Correctional Employee Wellness Monograph

Figure 1 Agency-Staff Wellness Program Offerings (N=70)

Programs offered at similar rates (within 10%) • C ritical incident debriefings • N utrition • S ocial Engagement Activities • F amily Events • P reventative Health Screens • F itness • E xternal Referrals • F amily and Marriage Counseling • M indfulness • P hysical Therapy

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

State > Local (more than 10%) • E mployee Assistance Program • P eer Support • H ealth Education • R esiliency Support Programs Local > State (more than 10%) • D rug and Alcohol Treatment • H ealth Fairs • Yoga

Local (n=25)

State (n=45)

Results Results are presented within each area addressed by the scan, as outlined in the numbered list on page 6 of this document. Overall results are presented first, followed by corrections agency type (state and local) and community setting findings. Wellness offerings The scan asked about the overall provision of employee assistance programs and 17 specific wellness program of- ferings. Four percent (three respondents) do not offer staff wellness programming. Two of these agencies are local and one is state. The range of staff wellness programs offered by correc- tions agencies is broad, as shown in Table 1. At the time of this scan (Fall 2020), 40% or more (green table cells) of agencies most commonly provide critical incident debrief- ings, preventative health programs, peer support, referrals to external entities and fitness programs. Agencies least commonly offer mindfulness, yoga and physical therapy. Corrections agency type offerings are shown in Figure 1. Almost half of programs are offered at similar rates across state and local agencies. Figure 1 also shows pro- grams offered more at local vs. state agencies and state vs.

The scan was sent to 50 states agencies as well as 37 local detention facilities. It was completed by 45 states and 25 local detention facilities for a combined response rate of 80.46%. All completed scan responses were analyzed. Scans were completed within each region of the Coalition of Correctional Health Authorities (CCHA) and Correc- tional Leader’s Association (CLA). The community setting for local agencies were catego- rized based upon the number of beds within the agency, and included rural, suburban and urban. “Rural” agencies had 0–100 beds, “Suburban” agencies had 101–400 beds, and “Urban” agencies had more than 401 beds. Respondents provided scan data for all U.S. regions and are analyzed by location, size and type of agency, col- lectively representing 1,016 institutions and 355,076 staff members. As expected, state agencies are larger in size compared to local agencies, averaging 21 vs. 2 institu- tions and 7,397 vs. 965 staff members for state and local agencies, respectively. All four rural agencies have one institution with an average of 32 staff (range 16–45). Sub- urban agencies have an average of 1.5 institutions (range 1–3) with 83 staff (range 31–200). Urban agencies have an average of three institutions (range 1–9) with 1,619 staff (range 33–10,000).

7