Sandcastle:
How Shared Trauma Between Correction Officers Can Affect an Agency and Its Culture
Samuel Rapoza, CCS, CCHP, NCCS
Trauma is not something unfamiliar to those who work in emergency or first responder occupations. Indeed, it is common for those in the fire, EMS, police, emergency medical, and corrections professions to encounter a variety of traumatic experiences during their careers. The frequency of these occurrences can range from often to rare, and their effects on an individual can similarly vary. Profound psychological impacts can follow just a single traumatic event and repeated exposure to trauma need not take place for serious consequences to result. What can sometimes be overlooked, however, is the social fallout spawned from traumatic experiences shared by first responders and emergency service professionals, including the effects such experiences can have on an organization and its culture.
It should be understood that the bonds formed through shared traumatic experiences can be both constructive and destructive. Much like how water is needed to mold and build a sandcastle, water is also the force that can destroy it as waves wash the structure away. Thus, the long-standing effects of trauma can potentially be quite harmful and develop into severe mental health disorders. When speaking of the “constructive” results of trauma bonds, it should be noted that this is solely in reference to the bond itself, and not the possibly negative effects of the underlying trauma. Consequently, the bonds created between officers who have shared experiences in traumatic situations should not be viewed as a support system meant to replace professional or clinical intervention.
Trauma Bonds
For the purposes of this discussion, the term “trauma bonds” will be in reference to the bond created through shared traumatic experiences. However, the term “trauma bond” typically refers to abusive relationships where there exists a power imbalance, such as with hostage situations, domestic violence, and sex trafficking.
Oftentimes, the strong bonds between soldiers formed through shared traumatic experiences have also been referred to as “trauma bonds.” This bonding has been known to increase unit cohesion and can result in lifelong connections that continue well past deployment and back into civilian life. Without drawing any clinical conclusions, observationally, parallels can thus be found between the contributing factors that may facilitate the formation of trauma bonds among both military personnel and correction officers. The creation of such bonds among members of both groups occurs in circumstances that are unique to their professions.
In addition to the life-and-death aspect of some experiences of soldiers and correction officers, there is often an additional sense of violence associated with them. There also exists an “us versus them” mentality, either overtly as with military combat situations, or more subtly as seen between the incarcerated population and correction officers. Even though soldiers are more likely to experience this when facing an enemy in an open combat scenario, correction officers also work opposite to, what could be seen as, a hostile, opposing force; that being the incarcerated population. Moreover, considering that correction officers are overwhelmingly outnumbered in most situations, the perception of danger is heightened and underscores the sense of an ever-present threat.
Isolation from family and friends can also contribute to the forming of trauma bonds among soldiers. It is similarly common for correction officers to work in areas where there is limited or no contact with the outside world, including their own family and friends. Access to outside calls, cell phones, internet, social media, and possibly even a television can be extremely limited inside a correctional facility, even for the staff. Though soldiers are certainly away from family and friends for greater lengths of time than correction officers, and under far different circumstances, it can certainly be said that the very nature of both occupations hinders contact with family and friends which can contribute to feelings of isolation.
Foreign Environments
Another shared element in the experience of soldiers and correction officers is that they both work in what can be considered “foreign environments.” Although in somewhat different contexts, both serve in locations that are generally inaccessible to the public. These further isolates those who work in these areas as these environments are not conducive to the coming and going of normal daily civilian life. Whereas police, fire, and EMS personnel work within familiar public areas, the more isolated work environments of soldiers and correction officers can prevent them from feeling grounded.
Although these challenges can provide an inherent benefit by reducing complacency and keeping staff in a higher state of alertness, they can also breed more feelings of social isolation. Many soldiers and correction officers often feel that those who have not had similar experiences lack the ability to understand and empathize with them.
More parallels no doubt exist between the experiences of soldiers and correction officers. As social beings operating in a foreign environment, cut off from family and facing overwhelming numbers of an opposing, hostile force while also dealing with high-stress, often violent life-and-death situations, it should thus not be at all surprising that bonds are created among those who have shared such experiences.
For correctional administrators, especially those who have not served as a frontline correctional officer, it is thus important to understand that the very nature of a correction officer’s duties presents a likelihood that they may, at some point in their careers, experience some form of traumatic experience. Furthermore, one possible outcome of correction officers having shared traumatic experiences is the formation of a trauma bond with one or more of their coworkers. It can sometimes be difficult for some administrators to understand the connection many officers seem to have with one another. This observation, however, is not meant to discredit the experience and qualifications of any administrator who did not rise through the ranks. Rather, it is simply to suggest the need to be aware that there exists the possibility that officers may have a higher level of trust in those who have had experiences like their own.
Gallows Humor
The effects officer trauma bonds have on a workforce, or an agency as a whole may present themselves anecdotally as in the case of the commonly seen “gallows humor,” although such instances are nearly impossible to measure or quantify. Oftentimes, despite good intentions on the part of correctional administrators, officers may blame their agency’s leadership following a traumatic experience. Once separated from the event in question, it would not be surprising to see the officers involved shift their frustration to those in leadership positions, questioning or criticizing command decisions for the circumstances leading or contributing to the event. Criticizing a lack of intervention or resources made available to officers following a traumatic experience has been seen as well.
Whether such reactions come from a sense of guilt or uncertainty over an officer’s opinion about their own performance during an event or whether it is simply a way to shift blame to internally justify what happened, officers complaining about a seemingly unrelated matter following a serious incident may appear out of character for those officers or inappropriate given the gravity of the situation. In the hours or days following an incarcerated individual’s suicide that occurs during officer break time, it wouldn’t be surprising to overhear the responding officers criticizing the conditions of the staff break room or the length of their break time. Given the nature of the event this may appear out of place, however officers may use such comments as a way to pivot from one obstacle to another. It is also possible that these criticisms are used simply to avoid directly addressing the event itself.
Many officers often feel that administrators who have never been an officers have a lack of perspective and empathy for what they face every day. Understandably, this can be frustrating to administrators, but those who are able to gain the trust and confidence of officers tend to do so by consistently demonstrating care and understanding, even when rebuked by those same officers. This is not meant to excuse rude or unprofessional behavior on the part of the officers, but more so to gain an understanding as to why some officers may withhold giving their full trust to a staff member who has not experienced events similar to those that they have faced. This also goes back to the officers’ belief that civilians lack the ability to empathize and understand them. Attempting to tell an officer with whom you have no shared connection, that you “get it” or understand what they go through, can seem condescending and may do more damage than good. Patience and empathy, and perspective often are the best ways to navigate through these situations.
Shared Trauma and Loyalty
Shared traumatic experiences can also have effects on the social welfare of the workforce. Correction officers are often fiercely loyal, which can be attributed to the bonds of trust that are built between them and are strengthened through each shared experience. This loyalty and trust can be productive as camaraderie is something that often needs to develop naturally. Understanding one’s role on a team, as well as the common goal of that team can only go so far in bringing everyone together as a successful unit. The collective focus and drive of the group can be pushed further than that of just a “cohesive” team, which is where shared traumatic experiences can often introduce a sense of trust and loyalty that cannot be simulated, taught, or artificially introduced. This is why such bonds are often referred to as a “brother or sisterhood.”
For the officers working within this system, “brotherhood” is an appropriate way to demonstrate the deep-rooted connection they share. The term suggests that the connected parties have a shared background, experiences, hardships, and collectively overcoming adversity–much like a family. Also, like with a family, that bond is not dissolved by petty fights or arguments. Although the parties did not select each other to bond with, they have a deep connection from their shared experiences. This can instill a sense of loyalty that is unachievable through conventional team-building techniques.
However blind loyalty can certainly present some negative outcomes. As with any familial connection, loyalty often persists despite the actions of one of the parties. “Never turning your back on family” may seem to be an admirable quality, but when that loyalty supports the negative behavior of one party, it can present some moral dilemmas and be used to excuse ethically questionable behavior.
Toxic loyalty between officers often manifests itself when an officer acts improperly and others are reluctant to report or testify as to what that officer did. This “code of silence” puts an officer’s “loyalty” into conflict with their “duty.” This can be observed when an officer’s wrongful actions are supported and reinforced by others who maintain their silence, viewing it as loyalty. This can be extremely damaging for an agency as the view may be that all their officers approve of that behavior. The conflict between duty and loyalty can be addressed by consistent reinforcement of the officer’s sworn oath and duties. This can help officers to remember that their first loyalty should be to their oath and the integrity of the agency, and thus, to their fellow officers.
Officers who are seen to betray the “code of silence” are often treated as a pariah–an outlier from the circle of trust to which the other officers belong. Sometimes this is an unfair result of officers choosing their duty over the bonds they formed with their co-workers and to some officers, this is seen as an affront to the trust they once shared. However, it should be noted that there can exist some officers who are themselves toxic and foster a sense of distrust within the agency. They can often be seen seeking out the mistakes of other officers, regardless of whether they have any involvement in such acts, and appear to take joy in reporting them. Whether this is to boost their own sense of self-worth, a symptom of their lack of confidence in their own abilities, or whether they aim to make themselves look better by making others look worse, the result is that they are similarly viewed as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Trauma bonding can also support the forming of social cliques. Though not inherently damaging to an agency’s culture, these cliques can make it difficult for the assimilation of new officers into these rigid social circles. It can also make it difficult for the officers in these groups to empathize and relate to officers from other assignments, such as officers who work in behavioral units versus pre-release units. The nature of the trauma experienced by correction officers can also make it difficult for them to develop empathy for the incarcerated population. This can be challenging as the duties of an officer require that they render a level of care for the incarcerated individuals. So as officers form trauma bonds and the trust between them grows, the social gap between them and the incarcerated population widens and reinforces the “us versus them” mentality.
When a situation arises where an officer brings in contraband for an incarcerated individual or otherwise develops an inappropriate relationship with an incarcerated individual, it could produce confused feelings on the part of other officers, with whom the wrongdoer might share a deep-rooted bond. That is not to say that an officer would intentionally cover up the potentially illegal acts of another. Rather, the circumstances require an understanding of the sometimes-overwhelming feelings of broken trust and disloyalty being felt by an officer who was, essentially, betrayed by his fellow officer. If someone has formed a traumatic bond with another officer like this, it would bring up concerns that isolation and anger would be a natural product of this betrayal.
It is an unfortunate reality of corrections that there are the occasional officers who commit ethical, moral, and legal violations. Some officers could have a personal trauma bond with that staff member, while others who lack that bond of shared experiences might only feel the less personal sense of simply being loyal to a “brother in blue.” Regardless, there is usually no closure for the staff left behind. The betrayal casts a long shadow over the remaining officers who are left to navigate through the muddled moral quandary left behind. Staff may try to project themselves into their former co-worker’s shoes, as a way to understand their actions and gain some perspective. This mental exploration can bring an innocent officer into an internal ethical conflict and give birth to feelings of anger, resentment, and guilt. Most officers left in these situations will usually never know the “why” as to what happened. Naturally, this could be confusing and potentially create some trust issues for that officer towards their other co-workers.
Mitigating the Negative Effects of Trauma Bonding
There are steps an agency can take to mitigate some of the negative effects of trauma bonding. Early intervention, support, and organizational identity are three considerations correctional administrators should invest in. A proactive approach regarding the mental health of an agency’s correctional staff often begins the same as many other advancements in corrections: with staff training. Officers must consistently refer to their base training as they navigate complicated and everyday situations. Creating a solid foundation of mental health training is crucial as it provides another tool for the officers to utilize throughout their careers. Additional supportive trainings are also beneficial, whether it be a formal class conducted annually during the officer’s regular in-service training, or multiple “micro trainings” conducted at roll call. Revisiting the topic of officer mental health renews awareness and demonstrates the agency’s commitment for the officer’s wellbeing.
Critical Incident Stress Debriefs (CISD) are used by many public safety agencies after staff experience high-stress and critical incidents. There have been discussions on the effectiveness of CISDs with concern towards forcing staff to relive some of the details. However, encouraging staff to separate themselves from the situation, the scene, and the traumatic event and then following up with support resources can help identify those staff who may need further assistance from mental health professionals and provide some benefit. Other after-action services directly involving the agency during this key time for the officers can help demonstrate the administration’s support for the staff. This can be a subtle but effective way to minimize the appearance that the administration is disconnected, uncaring, or far removed from the situation.
Agencies can often feel rushed to resume normal operations at the cost of the psychological welfare of the officers involved. Taking the time to offer after action support not only provides clinical benefits for the officers but allows the administration to demonstrate their commitment to the officers, thereby lessening any resentment that could develop later. Imagine being an officer who finds an incarcerated individual who committed suicide and has to initiate CPR, and then once EMS removes the individual, being told to hurry up and write their report because dinner needs to be served. That essentially places the officer’s well-being below the prompt serving of dinner for the incarcerated individuals. Proper management of a critical incident should not be solely based on how quickly the facility returns to normal operations.
Continued support and access to resources, not just in the wake of a traumatic event, but also year-round, is essential for the well-being of correction officers. Peer support groups are a good way both to allow officers to volunteer and to contribute to the success of the agency, but also for officers to have someone to speak to and not feel judged. Peer support can utilize the shared trauma bonds between officers in a constructive way and provide a formal system that ensures officers know the agency supports both the initiative and its officers. Staff wellness plans that go beyond just an EAP are also a good way to provide support and healthy outlets for the stressors they experience. Bonding with an officer who has made negative lifestyle choices could be detrimental to another officer if they are pulled into a quagmire of a fellow officer’s toxic and damaging coping mechanisms.
Reminding officers of their duty and instilling a sense of pride in the agency and the role of correction officers can help bolster the organizational identity of the agency. If officers fail to remember the importance of their role in both the agency and their profession, they can become isolated and lose confidence in themselves. Finding ways for officers to become more invested in the agency and to network with other professionals can help boost the sense of pride they have in both their position and their profession. Ceremonial acts such as having officers swear their oath annually, combined with promotional, retirement, and other events can also have a positive effect. Encouraging staff to join professional organizations or achieve certifications can also expand the officers’ view of their profession beyond the walls of their assigned institution. It can also remind them that the importance of their role goes beyond the officer who sits beside them. Networking with other agencies and colleagues can be a subtle reminder that they are part of a larger group of men and women who proudly serve their communities every day.
Conclusion
Considering the nature of corrections, it is to be expected that trauma bonds will form among correction officers, although the effects of such bonds can manifest themselves in different ways. As water can be used to bond together a sandcastle on the beach, so too can the next wave wash the structure away. But skillful hands along with careful planning can be the guiding force that builds something that is strong and able to withstand the rising tide. Every correction officer is unique and has the ability to make his or her own choices, but when administrators demonstrate an understanding of trauma and act accordingly and with forethought, they can help ensure that their own agency is strong and able to withstand the next crashing wave
_____________________________
Samuel Rapoza, CCS, CCHP, NCCS is a Captain with the Bristol County Sheriff's Office in Massachusetts. He has over 20 years of experience working in corrections and is currently responsible for coordinating his agency's recruitment initiatives as well as being assigned to the Crisis Negotiation Team. He holds a certificate from Cornell University in Recruitment and Talent Acquisition. For more information, he can be contacted at samuelrapoza@bcso-ma.org