Unresolved Stress/Corrections Unmitigated and Unresolved

Unresolved Stress/Corrections

Unmitigated and unresolved stress is one of the most significant social problems in the world today. Many people demonstrate significant aspects of stress-related illness and in many cases such stress is associated with work or a combination of life and work. The body, is brilliantly designed to help resolve stress through processes that are rarely required in today's world, i.e. The fight or flight physiological phenomena, yet most stress today requires much a more subtle physical and mental response to stress and most stress is not life threatening. It is for this reason and many others that the body is not completely prepared to deal with the more subtle forms of stress and strain associated with the norms of today's work and life. (Devito, 1994, p. 27) Unresolved stress then gets supplanted and suppressed, as a matter of coping and can in the long or even relatively short-term effect the mind and body in negative ways, so much so that stress itself becomes an issue of safety, especially in situations of work that require fundamental reserve to mitigate. The definitions of stress and strain are important for this research investigation and are as follows;

Stress has been described as a "perception of imbalance between resources and demand." [1] Strain is defined as "an immediate, short-term emotional response" to the imbalance between resources and demands, which is "characterized by feelings of anxiety, tension, fatigue and exhaustion." [2] & #8230; [3]the potential effects of work-related stress include increased absenteeism, employee turnover, illness, marital problems, and alcohol or drug use [or abuse]. [4,5,6] (Black, 2001, p. 83)

Research regarding stress has increased exponentially over the last 20-30 years and has developed into a whole database that attempts to evaluate and define the physical, mental and even financial effects of stress on individuals and institutions. It would also seem that modern stress is anomalous to the logic of economics, as there was previously significant evidence that material affluence, associated with post-industrial work, and increased resources should result in reduced psychological stress and even contentment, and yet it seems that stability, beyond the obtaining of the very basic necessities of food and shelter does not necessarily reduce stress and can be seen in the modern world as increasing it.

…working populations in industrial countries such as the United States and Sweden, who should be experiencing the highest levels of satisfaction in history, are showing increasing signs of stress. People born in the United States during the last thirty years are more than three times as likely to experience depression than were their grandparents (Seligman 1988; Robbins et al. 1984); the number of mental health professionals more than quintupled between 1947 and 1977 (Mechanic 1980); worker's compensation claims related to stress have tripled since 1980 (Grippa and Durbin 1986); and losses to the U.S. economy associated with job stress are currently estimated to be as large as $150 billion per year (Freudenheim 1987). (Theorell & Karasek, 1990, p. I)

Our economy and social structure are not inherently designed to resolve stress and strain, for the individual, as they are designed to provide profit and only very secondarily, security for workers. The modern industrial organization structure is systematically increasing stress among workers and even greater stress for those who find themselves in situations of poverty.

… our model, designed to yield the greatest good for the greatest number, have omitted much that is important. These models appear to be forcing us to trade off our psychological well-being for material affluence, instead of enhancing both. Is stress from our work environments serious enough to cause heart disease, the major cause of death in industrial societies (World Health Organization 1984)? Could the same aspects of the work situation that cause stress also reduce productivity? If the answer to both these questions is yes, there would seem to be good reason to change our conventional views about how to organize and manage work activity. Yet most of the solutions currently advanced to reduce stress -- relaxation therapies, for example -- address only its symptoms. Little is done to change the source of the problem: work organization itself. While we recognize that stress is damaging, we act as though its sources were inevitable. (Theorell & Karasek, 1990, p. I)

Theorell & Karasek, experts of stress and specifically work related stress contend that one of the most basic problems with stress and how it is viewed in modern society is that stress is seen as a problem of the individual and resolutions are therefore sought in the individual, mainly in behavioral change plans. According to these experts then very little if anything is done to mitigate the environment associated with stress. "The full burden of moderating life stressors is placed on the individual, instead of being shared with the environment." (Theorell & Karasek, 1990, p. 84) Theorell & Karasek then believe that if stress is dealt with in a holistic manner, individual, environment and institution, rather than by simply assuming that stress in the environment is inevitable and forcing anyone wishing to resolve it to change their own behaviors and/or reactions to stressors, stress is much more likely to be resolved and avoided.

Finally, stress is often associated with some work environments more than others. Thos environments that force psychological stress, physical strain, fear, environmental and social danger and most importantly ambiguity, uncertainty and high levels of responsibility are much more likely to cause stress than others. There is no example greater than, the field of corrections, as the individual in any given situation is charged with the responsibly to care and protect other individuals who are present entirely against their own will. This work will continue with a brief discussion of stress in general, its physical, social and psychological effects and then move on to a more in-depth discussion about stress in the field of corrections. Systematic research about stress and strain in corrections has increased during the last 15 years and cannot be ignored without significant costs to employers and employees. (Black, 2001, p. 83)

Physical, Social and Psychological Stress Reactions

As, has been stated above stress research has become plentiful and productive over the last several years. Though there is a concern that such research has demonstrates an imbalanced look at stress with regard to the individual reaction rather than the source of stress that does not make the research unhelpful in helping gain a better understanding of stress and the stress mechanisms.

For the past several decades, interest in stress has become almost universal. The general response to "stressful events" is believed to follow a fairly consistent pattern known as the General Adaptation Syndrome (Selye, 1956). This syndrome consists of three stages: the alarm stage, the resistance stage, and the exhaustion stage. (Tang & Hammontree, 1992, p. 493)

These realistic, if simplistic observations about stress can help the individual and society look at stress in a systematic way, i.e. To help track the stress response and possibly assist the individual and/or institution in recognizing the level and need for intervention, so that it will be the most effective it can be. The most important aspect of stress, as it relates to work is the relative cost to individuals and institutions. Cost can come in the form of monetary loss but more importantly it is the subtle losses that create reduction in possibility and the stifling of individual potential, one of the greatest human resources known to man. It is therefore exceedingly important to look at stress as a health issue and a community issue, as it is clear from exhaustive research on the subject that the health of individuals and even whole organizations can be seriously challenged by stress-related illness.

The relationship between stress and employees' health is an important concern for human resource managers. It has been suggested in the literature that over 70% of all job absenteeism has been tied to stress-related illness (Adams, 1987). The American Institute of Stress estimates the total cost of stress, including factors like absenteeism and declining productivity at $100 billion per year (the Economist, 1985). Others cite the figure closer to $150 billion per year (Tang & Hammontree, 1992, p. 493)

The community loss of all this human potential is staggering and though the losses to individuals are smaller they are more significant in that there is often no room for such loss, no room in the sense that there is no flexibility in the laws of economy that govern potential for the individual and this in and of itself can and often does increase stress, rather than decreasing it. One way in which stress is played out for the individual is in cardiovascular disease, the leading killer of both men and women in industrial society. Yet, it is also important to note that stress, in balance is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be a significant motivating factor, assisting the individual in making changes and motivating to greater production. The problem seems to arise when occupational and/or life stress is added to ambiguity or lack of empowerment with regard to meeting the demands of a stressful situation.

Our findings show that social and psychological aspects of work situations are indeed significant risk factors for coronary heart disease, but not in the manner that might initially be supposed. While the psychological demands of work, along with time pressures and conflicts, are found to be significant sources of risk in many of our studies, work that is demanding (within limits) is not the major source of risk. The primary work-related risk factor appears to be lack of control over how one meets the job's demands and how one uses one's skills. In many cases, elevation of risk with a demanding job appears only when these demands occur in interaction with low control on the job. Other research has shown that regular physical exertion has positive effects on cardiovascular health in many situations (although physical hazards can of course pose major health threats beyond our stress perspective). Thus, in our research findings it is not the demands of work itself but the organizational structure of work that plays the most consistent role in the development of stress-related illness. (Theorell & Karasek, 1990, p. 9)

It has been known for many years that psychological stress can and does suppress the immune system, creating a situation in individuals where opportunistic infections, those that are around us every day but only rarely affect us, cause disease. Yet, historically such disease as this is often thought of as psychosomatic, regardless of the fact that it has been known for decades that stress on the mind can and does effect the body, making the body a host for illness, that may initially have been associated with an attempt by the body to force rest.

Psychological distress can suppress the body's defenses to the point of inducing physical illness. A college student suffers from a strep throat infection while studying for final exams. A corporate executive loses her voice prior to an important presentation to stockholders. A high school senior wakes up with a horrible headache on the morning of the prom. Both parents come down with the flu. after several sleepless nights with their sick child. Virtually everyone has experienced similar reactions. Who hasn't pondered why illness strikes precisely when it can be afforded least? Often, people wonder if these maladies are real or just "psychological." (Devito, 1994, p. 27)

The fundamental idea that stress can cause or at least make the body susceptible to disease has been so squelched in our society that individuals are often accused of faking sick to get out of whatever stressful situation they might find themselves in. Yet, there is a clear sense that this is a cultural construct that does not reflect what is actually happening, i.e. The individuals' body is weakened, from unresolved stress and is then reacting by allowing disease to surface.

The diagnosis is not always simple and straightforward. For centuries, physicians, philosophers, and psychologists have noted the apparent relationship among stress, illness, and health. Recently, medical scientists firmly have established causal relationships between them and have shown how our minds and emotions can influence the course of a disease. (Devito, 1994, p. 27)

Definitions of stress and stress related illness have been historically vague, resulting not ina universal defining character but an anomalous idea of what stress is and how it manifests in people. An historical overview of stress, and the research and theory surrounding it explains a great deal of the essential way in which stress affects the human mind and body. 20th-century physiological psychologist Walter Cannon and Canadian physician Hans Seyle are the seminal researchers of the modern ideology of stress, as it relates to humans. Cannon can be credited with observations, briefly touched on above, regarding the physical and mental reaction to stress;

Cannon defined the classic "fight-or-flight" reaction: When faced with stress, the body prepares for the emergency through the sympathetic portion of the autonomic nervous system. Adrenalin, a hormone, is released into the bloodstream through the adrenal glands and generates the energy to cope with the stressors, not unlike an army ready to defend its territory against an invader. Cannon maintained that this hormonal reaction was a remnant of humans' ancient past, when most stressors could be handled only through radical and robust actions. In order to survive, our ancestors fought prey and fled from predators. Such intense reactions are not required in modem society; in fact, this kind of response potentially could be harmful to one's health and well-being. Consider how inefficient it would be to rely on "fight-or-flight" in order to pay bills, change a flat tire during rush hour, or ask a supervisor for a raise. Burnout may be the result of such overreactions to stress. (Devito, 1994, p. 27)

Cannon can then also be credited with the idea that historical physiological reactions to stress are not usually compatible with modern life. The individual actually spends a great deal of his or her developmental energy learning to suppress overreaction to external stressors and cannot in fact function appropriately without such skill. To mature in a modern sense has a great deal to do with moderating these physiological reactions to stress and not allowing them to dictate the outward actions. Anger is a particularly troubling aspect of the fight or flight response as manifest anger can seriously hamper social situations and dictate overreactions to stressful stimulus. Additionally on the flight side of the equation, fear can dictate flight, an create a situation where someone retreats from a situation, manifest in avoidance, which can simply make the situation worse, if one physically leaves or does what many report as "shut down" mentally and therefore become resistant to resolution. Either way the extremes of these responses are fundamentally hard wired and it takes years of maturation and social conditioning to challenge them. If this were not the case the world would be populated by very large two-year-olds, with little if any ability to mitigate behavioral responses associated with stress. Yet, when stress is prolonged, or as has been mentioned associated with ambiguity and lack of empowerment with regard to stress navigation, but stress reaction is expected to be socially acceptable individuals can experience pressure that manifests as stress-related illness. This can be associated with a whole list of disease processes, including but not limited to coronary disease. Seyle on the other hand is credited for studying stress from a situational or environmental view, taking into consideration the natural reaction to stress and then coupling it with abnormal suppression of stressful resolution:

Seyle studied stress by identifying those situations in which it occurs. A stressor is an event that places inordinate demands on the body and, in turn, sets off natural adaptive bodily defenses to cope with it. The process that he labeled the General Adaptation Syndrome includes three stages: the alarm reaction, resistance, and exhaustion. During the alarm reaction, there are increases in hormone levels, strong physical arousal, and severe emotional upheavals. When the alarm reaction is not sufficient to cope, the stressor maintains its attack. Enter resistance. During this stage, when successful, the stressor is tamed and normality returns. If coping is not successful, however, hormonal reserves become depleted, fatigue sets in, and the stage of exhaustion takes over, during which adaptation to the stressor breaks down completely. (Devito, 1994, p. 27)

It is during the exhaustion phase, but really more the whole process of navigating up and down an arc of physiological and psychological response that exhaust the individual, which then results in either a continual physiological state of stress or a moderated level of stress, suppressed by social norms and this leads almost directly to stress-related illness. Unresolved and recurring stress can lead to depression, anxiety, serious illness or even death.

Illnesses associated with stress once were known as psychosomatic disorders; today, the term psychophysiological more commonly is used. They have been referred to as diseases of adaptation since they are rooted in attempts to adapt physiologically to everyday tensions and problems. Psychophysiological disorders encompass common physical ailments such as asthma, chronic hyperventilation, peptic ulcers, colitis, hypertension, heart attacks, hives, and acne. Research by the psychologist Marianne Frankenhauser has corroborated Seyles' landmark work. Frankenhauser found that urban commuting, job dissatisfaction, personal conflict, loss of control over individual life decisions, taking exams, noise, anticipation of aversive events, and even boredom are profound stressors. (Devito, 1994, p. 27)

It is also important to note more modern connections between stress-induced illnesses and fundamental imbalances which can manifest into physical conditions that harbor disease, such as clinical obesity and even a simple state of overweight which is a result of adaptive physiology going wrong and effecting the body in negative ways. Though many like to attribute overweight and obesity to lifestyle choices and therefore behavioral problems, associate with over eating and a sedentary lifestyle the condition is often a symptom of stress that then exacerbates other stress related or non-stress related illness, such as diabetes, heart disease, clinical hypertension and even depression anxiety. The hormones that are coursing through the body with stress reactions play an important role in weight and can create a domino effect situation where added stressors are experienced as a result of the initial stress reaction, i.e. The body is overweight and stress is associated with body image and an inability to control weight and health.

Stress and the Corrections Field

Stress can be found in all aspects of work life but some occupations are significantly more likely to result in unresolved stress. Particularly the service industries as one must mitigate not only the physical on a regular basis but must do so in an environment where they have to deal with social and personal issues as well. The needs of others can supersede the needs of self and profession and reasonable adaptive functioning is essential to getting along well enough to do the job and reduce environmental stress. There is no better example than that of the corrections industry. Corrections is a growing industry in the U.S., often limited in resources, personnel and even physical space and it is an inherently difficult and taxing job on top of that. There are in fact so many sources of stress in corrections that the field deserves and has its own field of psychological study, for those incarcerated and those who are charged with maintaining order and protecting the physical and mental well being of an often unwilling and even combative body of individuals. The field has high turnover and has even been said to attract individuals to it that are of a particular mind set to be more stressed than others, burnout is a common occupational hazard.

There is considerable evidence that work in the corrections field can be stressful. [7] Several different sources of stress among correctional officers have been identified. One such source is role ambiguity, which is defined as the uncertainty employees feel regarding the expectations, responsibilities and priorities of their jobs. [8] for example, employees may have been told not to leave their posts but later are reprimanded for not responding to an emergency in another part of the institution. Another potential source of stress is role conflict. Consistently, officers are trained to follow rules "to the letter," rather than to use discretion and judgment to enforce rules while preventing the escalation of certain situations. This creates problems because not all possible situations are described in the rules. Novel situations require employees to use their own judgment. Whenever an atypical situation is encountered and handled, it is possible that an inmate will report staff for showing favoritism. Because of their jobs and these types of situations, correctional employees may experience difficulty appeasing both administrators and inmates without feeling caught in the middle of a no-win situation. (Black, 2001, p. 83)

Role ambiguity, rigid standards and compilations of extreme real and possible situations that are not always referenced in rules or training create a heightened sense of stress. Additionally, dealing with inmates, as an unpredictable source of conflict is inherently difficult.

Contact with inmates also has been identified as a source of stress, i.e., continual supervision of and frequent interactions with inmates. The perceived lack of authority over inmates also has been found as a potential source of stress. [9] This lack of authority has been described as the officers' informal daily influence on inmate activity and behavior. A related factor is the employees' perception of a lack of "institutional control" over inmates. [10] "Institutional control" refers to the administrative, centralized policy and procedures. Prison reform and legal regulations have restricted the procedures prison administrators may use to control inmate behavior. These restrictions can be perceived by correctional employees as limiting staff authority and seemingly increasing inmate rights and authority. Carroll M. Brodsky of the University of California has suggested two key factors associated with reported levels of stress: competition with peers for attractive work assignments, and lack of support from co-workers and supervisors. (Black, 2001, p. 83)

Staffs in correctional facilities are at high risk for stress related illness, as many issues compound to create fundamental challenges that are not always met with fundamental solutions and on top of this they are at constant risk of physical and emotional harm as a result of interactions with an unpredictable and risky population.

The results of the study indicate that staff as a whole identified inmate-related matters and work in corrections as the most frequently occurring category of stress. The most frequent inmate-related matters reported were: "Inmates make demands or requests of you" and "Inmates complain to you." In terms of work in corrections, the most frequently reported events were: "Staff are outnumbered within specific areas, such as the dining hall or the visiting room, "There are staff shortages where and when you work" and "You are aware that inmates have weapons even though you don't know for sure who or where." The categories identified as the most stressful for staff overall were emergencies, administrative issues, work in corrections and policy and procedures. Ironical]y, emergencies were noted as the least frequently occurring events. The events within the emergency category that were the most stressful were: "You witness an inmate physically assaulting staff" and "You see an inmate threatening staff." (Black, 2001, p. 83)

Research in the corrections field, in fact indicates that emergencies and stress are associated more with the potential for emergencies rather than their actual occurrence but stress many fundamentally substandard aspects of the work environment that compound a constant sense of awareness and alertness for emergent problems.

The most stressful events within the administrative issues category were: "Administrators minimize problems within the institution," "You find that what counts at work is who you know, not what you know" and "You do not have the opportunity to discuss matters before the administration takes actions that impact you." The most stressful event within the work in corrections category was: "There are staff shortages when and where you work" (also one of the most frequently occurring events). Within the policy and procedures category, the most stressful events were: "You see inconsistencies regarding staff discipline," "You witness errors resulting from rotations or from people working in places that they shouldn't" and "You see people get promoted because of who they know, not what they know." The frequency and stressfulness ratings were multiplied for each event to determine which categories were the most important sources of stress. These calculations suggested that work in corrections was the most important source of stress. Within this category, the specific events that seem to be the most important sources of stress included: "There are staff shortages when and where you work," "Staff are outnumbered within specific areas, such as the dining hall or the visiting room," "You are aware that inmates have weapons even though you don't know for sure who or where," "You have to deal with management problems stemming from overcrowding" and "You do not know what to expect or what might happen during your shift." (Black, 2001, p. 83)

It would seem that corrections as a field has little to offer, yet this is certainly not true, as many are called to the work as a matter of course, something they always wanted to do for many reasons and their experiences though stressful are often the ones that will stay with them for their entire lives. Learning to mitigate normalcy and health in such an extreme work environment, in and of itself is a source of pride and accomplishment for many that can be seen as a reward that makes many other things worth it. While for others the load of stress is simply more than they can handle and they choose, despite their calling to leave corrections, resulting in high turnover, in a field that can use all the help it can get, but that demands high quality staff for many reasons, not the least of which is the constant exposure to stress.

Correctional employees constantly are exposed to an environment that is patently stressful, providing care, custody and control for a population that is held unwillingly, unhappily and often, uncooperatively. Prisons are a growth industry in the United States; according to Dean Aufderheide… the prison population has increased by more than 65,000 inmates per year for the last decade, fueled by mandatory sentencing, increased sanctions for drug offenses and increasing portions of sentences served past minimum dates. Approximately 2 million people are incarcerated in the United States, representing 25% of the world's incarcerated population. An estimated one in 20 people will be incarcerated at some point in their lives if current rates continue. (Fix, 2001, p. 94)

The growth of the correctional industry is exponential and severely taxes the resources allotted for it. In addition to this the growth leaves the system with limitations that even further tax it, such as overcrowding that demands double housing or multi-housing situation that inmates are nearly always railing against and staff must mitigate conflict resulting from. All this ina climate where regulations are often stricter than the facility has the resources to provide.