staff and their view of their job and workplace: defeated, trapped, and unsafe.

Frost and Monteiro (2020) also studied the mental health risk factors that contributed to each officer’s decision to commit suicide. They found that the officers who committed suicide were statistically likely to have mental health concerns, relationship issues, and substance abuse issues. Their finding related to mental health concerns aligns with Regehr et al. (2021) who hypothesized that PTSD and suicide have strong correlation among COs. The finding regarding substance abuse is concerning because extensive research demonstrates that alcohol over-consumption is commonplace among COs, especially officers who experience the most severe trauma (Fusco et al., 2021; Harney & Lerman, 2021; Ricciardelli et al., 2023). From studies previously mentioned, one can extrapolate that all the mental health risk factors are statistically common among COs. Therefore, the high suicide rate among COs is unsurprising; in fact, it is only surprising that the rate is not higher.

Unfortunately, Frost and Monteiro (2020) found that the COs who committed suicide overwhelmingly refused to seek treatment for varying reasons: the most common reason being the fear of being perceived as weak by coworkers or supervisors.

This would alleviate multiple problems: the cost barrier to mental health treatment, the time requirement to find and travel to a mental health provider, and the affiliation of the providers with the department.

Unfortunately, COs will always be exposed to violence at some level. But there are some things that correctional administrators can do to mitigate the impact of that exposure. For instance, administrators could implement a policy that states that after undergoing a violent experience COs are given a paid day off. Typically, a CO will have a violent experience, and the very next shift must go right back to work in the same work assignment that they were working at before the encounter. Humans aren’t designed to jump right back into routine as if something traumatic didn’t happen less than 24 hours prior. Some workplaces have instituted mental health days with positive results. Leave designated for mental health care for COs who experience violence is a helpful resolution. Administrators could then encourage staff members to engage in an activity that they find improves their mental health. This could be an opportunity to encourage COs to participate in treatment strategies that have proven to be effective in treating PTSD symptoms. If instituted properly, the COs will feel that their supervisors and department are supportive and caring. These exhibited positive attitudes not only contribute to positive mental health but also go a long way in bolstering staff’s overall morale.

Correctional practitioners in the field could have a pronounced, positive effect on the rates and symptoms of PTSD among COs. Gordon Graham of Lexipol (2024) makes an excellent point when he says that half the room of public safety officials raise their hand when asked if they know a coworker who has committed suicide. I would argue that there would be even more hands raised if he asked COs only. Anecdotally, I have had the same experience. Within my department there have been 10 officers who committed suicide who I knew personally or at least knew of in my region. That’s too many pictures hanging at the time clock, too many uncomfortable conversations with friends after a funeral. We must do better to help each other. As officers we recognize when a friend or coworker’s behavior has changed. That is the time we should step in and talk to them about it. Supervisors have an even greater responsibility; we are here first to look out for our employees. To do nothing is a significant leadership failure. Again, step up, take the initiative, and have that awkward (but much needed) conversation; you could be saving a life. We look out for each other inside the institution; it’s time we do better outside as well. We must honor ourselves and our coworkers by showing compassion and bravery for one another; after all we are all members of the thin grey line.