< Previous30 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY It is my belief that corrections administrations can benefit from both transactional and transformational leadership. I suggest it’s similar to driving on two types of highways; a transformational leadership highway, and a transactional highway. We need to drive the transactional vehicle on the highway that focuses on the daily routine. We also need to transition to a transformational vehicle on a highway to create positive change and move the organization into the future by developing followers into leaders. Finally, in our continued attempt to focus on a positive work environment, let’s examine how leaders practicing ethical leadership, or doing the right thing, can impact employee retention. Ethical Leadership and Retention Ethical leaders are role models, and they treat their staff fairly and with respect. Ethical leadership is defined by Brown et al. (2005) as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (p. 120). That is, such a leader knows and respects the norms of good conduct, acts appropriately according to those norms, and makes it clear that such conduct is expected from others inside the place of work. To the extent that ethical leaders create and promote an ethical atmosphere, trust in the leader is increased (Flynn, 2008), and increased job satisfaction accompanies that trust, making it less likely for employees to leave the job (Mulki et al., 2006). When leaders develop a trusting and respectful relationship with their staff, both parties are more capable of handling change or “shocks” in the workplace. Such a shock, as described by Babalola et al. (2016), might be an “anticipated or unanticipated change that prompts employees to reflect on the current situation and its implication with regard to their current job and future in the organization” (p. 313). As an example, I recall a shock that occurred at the National Corrections Academy in Aurora, Colorado, when we were told that the Academy was moving to Charleston, South Carolina. Numerous employees quit the organization, as this was a major shock to many. The Academy had been in Colorado for so long that the potential of moving was something that at the time hadn’t been entertained by many of the employees. The Academy remained in Aurora, but it operated with a dramatic shortage of staff for some time. Another example of a shock is when you are told that you’re not getting a promotion or you’re not getting a pay raise. A shock can also be externally related, such as when COVID-19 unexpectedly emerged. Indeed, I would be remiss if I failed to briefly mention the COVID pandemic, which quickly became a game changer regarding recruitment, retention, and turnover of correctional practitioners—and continues to do so. Only when this virus is dead and gone, or at least becomes a negligible factor in our lives, will we truly understand the impact the pandemic has had on correctional organizations and on the issues I’ve discussed above. Nonetheless, ethical leaders still play a significant role during such instances of shock or change. The bottom line is that when employees are treated fairly and honestly, they typically reciprocate positively by staying with the organization. Ouakouak and Zaitouni (2020) report that ethical leaders also tend to display empathy and respect the dignity and rights of others. Empathy shows caring and relatedness, and these are associated with employee motivation and job productivity. When employees realize their degree of productivity based on their intrinsic motivation, they have yet another reason to stay in their jobs. All in all, it is clear that ethical leadership is intrinsically beneficial for the leader while also having a widespread positive impact on the organization and its staff members. Conclusion: A Challenge to Leaders As you reflect back on the material that has been presented above regarding employee retention and turnover, I ask you to think about what you can do to ensure that the behaviors you practice do not result in toxic and abusive leadership. When you think about job demands and resource theory, seriously consider what you can start doing with your staff to reduce the demands of their jobs and to provide sorely needed resources. Remember, staff burnout builds up over time, based on continued job demands/stressors that exceed resources. Working with your followers by assisting them in the development of important goals and providing appropriate rewards through transactional leadership will strengthen the trust in your relationships. Exercising individualized consideration, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation behaviors with your staff can promote personal and professional growth and increase productivity levels. 31 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY It is truly key to get to know your employees as the individuals they are and for you to let them know who you are. Working in the corrections field can be potentially dangerous as well as dynamic. However, you can foster physical and psychological safety if you do what you say you will do and are truly serving as the authentic, ethical leader that your staff expect you to be. Life is short. You either add value or you take it away. Accept that you play an important role, where all too often “if it’s going to be, it’s up to me.” This is your leadership challenge, and I hope that you answer your call to duty. References Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Gorley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325- 374. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development, building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The Full Range Leadership Development Programs: Basic and Advanced Manuals. Bass, Avolio Associates, New York. Babalola, M. T., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. (2016). Frequent change and turnover intention: the Moderating role of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 134:311-322. Bakker, A. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269. Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2012). Job Demands- Resources Theory. In P. Chen (Ed.), Well-being: A complete reference guide (Vol.3). Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231-272. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range of leadership: Manual for the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Carlson, J., & Thomas, G. (2006). Burnout among prison caseworkers and correctional officers. Journal of Offender Therapy, 43(3), 19-34. Chavarria, D. (2016). Analyzing the Relationship between Job Demands, Job Resources, and Personal Resources on Employee Engagement and Exhaustion of Juvenile Probation/Parole Officers. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resource model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. Eggers, J. T., Porter, R. I., & Gray, J. W. (2011). Leading and Managing Those Working and Living in Captive Environments, In, Leadership in dangerous situations: a handbook for the Armed Forces, emergency services, and first responders, Sweeney, P.J., Matthews, M.D., & Lester, P.B., Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Flynn, G. (2008). The virtuous manager: A vision for leadership in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 359-372. Freudenberger, H. (1974). Staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 30, 159-165. Gladwin, B. P., & McConnell, C. R. (2014). The effective corrections supervisor: Correctional supervision for the future (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Grotto, A. R., Hyland, P. K., Caputo, A. W., & Semedo, C. (2017). Employee Turnover and Strategies for Retention, In, The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of recruitment, Selection and Employee Retention, First Edition, Goldstein, H.W., Pulakos, E.D., Passmore, J., & Semedo, C. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 32 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897- 919. Hannah, S.T., Jennings, P. L., D., Peng, A. C., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 220-238. Hobfoll, S., Johnson, R., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632-643. Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: A. Wiley. Krashikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39, 1308-1338. Lambert, E. G., Altheimer, I., & Hogan, N. L. (2010). Exploring the relationship between social support and job burnout among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 11. Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1006-1019. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 189-192. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. March, III, R. P. (2015). Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover: A Critical Incident Study [Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University]. Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and supervisory trust on salesperson’s job attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26, 19-26. Ng, T. W. H., (2017). Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 385-417. Nink, C. (2010). Correctional Officers: Strategies to improve retention (2nd ed.). Centerville, UT: MTC Institute. Ouakouak, M. L., & Zaitouni, M. G. (2020). Ethical leadership, emotional leadership, and quitting intentions in public organizations: Does employee motivation play a role? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, Pp. 257-279. Pines, A., & Keinan, G. (2005). Stress and burnout: The significant difference. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 625-635. Reitz, O. & Anderson, M. A. (2011). “An overview of job embeddedness.” Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 320-327. Rose, K., Shuck, B., Twyford, D., & Bergman, M. (2015). Skunked: An integrative review exploring the consequences of the dysfunctional leader and implications for those employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review, 4(1), 64-90. Russo, J. (2019). Workforce issues in corrections. Corrections Today, November/December. Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. Sosik, J. J., & Cameron, J. C. (2010). Character and authentic transformational leadership behavior: Expanding the ascetic self towards others. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 251- 269. 33 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY Sweeney, P. J., Matthews, M. D., & Lester, P. B. (2011). Leadership In Dangerous Situations: A Handbook for the Armed Forces, Emergency Services, and First Responders. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Walker, J. W. (2001). “Zero defections?” Human Resource Planning, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 6-8. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121-141. Biography Dr. Eggers, Ph.D. 1965 Alabama St., Loveland, CO 80538-6282 (859) As President of Transitional Goal Achiever’s (TGA) LLC, John provides customized leader development workshops and coaching to front-line supervisors, mid- level managers, senior level leaders and executives. John was involved in state corrections with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) from 1979-1999. He served as a correctional counselor, case manager, and unit manager at the penitentiary, working with general population, protective custody, death row, disciplinary segregation, and intensive management inmates. John also served as the NDCS Training Administrator (1993-1999), leading the Pre- Service, In-Service, Management Development, and Continuous Quality Improvement training. John joined the National Institute of Corrections, Academy Division, as a Correctional Program Specialist in 1999. He provided management and leader development training to jails, prisons, and community corrections professionals in 35 states, retiring in 2014. John also has an extensive military background, instructing both advanced and basic non-commissioned officer training courses with the Nebraska Army National Guard, Regional Training Institute, Camp Ashland, for several years. John also served in the Nebraska Air National Guard, and has Vietnam service with the U.S. Navy. John has a total of 24 years military experience. John holds a Bachelor of Science in Social and Political Science from Wayne State College, a Master of Arts in Adult Education from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, and a Doctorate of Philosophy with emphasis in Leadership from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.34 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY SURVIVING CORRECTIONAL WORK The Role of Preventive Training BY WILLIAM WINOGRON, PH.D., AND CURTIS GOUGH, BA 35 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY SURVIVING CORRECTIONAL WORK: THE ROLE OF PREVENTIVE TRAINING Many correctional workers experience stress and burnout at some point in life. Because of the job characteristics of correctional work–namely, a high level of supervisory oversight, low job autonomy, and low job variety–working in correctional facilities can easily lead to burnout (Griffin et al., 2012). While both work conditions and personal factors contribute to this phenomenon, implementing system-wide, institutional changes is often too costly and too drastic to be a viable option. Training correctional workers to develop better coping strategies that foster their resilience–i.e., their ability to effectively manage stress, recover from adversity, and bounce back–is more cost effective and should, in theory, reduce stress and burnout and their resulting costly outcomes for both the individual and the employer. Recent research has identified important resilience skills that should be taught to correctional staff, including identifying prevalent cognitive distortions, improving cognitive reframing, improving problem- solving, improving social support, learning relaxation techniques, and stress inoculation. Recent research also recommends specific processes to follow in developing and implementing corrections-based resilience programs, including pre-emptive, evidence-based, industry- responsive, and targeted program development; flexibility to individual differences; and an emphasis on proactive rather than reactive training interventions. In practice, programs should then teach staff the role of effective and ineffective thinking and provide skills in rethinking maladaptive cognitions, problem solving, and relaxation through flexible, skills-based teaching and practice while also developing their social support networks. This article presents an overview of STRENGTH Corrections, The Staff Resiliency and Growth Program—an evidence- informed staff resilience training program that teaches these resilience skills for use by institutional correctional staff (Winogron, 2021). The Issue of Stress Among Correctional Workers Stress, burnout, and resulting mental health problems affect most correctional workers at some point in their careers. For example, Carleton and colleagues (2020) found that among institutional correctional staff workers, 61% of governance employees, 59% of correctional officers, 43% of wellness staff, 50% of training staff, and 52% of administrative staff screened positive for one or more mental disorders. Workers in numerous public safety fields report high levels of work-related distress, so correctional workers are not alone, but Carleton and colleagues (2018) found that correctional professionals have been shown to be more affected by burnout than those in most other professions, even police officers. They also experience some of the highest rates of suicide, depression, cardiovascular disease, sleep disorders, obesity, injury, and sick leave (Elliot et al., 2015; James & Todak, 2018; James et al., 2017; Morse et al., 2011; United States Department of Labor, 2013). Not surprisingly, these factors contribute to reduced life satisfaction and reduced work engagement as well as increased job turnover rates (Lambert, 2010). An Integrated Model of Correctional Burnout for Intervention Programs Many researchers have examined the multidimensional factors that explain risk factors for stress and how or why it leads to burnout, and they frequently either focus on the personal characteristics of the workers (Lambert, 2010; Lambert et al., 2015) or on the conflict, social dimensions, and organizational factors that contributed to stress and burnout (Maslach, 2003). The first camp of researchers tends to examine the personal traits, whether strengths (such as organizational citizenship) or weaknesses (such as poor emotional regulation) within the correctional workers themselves (Lambert, 2010). For example, researchers have explored the contribution of excessive organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 2013), problematic coping and low social-emotional endurance (Cieslak et al., 2008), and excessive job involvement (Griffin et al., 2010). Studies conducted by those who are inclined to the other school of thought try to clarify the impact of the structure, policies, and managerial decisions of correctional organizations as well as the inherently stressful nature of the work itself, such as variable and uncontrollable shift schedules, mandatory overtime, excessive work hours, inconsistent policies, unclear goals, lack of decision-making power, and low organizational support (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Castle, 2008; Finney et al., 2013; Summerlin et al., 2010; Taxman & Gordon, 2009). 36 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY While it is important to examine and shed light on these two major domains of factors that predict stress and burnout, it can be unhelpful to focus too heavily on either one to the exclusion of the other. It might be more accurate to describe burnout as a product that is greater than the sum of its parts. In others words, stress and burnout can be considered subjective personal experiences that are the product of an interaction between working conditions within the environmental- organizational domain and the internal traits, personal characteristics, psychological resources, and coping capacities of the individual. Indeed, some researchers have examined the interaction of factors more extensively than others (Mitchell et al., 2000), but given the continued pervasiveness of correctional stress and the increasing prevalence of correctional burnout, research should strive towards a more integrated approach to studying correctional staff burnout. Programmatic Intervention Approaches for Correctional Stress and Burnout To recap the above, work conditions and personal factors are both relevant to understanding the phenomena of correctional worker stress and burnout (Mitchell et al., 2000) and both will need to be considered in the search for solutions, as has been the case in more general occupational fields (Taormina & Law, 2000). Therefore, if the issue of occupational stress and burnout among correctional workers is to be resolved, program development can follow three approaches. The first approach would be an “on all fronts” method that changes both individual factors and organizational factors simultaneously. A second approach would be to work “from outside in.” In other words, programs could begin by examining and changing problematic organizational and systemic structures in order to improve them and—in an ideal scenario—significantly reduce the level of occupational conflict and stress experienced in correctional work. While there is growing literature on what can be done about organizational and systemic factors that contribute to burnout (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000), the implementation of system-wide changes across institutions, probation offices, and other correctional organizations is not easy or straightforward. It may seem wise to advise wardens, directors, and other senior managers to change their policies and procedures in order to give more decision-making power to their staff, shorten work hours, do away with overtime, and eliminate friction between correction-focused and rehabilitation- focused staff. It may also seem rational to expect them to follow through on those recommendations. However, even though these are lofty goals, they clearly involve complex, high-level considerations and for the most part are not feasible for politicians and policy-makers, let alone for the correctional workers whose well-being is at stake. A Third Approach: Increasing Worker Capacity There may be a third option for intervention program approaches: working from the inside out. More specifically, if the traits, characteristics, and internal resources of correctional workers could be influenced positively enough to reduce their perceived level of experienced stress and concomitantly mitigate the three major facets of burnout (exhaustion, depersonalization, and low self-efficacy), this may be a more productive approach. Individual and group psychotherapy and psychoeducation in the private sector tend to succeed in treating burnout in the general public, so could company- wide programs effect the same level of change? Would this be more feasible and efficient than either ignoring the issue of correctional staff burnout or lobbying policymakers to make systemic changes? The answer to both questions is yes. In fact, such programs already exist. For example, several mindfulness and yoga programs have been implemented in various facilities in the United States and England (see Bogue & Maull, 2015; Davies et al., 2021; Elliot et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2022). These programs are achievable, cost effective, and efficient. In addition, many programs like these result in significant economic returns due to the significant reduction of absenteeism, employee turnover, benefit claims, and more (Trounson & Pfeifer, 2016). Despite the success of these programs, there are some drawbacks. Even at first glance it can be seen that these programs tend to be suspiciously short, and after a deeper critical examination these programs may arguably be seen as merely Band-Aid fixes. After all, while increased mindfulness and yoga skills certainly can improve well-being, by themselves they are unlikely to provide the type of deeper cognitive and psychological changes that can sustainably maintain low levels of stress 37 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY and higher coping abilities in the long term. Teaching mindfulness and yoga is simply not enough to maintain the desired gains in well-being and stress reduction., especially for those at risk for stressful and potentially traumatic experiences in the workplace. While skills- based training appears to be the major paradigmatic trend for correctional-staff intervention programs, the skills that need to be trained are ones that effect major changes in the worker’s current psychological traits, inner resources, and patterns of thinking and acting. Resilience The major psychological construct that protects against the experience of perceived stress levels and resulting burnout tends to be “resilience,” which, like “stress,” comes from the fields of engineering and physics. Though complex and multifaceted, resilience can be defined in simple terms as the ability to manage and recover or “bounce back from” adversity. While it should be noted that many definitions for resilience have been proposed over the past 20 years (Herrman et al., 2011), this will be the definition used here. Resilience has numerous benefits, including the ability to rebound from negative events and stressful situations (Block & Block, 1980; Masten, 2001), improved health and increased longevity (Tugade et al., 2004), and overall psychological well-being (Kansky & Diener, 2017). Resilience, like mindfulness, can be considered a state-trait construct; many people have individual differences in their trait- level of resilience that pervades their life while also demonstrating state-level resilience that varies from context to context depending on one’s mood and mindset (Lock et al., 2020). However, the more frequently people maintain state-level resilience, the more likely they are to increase their trait-level of resilience, leading them to become more resilient in the long-term. Theoretically, greater resilience is directly related to reduction in perceived stress, psychological distress, and burnout. Indeed, this has been found to be the case, particularly in occupational science. Resilience training in the workplace has been a steadily increasing paradigm, and systematic reviews have shown undeniable success from the programs developed and implemented in this tradition (Robertson et al., 2015). Furthermore, resilience- training programs have been adapted for many public safety personnel occupations, including law enforcement (McCraty & Atkinson, 2012). However, despite the arguably greater need for comparable programs for correctional workers, such correctional-worker resiliency training programs are woefully scant. Researchers should build on the progress that has been made on researching and fostering resiliency in the general public and workforce and adapt successful programs for correctional workers. Resilience: Content In devising a resiliency training program, the first step is to determine how to foster resilience, or more appropriately, what skills should be taught and what characteristics should be influenced through training in order to foster resilience. This in turn requires a brief exploration of the factors, facets, characteristics, and overall nature of resilience. While many researchers have examined a broad range of aspects of resilience, most researchers find that the core facets of resilience tend to include positive cognitive processes (optimism, cognitive flexibility, reasoning, self-regulation, emotional control), social-emotional processes (active coping skills, supportive social networks, close relationships), biological and environmental considerations (attending one’s physical well-being, eating healthy, exercising, access to shelter and other needs), and spiritual considerations (strong moral compass, altruism, meditation, purpose and hope; Hatala, 2011; Iacoviello & Charney, 2014). In addition to these areas, programs need to consider the correctional worker’s psychological risk factors for increased perceived stress–namely excessive organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 2013), problematic coping and low social-emotional endurance (Cieslak et al., 2008), and excessive job involvement (Griffin et al., 2010)–so that programs achieve longer lasting gains. It stands to reason that, in order to foster resilience, programs could aim to steer correctional workers away from risk factors for increased perceived stress and burnout while teaching skills that improve their cognitive and executive functioning, increase appropriate and positive social interactions, engage in healthy activities, and reflect on values. Recent research has indeed identified comparable key skill areas that should be included in resilience training for correctional workers, such as identifying prevalent cognitive distortions within corrections; improving cognitive “reframing” abilities (also referred to as cognitive restructuring); improving problem- solving abilities; improving social support–especially among peers; training and support for family members 38 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY and significant others; relaxation skills training; and “stress inoculation” (Evers, 2020). The unifying theme amongst recommended interventions for individuals is that they are all derived from social learning theory and cognitive behavioral theory (CBT). This means that the ideal intervention (a) focuses on changing cognitions (or “thoughts” or “beliefs”), (b) modifies behaviors to render trainees more impervious to harm, and (c) emphasizes skills training (Klinoff, 2017; Trounson & Pfeiffer, 2016; 2017; Peters, 2018; Petrosino et al., 2000; Joyce, 2013). Resilience: Format In addition to these skill areas (or “contents”) that constitute good resilience training, research has recommended specific processes to follow in the development of correctional-staff resilience programs (Evers, 2020; Trounson & Pfeifer, 2016, 2017). These include developing and implementing (a) evidence- based, industry-responsive, and targeted psychological training programs; (b) flexible training programs which adapt to individual differences (in staff strengths and weaknesses); and (c) a shift from reactive interventions to proactive training (Joyce, 2013; Klinoff, 2017; Petrosino et al., 2000; Trounson & Pfeiffer, 2016, 2017). First, programs need to be evidenced-based, industry- responsive, and targeted (Evers, 2020; Joyce, 2013; Klinoff, 2017; Petrosino et al., 2000; Trounson & Pfeiffer, 2016, 2017). Research has found that resilience training, mindfulness, or other occupational wellness programs in public safety and correctional occupations tend to succeed when they are founded on scientifically sound theories and evidence bases, but they flounder when they follow pseudo-scientific principles (Evers, 2020). In addition, effective correctional staff resilience training should not just be a carbon copy of resilience-training programs in other occupational fields. Application of occupational resilience training to the correctional industry requires “industry-responsive” programs that are tailored to the correctional industry and, indeed, tailored to the correctional workers who encounter unique challenges in their occupation. Generic interventions created outside the field of corrections are not as likely to be efficacious (Evers, 2020; Trounson & Pfeifer, 2016, 2017). Finally, indirect and non-intensive training workshops and classes tend not to be effective either; programs that provide intensive (yet efficient) training courses that directly teach groups of correctional workers are more likely to achieve gains in overall workforce resiliency. Second, resilience training programs for correctional workers must be flexible, for correctional workers may experience significant variability and diversity in their daily stressors—an amount of variability and diversity similar to that reflected in their individual differences in regard to trait resilience. In other words, assuming that all correctional workers face the same challenges with the same resources in all correctional contexts is not just an oversimplification. It is naïve. Preventive training is more likely to succeed if flexibility and choice are inherent in the training being offered (Evers, 2020; Trounson & Pfeifer, 2016; 2017). Third, effective resilience training programs must be initiative-taking and preventive instead of reactive (Evers, 2020; Trounson & Pfeifer, 2016; 2017). “Initiative-taking” has been described in different ways and accorded different characteristics, but for the current purpose preemptive or “initiative-taking” training can be regarded as one that anticipates future problem areas that are likely to impact staff and uses a primary prevention strategy to keep emotional disturbances from arising. A primary prevention strategy, for the purposes of the current investigation, can be defined as one that prevents an injury from occurring in the first place by altering unhealthy behaviors, limiting exposure to undesirable factors, or strengthening resistance to those factors (Evers, 2020; Trounson & Pfeifer, 2016; 2017). Why choose prevention instead of reactionary intervention? Dr. Stephen Carbone, founder of the Australian non- profit Prevention United, wrote an extensive review of literature on the subject and concluded that “personal skills-building programs that draw on health, clinical and positive psychology … increase protective factors such as healthy behaviors, social and emotional skills, self- care skills and resilience, and prevent common mental health … conditions” (Carbone, 2020, p. 31). He further noted that “the National Mental Health Commission [Australia] found that nine of the ten prevention interventions they analyzed had a positive return on investment” (p. 5). Correctional-Program Solutions for Content-Process Recommendations If one integrates the recommendations for both the content and the process of resilience training, a reasonably clear picture of an ideal program begins to emerge. In order to properly protect or “inoculate” correctional staff against stress and burnout, this paper 39 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY proposes the following strategies and principles for an optimal resilience-training program: • teach the role of adaptive and maladaptive thoughts that arise in correctional settings • teach staff to “reframe” or rethink maladaptive cognitions • focus on acquiring, rehearsing, and applying skills in problem-solving, relaxation, and other areas in practical situations • enable and encourage practice of the new skills and approaches • offer training and/or support for families and significant others • offer all of the above via flexible, adaptive training that adheres to proven practices but allows customization of trainings to suit the needs of individual staff Several studies have concluded that restructuring correctional work environments is an essential ingredient in reducing stress and burnout among staff (Finney et al., 2013; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). The consensus appears to be that correctional employers need to improve social environments at work through improved communication, improved “professionalization” by clarifying their roles, and improved human resource management in recruitment and selection procedures, structured communication procedures, and effective decision-making (Evers, 2020; Trounson & Pfeifer, 2016; 2017). The development of skills and inner resources through worker-focused training programs is proposed as an adjunct rather than as an alternative to restructuring of correctional work environments, with the assumption being made that it would be counterproductive to invest so much time and resources to improve worker resilience only to return staff to stressful duties and settings. That being said, until major policy changes can feasibly be made in the long term, developing the worker resilience offers promise as an achievable first step that can be continually maintained and improved upon in parallel with broader systemic, organizational changes (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Building STRENGTH: The Staff Resiliency and Growth Program As already explained, there are an inadequate number of resiliency training programs for correctional staff. To meet this need and solve the issues related to stress and burnout among correctional workers, this paper’s first author and his colleagues at Distributed Learning have been involved in the development of a corrections- specific resilience training program for nearly five years. In consultation with Correctional Services Canada (Ontario), I collaborated with senior managers, treatment staff, correctional officers, and junior program-developers to verify specific need areas and create STRENGTH Corrections, The Staff Resiliency and Growth Program (Winogron, 2021). It fulfils the full range of criteria noted above for ideal correctional resilience training. STRENGTH is based on CBT, evidence-informed practices, and a government mandate to create corrections-specific explanations and exercises that could be comprehensible to all staff, irrespective of duties and level of seniority. The mandate was to create an easy-to-use program that would not consume excessive staff hours and that would be self-sustaining. Studies show that brief programs, even if highly enjoyable and impactful, tend to yield diminishing returns (Bogue & Maull, 2015; Davies et al., 2021; Elliot et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2022). Staff participants in these studies often show some excitement and optimism about making changes, but these gradually decrease with the passage of time as a result of the continued pressures from their occupation. To address this, STRENGTH uses a peer- support model that would gradually result in sustained changes in the workplace culture. Because resilience is multifaceted and dependent on a number of both personal and social factors, STRENGTH was designed to have several different ‘facets’ that make it more effective than other programs. Here are some of the most important facets that make the program unique: STRENGTH nominates specific participants of the programs as “Champions.” A Champion acts as the local representative who maintains fidelity through support and resources. Studies show that socially integrated program characteristics improve training efficacy and effectiveness (Smith et al., 2022). Thus, a “lifestyle” guide was created Next >