Corrections_Today_November_December_2019

Are you ready for San Diego? p. 7

November/December 2019 Today Corrections

149 th Congress of Correction Boston Recap p. 34

News & Views AND more

Better the public good TM

We are solution makers. We take pride in solving the tough challenges facing government at all levels. We are reentry professionals. We help individuals gain the skills needed to successfully reenter the community. We are civic partners. Driven by a deep sense of service, we help government better the public good.

A national leader providing high-quality corrections and detention services.

Delivering a wide range of innovative, cost-saving real estate solutions.

An expanding network of residential reentry centers working to address America’s recidivism crisis.

www.CoreCivic.com

THE PATH

TO PROGRESS

STARTS WITH

REAL-LIFE

The IN2WORK program provides robust training in the food service and retail industries, culminating with ServSafe certification from the National Restaurant Association or a certificate from Strayer University. Program graduates also have opportunities for an internship with Aramark while still incarcerated, to continue their education, and gain access to job placement resources through our Employment Portal once they are released. So, offenders gain real-life job and interpersonal skills, improving their ability to achieve progress in society—and stay out of the criminal justice system. TRAINING

IN2WORK has a proven track record in improving outcomes for offenders. Learn more about how we can be your partner in reducing recidivism by visiting us at www.aramark.com/corrections.

WWW.ARAMARK.COM/CORRECTIONS • 1-800-ARAMARK WWW.ARAMARK.COM/CORRECTIONS • 1-800-ARAMARK

1

American Correctional Association Corrections Today November/December 2019 Vol. 81, No. 6

26 Features

Hope, vision and a salad

a day: How to “Change Your Angle” A Green Prisons Series Part 1 By Sgt. Michael McLeon

34 Conference Overview ACA’s finest meet in Boston! By Robert Breckenridge II, Alexander Carrigan and Molly Law, M.A.

Cover photos: Background: istock/Byelikova_Oksana; conference photo: courtesy Lovestruck Images

Conference photos on this page courtesy Lovestruck Images

2 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Experience. Partner with At Wexford Health, correctional medicine is the only thing we do. For the past three decades, we have successfully managed offender health care programs at facilities of every size, mission, and security level. Let us apply our broad range of experience to help you deliver quality, cost-effective health care. Partner with experience. Partner with Wexford Health.

Learn about our commitment to raising the standard of correctional medicine at www.wexfordhealth.com .

3

News&Views

6

From Jim’s Desk

6

Correctional Chaplain Perspectives

8

Juvenile Justice News

12

8

NIJ Update

20

65 ACA Featured Departments

Welcome New Members

66

Certification List

70

12

Bookshelf

72

Correctional Health Perspectives

76

Professional Development Update

82

Certification Spotlight

84

Accreditation Byline

86

Corrections Calendar

94

Index to Advertisers/ Product Index/Job Bank

96

76

4 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Chapters and affiliates

Alabama Council on Crime and Delinquency—Albany Criminal Justice Association—Alston Wilkes Society—American Catholic Correctional Ministries—American Correctional Health Services Association—American Institute of Architects—American Jail Association—American Probation and Parole Association—Appalachian State University Student Chapter— Arizona Probation, Parole and Corrections Association—Arizona State University ACA Student Chapter—Association for Correctional Research and Information Management—Association of Correctional Food Service Affiliates—Association of Paroling Authorities International—Association of State Correctional Administrators—Association of Programs for Female Offenders—Association of Women Executives in Corrections—Bellmont High School Student Chapter—Brown Mackie College ACA Student Chapter— California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association—Caribbean Correctional Association—Champlain Valley Educational Services— Clayton State University Justice Society—Colorado Criminal Justice Association—Columbia-Greene Community College—Criminal Justice Club Student Chapter—Concordia University Sociology of Law & Justice Club—Connecticut Criminal Justice Association—Correctional Accreditation Managers Association—Correctional Association of Massachusetts— Correctional Education Association—Correctional Healthcare Providers of the United States—Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators—District of Columbia Criminal Justice Association—Eastern Kentucky University Corrections and Juvenile Justice Student Association—Family and Corrections Network—Florida Council on Crime and Delinquency—Harrison College Criminal Justice Association Student Chapter—Hawaii Criminal Justice Association—Historical Association for Corrections—Illinois Correctional Association—Indiana Criminal Justice Association—Integrated Correctional Association of the Philippines (ICAP) Inc.—International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology—International Association of Correctional Training Personnel—International Correctional Arts Network—International Corrections and Prisons Association— International Community Corrections Association—Iowa Corrections Association—Jamaica Federation of Corrections—ITT-Technical Institute ACA Student Chapter—Ivy Tech Community College Terre Haute Branch ACA Student Chapter—Juvenile Justice Trainers Association—Kansas Correctional Association—Kentucky Council on Crime and Delinquency

Inc.—Louisiana Correctional Association—Martin University Student Chapter—Maryland Criminal Justice Association—Michigan Corrections Association—Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association—Minnesota Corrections Association—Missouri Corrections Association—Missouri Western University Student Chapter—Moraine Park Technical College Corrections Club—National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice— National Association of Correctional Record Administrators and Supervisors—National Association of Juvenile Correctional Agencies— National Association of Probation Executives—National Association of Adult and Juvenile State Corrections Mental Health Directors—National Correctional Industries Association Inc.—National Council on Crime and Delinquency—National Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators— National Juvenile Detention Association—National Major Gang Task Force— National Organization of Hispanics in Criminal Justice—National Partnership for Juvenile Services—Nebraska Correctional Association—Nevada Corrections Association—New Jersey Chapter Association—New Mexico Criminal Justice Association—New York Corrections and Youth Services Association—North American Association of Wardens and Superintendents— North Carolina Correctional Association—Northern Illinois University Academic Justice Association—Ohio Correctional and Court Services Association—Oklahoma Correctional Association—Oregon Criminal Justice Association—Parole and Probation Compact Administrators Association— Pennsylvania Association of Probation, Parole and Corrections—Pierce College Criminal Justice Club—Prison Fellowship—Puerto Rico Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Association—Richmond Community College Student Chapter—St.Augustine’s College ACA Student Chapter— Salvation Army—South Carolina Correctional Association—Southern States Correctional Association—State University of New York–Albany—Tennessee Corrections Association—Texas Corrections Association—University of Central Missouri Student Chapter—University of Illinois/Chicago Criminal Justice Society—Utah Correctional Association—Virginia Correctional Association—Volunteers of America Inc.—Washburn University ACA Student Chapter—Washington Correctional Association—Western Illinois University Corrections Club—Western Correctional Association—Westwood College Angels—Wisconsin Correctional Association—WITC New Richmond Criminal Justice Club—Wyoming Correctional Association

OFFICERS President Gary C. Mohr, Ohio Immediate Past President Lannette C. Linthicum, M.D., FACP, Texas Vice President Tony M. Wilkes, Tennessee President-Elect Tony C. Parker, Tennessee Treasurer Denise M. Robinson, Ohio Board of Governors Representatives

Elizabeth F. “Beth” Arthur Derrick D. Schofield, Ph.D. Secretary James A. Gondles Jr., CAE, Virginia

EDITORIAL STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF James A. Gondles Jr., CAE Managing Editor Floyd Nelson

Senior Editor Molly Law, M.A.

Associate Editor Alexander Carrigan GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION STAFF Graphic Designers

Joe Broderick Carla DeCarlo

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING STAFF Director, Conventions, Advertising and Corporate Relations Kelli McAfee Production Coordinator Mary Misisco EPS/Printing Services MVP Press • Dulles, VA ACA Executive Office and Directors Executive Director James A. Gondles Jr., CAE Deputy Executive Director Jeffrey Washington Executive Office Director Debbi Seeger senior executive Assistant India Vargas

Article and photo submissions: Managing Editor, 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314; email submissions@aca.org. Articles must be in Microsoft Word. Please include all contact information. Unless expressly requested in writing, all photos and artwork submitted become the property of ACA and may be used in future ACA publications. Articles and photos will not be returned unless expressly requested by author. Microfilm: Corrections Today is available for electronic reproduction through ProQuest Information and Learning Co., 300 N. Zeeb Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346; 313-761-4700.

Connect with us online

www.facebook.com/ AmericanCorrectional Association

Advertising inquiries: Production coordinator, 800-222-5646 ext. 0019. Written inquiries should be mailed to 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Statements contained in Corrections Today are the personal views of the authors and do not constitute ACA policy unless so indicated. ACA does not assume responsibility for the content of Corrections Today as submitted by contributors, reserves the right to edit all articles and, if necessary, condense them. The publication of any advertisement by ACA is neither an endorsement of the advertiser nor of the products or services advertised. ACA is not responsible for any claims made in advertisements. Mission statement: The American Correctional Association provides a professional organization for all individuals and groups, both public and private, that share a common goal of improving the justice system. Corrections Today (ISSN 0190-2563, USPS 019-640) is published six times a year in January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, September/October, November/ December by the American Correctional Association, 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-224-0000. Periodicals postage paid at Alexandria, VA 22314 and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Corrections Today, Attn: Membership Department, 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314. Subscriptions are included in annual membership dues. Nonmember subscription rates are $25 per year for Corrections Today ($36 value) or $6 per issue. Send change of address notice and a recent mailing label to Membership and Customer Service Department, ACA, 60 days before the actual change of address. ACA will not replace undelivered copies resulting from an address change. Printed in USA. Vol. 81, No. 6. Copyright 2019 by the American Correctional Association.

www.twitter.com/ ACAinfo

www.instagram.com/ amercorrectionalassoc

Communications and Publications Director Floyd Nelson

Conventions, Advertising and Corporate Relations Director Kelli McAfee

www.linkedin.com/ company/american- correctional-association

Financial Services, Human Resources and Information Technology Director Hok Gao, CPA Membership and Customer Service Director Roberta Gibson Office of Correctional Health Director Elizabeth Gondles, Ph.D. Professional Development Director

www.youtube.com/user/ AmericanCorrectional/ featured

Standards and Accreditation Director David Haasenritter

Corrections Today November/December 2019 — 5

From Jim’s Desk 2019 nEWS & vIEWS

A s we near the end of 2019, it is a good time to reflect about the year. Tragedy after tragedy befell our nation with mass shootings. Incidents of mass murder (principally over the issue of gun

control) continue the never-ending process of division in our nation. Our national dialogue includes put-downs, accusations of stupidity, making fun of those we don’t agree with and belittling serious problems

facing our country.

It matters not at all where you come from on this issue, nor for that matter any other issue that divides us. What matters, in my opinion, is how we treat each other. We need to bring back into our conversations listening, understand- ing other points of view, being respectful of those of whom we differ and not taking ourselves quite so seriously. Easy to write, hard to do. As 2019 comes to a close, my prayer is that 2020 will usher in a new dialogue. One that is more kind and, frankly, gentle. Oh! Heck! I forgot! It’s a presi- dential election year! Forget it. It’s only going to get worse! Happy New Year!

James A. Gondles Jr., CAE ACA Executive Director

istock/Irina Vodneva

6 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Learn, Network, Connect in San Diego

#ACAWinter2020

T he American Correc- tional Association’s awaits you in San Diego! This year, the Winter Confer- ence will take place from Jan. 9–14 in San Diego, a city known for its blue skies, 70 miles of beaches, an average of 70-degree weather and the state-of-the-art San Diego Convention Center. ACA’s 2020 Winter Con- ference is a one-of-a-kind corrections event where you can connect face-to-face with industry leaders and discuss the newest trends and issues in our field. Get all the ques- tions to your answers through workshops and demonstrations while you explore exhib- its and strengthen industry relationships. In addition to this profes- sional opportunity, explore San Diego as a destination. From the moment you touch down, you will be captivated by its natural beauty, endless sunshine, easy- going California vibe and ideal location on the Pacific Ocean. Whether this year’s event will be bringing you to San Diego for the first time or the tenth time, the city is constantly evolving and always has more to discover. Don’t miss this exciting opportunity! Register now for the 2020 Winter Conference and we’ll see you in San Diego! 2020 Winter Conference

Infographic courtesy the San Diego Convention Center

Register, make hotel reservations and arrange transportation at: register.aca.org

Corrections Today November/December 2019 — 7

nEWS & vIEWS

Correctional Chaplain Perspectives

Chaplains in the execution chamber

By Ronald G. Turner, J.D., Ph.D.

T he scene is familiar. An in- by the warden, several correctional officers and a chaplain. Most cor- rections professionals have never witnessed this scene, but we chap- lains are very familiar with it. From books, movies and television we all know what is happening and why each person is there. The inmate is facing execution, the warden is over- seeing the process, the officers are maintaining security and the chaplain is giving spiritual support not only to the inmate, but to the staff as well. 1 Legal questions Many of us probably assume an inmate has a Constitutional right for a chaplain to be present at an execu- tion, but the situation may not be that simple, and many legal ques- tions often arise. For example, can the chaplain be present against the inmate’s wishes? Does the chaplain have a Constitutional right to be present? What if the chaplain is of a different faith? Can the inmate’s personal spiritual adviser be pres- ent instead of a staff chaplain? What if the inmate’s personal spiritual adviser is not ordained? Can the mate moves slowly toward the execution chamber escorted

inmate’s personal spiritual adviser be present if the deadline for mak- ing such a request has passed? What does “present” at the execution even

United States Supreme Court in the following two cases in early 2019. Dunn v. Ray 2 In 1995, Dominique Hakim Marcelle Ray robbed, raped and murdered a 15-year-old girl in Alabama; he had previously mur- dered two teenage brothers. He was convicted and sentenced to death. Between 2001 and 2017, Ray filed numerous appeals, and in 2006 he became a devout Muslim. The Ala- bama Department of Corrections did not have any Muslim chaplains, so Ray began regular contact visits with a personal spiritual adviser (Imam). On Nov. 6, 2018, Ray’s execution date was set for Feb. 7, 2019. On Jan. 23, 2019, Ray met with the war- den who explained that per prison policy, the staff chaplain, a Christian, would be inside the execution cham- ber, but Ray’s Imam would only be allowed in a separate room watching through a large window. The record is unclear as to whether Ray or his attorney were aware of this policy prior to January 23. Ray asked that his Imam be allowed inside the exe- cution chamber and that the Christian staff chaplain be excluded. Ray also asked for a copy of the execution

Many of us probably assume an inmate has a Constitutional right for a chaplain to be present at an execution, but the situation may not be that simple, and many legal questions often arise.

mean? Does it mean inside the execu- tion chamber or outside the chamber viewing through a glass window? The questions go on and on. Many of these questions were discussed by the

8 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Correctional Chaplain Perspectives

policy. Both requests were denied. However, the prison later agreed to exclude the Christian chaplain. On Jan. 28, 2019, Ray filed a motion to stay the execution in the United States District Court, alleg- ing violation of his rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and under the Reli- gious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 3 He claimed that excluding his Imam while al- lowing a Christian chaplain to be in the execution chamber violated these laws. On Feb. 1, 2019, the District Court denied the motion finding (i) Ray had inexcusably delayed filing his motion, (ii) no substantial burden was being placed on Ray’s religious exercise by excluding his Imam and (iii) there was not a less restric- tive way to promote security in the execution chamber. On Feb. 6, 2019, the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court and stayed the execution. On Feb. 7, 2019, in a 5 to 4 deci- sion, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the stay and allowed the execution to proceed, because Ray waited until the “last minute” to seek relief. 4 Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were in the majority. Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor dissented, stating that (i) the policy allowing the state’s Christian chap- lain in the execution chamber but not allowing spiritual advisors of other faiths shows preference for one religious denomination over another in violation of the Establishment Clause, (ii) there are less restrictive ways to guarantee security in the execution chamber (for example, train Ray’s Imam and hold the Imam

istock/StockPhotosArt

adviser would be permitted inside the execution chamber. On March 5, 2019, the TDCJ responded that per its policy, only staff chaplains would be permitted inside the execution chamber. The TDCJ employed no Buddhist staff chaplains. On March 20, 2019, Murphy pe- titioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a Writ of Prohibition ask- ing that the execution be delayed until a decision could be made regard- ing the attendance by his Buddhist spiritual adviser. On March 25, 2019, the Writ was denied because it was not timely filed. On March 26, 2019, Murphy filed a motion to stay the execution in the United States District Court, which was denied because Murphy had engaged in inexcusably dilatory litigation. On March 27, 2019, the 5 th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the stay finding the District Court had not abused its discretion. On March 28, 2019, in a 6 to 3

in contempt if he interferes), (iii) Ray learned from the warden of the policy on Jan. 23, 2019 and timely filed his motion on Jan. 28, 2019, (iv) the warden refused to give Ray a copy of the policy, (v) an Alabama statute states that an inmate’s spiritual advi- sor “may be present at an execution” and (vi) Ray’s religious rights will be violated “at the moment the state puts him to death.” 5 Murphy v. Collier 6 In 2003, Patrick Henry Murphy was convicted of murder in Texas and sentenced to death. In 2012, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) made public a policy allowing only staff chaplains to be inside the execution chamber dur- ing an execution. In 2018, Murphy’s execution date was set for March 28, 2019. On Feb. 29, 2019, Mur- phy’s attorney sent a letter to the TDCJ asking if his Buddhist spiritual

Corrections Today November/December 2019 — 9

nEWS & vIEWS

decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the execution. Chief Jus- tice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh were in the majority. Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dissented. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh noted that policy permitted Christian and Muslim staff chaplains to enter the execu- tion chamber but did not permit religious advisers of other faiths to enter the execution chamber. Justice Kavanaugh stated that “The Consti- tution prohibits such denominational discrimination. Allow all inmates to have a religious adviser … in the execution room; or … allow inmates to have a religious adviser, including state-employed chaplains, only in the viewing room …” 7 On April 2, 2019, the TDCJ changed its policy to ex- clude all staff chaplains and personal religious advisers from inside the execution chamber. Guidelines From these cases, it appears that the Supreme Court has established two guidelines for excluding staff chaplains and non-staff spiritual advisers from inside the execution chamber during an execution. Legal counsel should be consulted before implementing these guidelines as the law in this area continues to evolve, particularly in cases involving late- filed motions. 8 1. The state may exclude all staff chaplains and non-staff spiri- tual advisers from inside the execution chamber during an execution. 9 2. The state may not exclude some. That is, staff chaplains and/or spiritual advisers of

one faith may not be excluded from inside the execution chamber if the state allows staff chaplains and/or spiritual advisers of other faiths inside the execution chamber. 10

3 Ray v. Dunn. Case No. 2:19-CV-88-WKM[WO] (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division 2019). Section 2000cc-1(a) of RLUIPA states that “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution … unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person … (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 4 Dunn, slip opinion, p. 1. 5 Dunn, slip opinion, p.2-3. 6 Murphy v. Collier, No 18A985, (Supreme Court 8 See Bucklew v. Precythe, No. 17-851 (Supreme Court of the United States 2019) and Dunn v. Price, No. 18A1053/18A1238 (Supreme Court of the United States 2019). 9 While this guideline addresses the issue of treating chaplains (and spiritual advisers) of different faiths equally, it may be subject to challenge under RLUIPA. For example, if an inmate sincerely requests the presence of a staff chaplain or a spiritual adviser inside the execution chamber for religious reasons, the state would then have the burden under RLUIPA of showing their absence is the least restrictive way to maintain security in the execution chamber. As the dissenting justices noted in the Dunn case above, less restrictive ways may be available. 10 Arguably, under RLUIPA chaplains and spiritual advisers of one faith could be permitted inside the execution chamber while chaplains and spiritual advisers of another faith were excluded, if the state could show (i) a compelling governmental reason for the different treatment, and (ii) the different treatment is the least restrictive way to achieve that compelling governmental reason. 11 The majority in Dunn v. Ray included Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The majority in Murphy v. Collier included Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Roberts, and Kavanaugh. 12 Interview of Catholic Deacon Frank Bainbridge, retired volunteer chaplain at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, Nashville, Tennessee, by the author on August 15, 2019. Dr. Ronald G. Turner is an attorney and the former director of Religious and Volunteer Services for the Tennessee Department of Correction. He is an adjunct instructor at Nashville State Community College. of the United States 2019). 7 Murphy, slip opinion, p. 2.

Final Note

It is interesting that Justice Kavanaugh voted with the more con- servative justices in Dunn v. Ray and a month later voted with the more lib- eral justices in Murphy v. Collier. 11 In Dunn v. Ray, he voted to lift the stay and proceed with the execution. In Murphy v. Collier, he voted to main- tain the stay and not execute Murphy unless Murphy’s personal spiritual adviser was present, or all staff chap- lains and personal spiritual advisers were banned. Whether this voting pattern indicates Justice Kavanaugh, a Catholic, is more aware of religious discrimination than some justices re- mains to be seen. Finally, banning all staff chaplains and spiritual advisers from inside the execution chamber may be a simple answer to difficult questions, but it is hard to imagine a setting more in need of a chaplain than an execution chamber being put to use. As one volunteer chaplain with 35 years’ experience said, “At the end he asked me to touch his knee and read the 23 rd Psalm. I felt positive I was where God wanted me to be, doing what God wanted me to do — helping bring peace to a very serious situation.” 12 ENDNOTES 1 Welborn, Jerry. 2019. Reflections of a prison chaplain. College Grove, Tenn.: Imaginal Publishing. 41. 2 Dunn v. Ray, No 18A815, (Supreme Court of the United States 2019).

10 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Correctional Behavioral Health Training and Certi cation Program

Adult Correctional Officers • Juvenile Justice Professionals Allied Behavioral Health Staff • Community Corrections Officers

This program ensures a candidate’s knowledge of national expected practices and guidelines, legal and ethical principles and relevant security regulations. It also validates the role of correctional professionals associated with the provision of behavioral health services for mentally ill inmates or o enders in correctional settings.

“The CBHC training offered valuable perspectives for custody and health services staff working as a multidisciplinary service team.” —Terri L. Catlett, Deputy Director – Health Services North Carolina Department of Public Safety

“The program is a benchmark that targets specialized training needs for staff interacting with correctional behavioral health populations today. It promotes public safety and safer prisons by increasing the level

of professionalism for our correctional officers as it builds knowledge, skills and abilities tomanage our growing behavioral health populations.” —Tony Parker, Commissioner Tennessee Department of Correction

“The American Correctional Association’s Correctional Behavioral Health Certification helps us reach the goal of successfully training our officers to be better at managing this difficult population.” —Daron Hall, Sheriff Davidson’s County Sheriff’s Office

For more information, email healthcare@aca.org

11

nEWS & vIEWS

Juvenile Justice News

CJCA Toolkit: Recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified staff Part I: Staff Retention

By Sharon Pette and Michael Dempsey

I n January 2019, the Council of Juvenile Correctional Admin- istrators (CJCA) published the “CJCA Toolkit: Recruiting, Hiring, and Retaining Qualified Staff.” This toolkit was prepared with sup- port from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion (OJJDP) through the Center for Coordinated Assistance to the States (CCAS). The toolkit offers juvenile justice facilities and other social service sectors a framework for exploring strategies for recruit- ing, hiring and retaining direct care staff. The toolkit includes resources (i.e. examples, templates and tools) that may be used to improve current practices and, ultimately, to select and retain qualified staff. The goals of the toolkit are to: 1) Share literature on best practices for recruiting and retaining direct care staff. 2) Explore factors contributing to staff retention and turnover. 3) Provide specific strategies for recruiting, hiring and retaining competent staff.

4) Offer a series of steps to con- sider within each section. While the toolkit addresses all three workforce development areas (recruitment, hiring and retention), this initial article focuses attention on influencing factors and strategies for retaining qualified direct care staff. To supplement the toolkit, CJCA created a Staff Recruitment and Retention Shared Resource Folder which offers additional resources and can be accessed through the link provided in the toolkit. Beginning

The toolkit includes resources that may be used to improve current practices and, ultimately, to select and retain qualified staff.

in March 2019, CJCA selected three jurisdictions through a compet- itive application process to par- ticipate in the first Staff Recruitment

and Retention (SRR) Techni- cal Training and Assistance (TTA) cohort.

istock/jangeltun

12 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Juvenile Justice News

The cohort involves three webinars, monthly TTA calls with individual ju- risdictions (team members), monthly individual calls with the SRR team leader, and a team leader collabora- tion/networking meeting. The goal of the eight-month program is to assist jurisdictions in developing a com- prehensive workforce development plan. Sharon Pette, an independent consultant (Effective System Innova- tions, LLC), provides the training. Using lean management techniques and structured meeting agendas, jurisdictions will emerge from the TTA program with a comprehensive implementation plan to effectively re- cruit, hire and retain direct care staff. Over the course of the past two decades, the issue of hiring and retaining juvenile justice staff has received increased attention. As the body of evidence-based research has grown, juvenile justice agencies throughout the nation have embraced a reformative approach to working with youthful offenders. Although data shows the positive impact of using research-proven treatment approaches, employing such ap- proaches has created challenges with hiring and retaining qualified and competent staff. Traditionally, the role of a “juvenile correctional officer” was solely to maintain safety and security and to control the popu- lation. More recently, the role of a juvenile direct care staff worker has shifted to include that of a “coun- selor” who leads youth in developing skills through role modeling and mentoring. Many jurisdictions re- quire direct care staff to engage with youth using a strengths-based ap- proach and varying techniques, such as therapeutic coaching, interactive

More recently, the role of a juvenile direct care staff worker has shifted to include that of a “counselor” who leads youth in developing skills through role modeling and mentoring.

Research has shown that staff turnover can have a detrimental and costly impact on facility culture, financial resources and youth out- comes. More specifically: – – Staff departures increase the risk of serious incidents. Vacancies can lead to a reduced staff-to-youth ratio and increase the risk of youth and staff injuries. – – High staff turnover increases stress on direct care staff and negatively impacts morale. High staff turnover leads to frequent use of mandatory over- time, as supervisors attempt to cover critical vacancies (e.g., mandatory posted positions). Regular use of mandatory over-

supervision and supportive skill development. As such, juvenile justice facilities must seek individu- als who possess a unique skill set and whose personality characteristics and qualifications can foster healthy coping, living and relationship skills. Many agencies find themselves asking, “How do we find qualified staff?” “How do we know potential candidates will be a good fit for our agency/facility?” “How do we retain these staff members long term?” The issue and impact Many social service sectors (e.g., child welfare, juvenile justice, health care, etc.) have struggled with hiring and retaining adequate qualified staff. Research studies have estimated turnover among direct care staff in ju- venile justice facilities to be between 20% and 25% per year. (Minor, Wells, Angel, & Matz, 2011; Wright, 1993, as cited in Mikytuck & Cleary, 2016) One study found that “approxi- mately a quarter of newly hired staff resigned from state-operated juvenile correctional facilities within the first year of being hired and trained.” (Minor, Wells, Angel, & Matz, 2011, as cited in Wells, Minor, Lambert, & Tilley, 2016, p. 1558)

time promotes staff burnout, which can reduce morale and staff’s ability to engage with youth. interactions result in less- than-desired youth outcomes and failure to achieve the agency mission. Much of the treatment in a juvenile justice facility setting occurs in the context of daily staff interac- tions with youth. Operating

– – Decreased therapeutic

Corrections Today November/December 2019 — 13

nEWS & vIEWS

with less than adequate staffing levels or a facility using mostly temporary staff to cover vacan- cies can dilute the therapeutic nature of the staff-to-youth interaction. Consequently, high staff turnover can jeopardize an agency’s ability to achieve its mission and positively impact the lives of the youth it serves. – – Staff turnover is financially costly . High staff turnover forces an agency to cope with unantici- pated expenses such as overtime costs, workers compensation claims and legal fees that result from an increased number of serious incidents. In addition, hiring staff is a significant resource investment (e.g., train- ing, coaching, uniforms), and losing even one direct care staff can cost an agency thousands of dollars. Studies have estimated that when an employee exits, it costs an average of $31,000 per exiting employee resulting from resources needed for recruiting, training and onboarding new staff. (Minor et al., 2011) Wells et al. (2016) encapsulate the negative impact of turnover, saying, “Turnover can undermine effectiveness by creating personnel shortages, causing existing staff to be overworked, hampering staff morale, destabilizing daily operations, and hurting the agency’s public image. ... Resources expended in response to turnover (e.g., processing sepa- rations, paying overtime to cover vacancies, training new staff, etc.) and turnover intent (e.g., picking up slack for employees who want or plan to leave) are resources that

facility culture is the foundation for retaining qualified staff. Research indicates a work environment sup- ported by positive, caring staff who work collaboratively can contribute to lower turnover rates. Denhof, Spinaris and Morton (2014) highlight the components of a healthy culture and work environment to include: Friendly and supportive forms of interaction among staff members; respectful communications between coworkers, and between higher and lower ranking staff; respectful interactions between staff and justice-involved individuals; reliable, consistent and principled decision making and follow-through; and disciplined and exemplary role modeling by leadership. Stinchcomb et al. (2009) posit that agencies most successful in increasing staff retention share common characteristics. Some of these include “a close alignment between the agency’s mission/vision and its management practices; clear expectations and objective perfor- mance measures; opportunities for growth and development; employee integration through participatory management; and an organizational culture that values mutually sup- portive teamwork, inspiring a sense of ‘family’ as well as professional pride.” (p. 77) Similarly, Gregory P. Smith, author of “Here Today, Here Tomorrow: Transforming Your Workforce from High Turnover to High-Retention,” (2001, as cited in Stinchcomb et al., 2009) outlines eight critical elements common to agencies that experience low staff turnover (p. 87): 1) A clear sense of direction and purpose

cannot be devoted to either (a) pro- gramming and services to promote offender betterment or (b) improve- ments in pay, benefits, and work conditions that might better control staff turnover.” (p. 1559) Research indicates a work environment supported by positive, caring staff who work collaboratively can contribute to lower turnover rates. Influencing turnover Staff turnover can be influenced, and the strategy includes agency leaders deciding whether change is needed; making the commitment to change including devoting the necessary resources; understand- ing the problem by identifying the root causes of turnover using data; developing and implementing a comprehensive change strategy; con- sistently modeling “the change they wish to see”; leaders being visible and regularly interacting with direct care staff; and staying the course (i.e. overcoming resistance, maintaining enthusiasm, etc.). Agency and Facility Culture: Creating a healthy agency and

14 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Juvenile Justice News

organization in favorable terms which promotes a stronger bond with the agency. (Wells, Minor, et al 2016) – – “Inadequate pay, limited recognition, and few opportu- nities for professional growth and promotion are associated with increased dissatisfaction in correctional staff … yet this dissatisfaction did not sig- nificantly predict turnover.” In other words, it may be common for direct care staff members to be dissatisfied with their work, be disengaged while at work and still choose not to leave the organization. (Minor et al. 2009 as cited in Mikytuck & Clearly 2016) Matz et al. (2013, as cited in Wells et al., 2016) corroborate other research studies that indicate a staff member’s intent to leave can be re- duced by promoting job satisfaction, implementing strategies to increase organizational commitment, providing staff greater input into decisions and reducing job stress. Matz et al. (2013) suggest organizations target improve- ment efforts at “staff perceptions of supervision, organizational communi- cation, and coworkers.” (p. 127) The researchers explain when worker job satisfaction and a strong organiza- tional commitment are present, staff “have more favorable perceptions of the supervision they receive; believe that expectations and responsibilities are communicated in a way that stim- ulates staff motivation and promotes identification with the agency; and see their coworkers as reliable, trustwor- thy, and worthy of confidence.” (Matz et al., 2013, p. 127) →

“Just as becoming known as a ‘good place to work’ is appealing to job applicants, it is likewise a source of personal and professional pride for employees to be affiliated with such an organization. From pursuing a common vision to participating in positive activities, strong interpersonal relationships create the kind of team that everyone wants to play on.With mutual concern for everyone’s well-being, the bonds are forged that can convert a place to earn a living into a place to establish a lifelong commitment.” (Stinchcomb et al. 2009, p. 86)

2) Caring management 3) Flexible benefits and schedules adapted to the needs of the individual 4) Open communication 5) A charged work environment 6) Performance management 7) Reward and recognition 8) Training and development To develop an effective culture change strategy, leaders must look at each of these areas and determine in which areas the agency and/or facil- ity is falling short. Agencies must honestly ask themselves: How are we currently demonstrating each of these elements? What can we do to improve in this area? What specific steps do we need to take to create a work environment that reflects these elements? To better ensure success, a detailed workforce development change strategy should address defi- ciencies in all relevant areas. Job Satisfaction: Research con- sistently highlights job satisfaction as a significant factor influencing a

person’s decision to stay or leave. In addition, research indicates: –– 80-90% of employees leave for reasons related not to money, but rather because of job du- ties, the supervisor/manager, the work environment and the agency and facility culture. (Branham 2005 as cited in Stinchcomb et al. 2009) – – In a study of 1,000 employees, researchers found that while supervisors believe employees rank good wages as their top priority, survey data showed employees listing good wages as number five. In fact, “em- ployees were more interested in interesting work, appreciation, involvement and job security.” (Kovach as cited in Nink, 2010) – – Job satisfaction has a signifi- cant positive relationship with organizational commitment. (Lambert 2004 as cited in Wells, Minor, et al. 2016) – – Staff who are highly satisfied with their jobs tend to see the

Corrections Today November/December 2019 — 15

nEWS & vIEWS

Staff Safety: Research supports that when staff feel safe, they are more likely to report feeling con- nected to the agency’s mission and, therefore, more likely to remain in their positions. Staff-to-youth relationships can have a signifi- cant impact on preventing violence and maintaining a safe work en- vironment. When youth trust staff members, they are more likely to respond to verbal de-escalation. Training and ongoing coach- ing are necessary to ensure youth and staff safety. Training topics to consider included, but not limited to: Adolescent brain development, trauma-informed care, positive youth engagement strategies, situ- ational awareness, de-escalation, appropriate use of force, restraints, defensive disengagement, cognitive- behavioral treatment interventions and behavior management. Feeling competent in one’s skills allows staff to more effectively serve youth and allows staff to feel safe in their work environment. Structured programming also promotes a safe work environment. Reducing idle time by keeping youth engaged in programming will reduce incidents of assaults. Many juris- dictions have found that offering additional physical activities have a profound positive impact on facility safety. These activities also pro- vide opportunities for staff to build connections with young people. Similarly, building positive trusting relationships with coworkers and ef- fective communication also ensures consistency and fairness in staff responses to youth. High staff turnover threatens relationships and, consequently,

negatively impacts team cohesive- ness. Staff turnover can add stress to the personal and professional lives of staff; challenge staff’s abil- ity to serve as positive role models; and hamper staff’s ability to build trusting relationships with youth.

exacerbated by additional stressors, such as mandatory overtime, internal investigations of policy violations and completing administrative tasks. Exposure to such layers of trauma and stress can lead to secondary trauma, post-traumatic stress, com- passion fatigue and burnout for direct care staff. Agencies must acknowl- edge and respond to this reality. Dr. Chris Branson, a national expert in trauma, has conducted studies to examine the impact of trauma on juvenile justice staff. During the 2018 CJCA Leadership Institute meeting, Dr. Branson of- fered practical guidance to agencies when working with staff exposed to workplace trauma, which included tips, such as: 1) Relieve staff of their post im- mediately following a serious incident such as a suicide attempt or an assault to allow them time to decompress. 2) Follow up with staff to ask how they are doing and what they need, as part of formal debriefing procedures. The debriefing process should be available to all staff, not just those directly involved in the incident. 3) Include the impact of trauma on youth in pre-employment training; the impact of trauma on staff; specific skills for responding to youth; and skills for staff to manage their own stress and trauma. 4) Create peer support groups and offer voluntary meetings for direct care staff to gather to practice skills related to their own trauma (e.g., recognizing signs of trauma, knowing what

“… the greatest retention challenge is not how to reduce turnover. Rather, it is how to create such a deep, unified commitment to the organizational vision that employees will be reluctant to sever that bond.” (Stinchcomb et al. 2009)

Therefore, it is critical that agencies provide staff with the information, tools and support needed to ensure a safe environment for youth and staff. More specific information regarding this topic can be found in the CJCA Toolkit. Staff Health and Wellness: Staff health and wellness are critical factors influencing staff retention. Juvenile justice direct care staff are frequently exposed to trauma- tizing events, such as restraining youth, observing violent assaults between youth, physically interven- ing during youth fights and youth suicide attempts. This trauma can be

16 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today

Juvenile Justice News

their own triggers are, steps to working with their trauma). 5) Consider engaging a mental health clinician who special- izes in trauma and who may be contacted immediately follow- ing the event to provide staff support. Education, training and stress management programs can all help mitigate the negative impacts of work stress. Creating a healthy work environment begins with educat- ing staff during new employee orientation training (and ongoing)

on compassion fatigue, stress and burnout, vicarious/secondary trauma, signs and symptoms, the associ- ated risk factors and ways to seek support. Doing so sets the self-care expectation from the beginning and allows employees to develop a plan to prevent burnout. Creating a staff health and wellness committee which meets regularly to discuss challenges and develop solutions to managing stress and maintaining a work-life balance have been shown to impact staff wellness. Examples of self-care strategies include:

– – Contracting with a local gym for discounted rates for its em- ployees or allowing staff to use facility exercise equipment after work hours. – – Teaching staff cognitive- behavioral techniques to assist in changing staff responses and reactions to youth behaviors. – – Offering compressed work schedules to allow staff several consecutive days off (i.e. four 10-hour days per week). An alternative schedule can reduce stress and provide staff the personal time necessary to fully engage in work. In addition, from an agency perspective, this alternative schedule offers greater flexibility in creating shifts and work assignments — that is, a facility can have more staff in the facility to engage youth and increase supervision without having to increase the total number of staff. – – Placing a limit on the number of overtime hours permitted (e.g. maximum of four hours per day or week) since overtime is a significant contributor to burnout. Staff Recognition: Recogniz- ing and celebrating staff and team achievements can influence job satisfaction. Whether the agency is recognizing staff performance, years of service or a specific achievement, public acknowledgment and show- ing appreciation can be a protective factor against job burnout. These acknowledgments can be conveyed through a formal ceremony, facil- ity or administrator meetings or through an agency newsletter. →

istock/elenabs

Corrections Today November/December 2019 — 17

nEWS & vIEWS

Agencies may choose to hand out awards (e.g., pens, T-shirts, water bottles) to groups of employees or to individual team members. They may also choose to recognize teams for meeting an agency’s objective (e.g., lowest utilization of overtime, fewest altercations in the program, decreased rate of isolation or for exemplary behavior demonstrating a commitment to the agency mis- sion.) Acknowledging the ways in which staff contribute to the agency’s mission benefits employees and the entire organization. A number of staff recognition strategies are offered in the CJCA Toolkit. Generational Differences: While we are all unique individuals, research indicates there may be com- mon characteristics associated with specific generations. Facility leaders must acknowledge and adjust for these differences when developing a workforce development strategy. For example, a Gallup study found: – – “Millennials don’t want annual reviews — they want ongoing conversations. The way millen- nials communicate — texting, tweeting, Skype, etc. — is now real-time and continuous. An- nual reviews no longer work.” (Clifton, 2016); – – “Millennials don’t want to fix their weaknesses — they want to develop their strengths.” (Clifton, 2016) Therefore, agencies should minimize weaknesses and maximize strengths when possible; and – – “Millennials view their work as serving a bigger purpose and therefore ask themselves, ‘Does this organization value my strengths and my contribution?

Does this organization give me the chance to do what I do best every day?’” (Clifton, 2016) Readers are encouraged to explore additional information regarding generational differences in the CJCA Toolkit. Using data to drive change To be successful, agencies and facilities must devote the resources necessary to gather accurate data related to facility/agency culture and staff retention. Creating meaning- ful performance metrics that are regularly reviewed allows agencies to identify trends and effectively respond to these issues. Simply put, data serves two main purposes: – – Helps us understand the prob- lem by uncovering the root causes contributing to the issue. – – Allows us to track progress and determine whether the solutions or strategies they have imple- mented are having the desired effect. As previously mentioned, surveys (exit, stay and culture climate) and focus groups are excellent methods for gathering information from staff members about the work environ- ment and retention. Examples of measures related to retention and culture that agencies may consider are provided below, although a more extensive list can be found in the CJCA Toolkit. – – Retention and turnover rates by job title/classification (bro- ken out by voluntary versus involuntary); – – Percentage of candidates who successfully completed new

Acknowledging the ways in which staff contribute to the agency’s mission benefits employees

and the entire organization.

employee orientation and are employed 6- and 12-months fol- lowing training completion; – – Data from culture climate sur- veys, such as: • Percentage of direct care staff report overall satisfaction with their job; • Percentage of direct care staff indicating a specified level of organizational commitment; • Percentage of direct care staff indicating a positive rela- tionship/team feeling with coworkers; • Percentage of direct care staff indicating they feel supported by their managers (e.g., responsive to their needs, managers are supportive and encouraging, staff are kept informed in a timely fashion); • Percentage of direct care staff reporting they have the tools they need to effectively inter- act with and supervise youth; and • Percentage of direct care staff reporting they fear for their safety.

18 — November/December 2019 Corrections Today