A Warden's Guide

Corrections work is challenging. Wardens and superintendents know all too well how the job can harm staff’s physical and mental health. Research shows that corrections officers experience depression and post-traumatic stress at alarmingly high rates,⁶ which has profound consequences for their long-term health. Corrections leaders can help promote wellness and build staff resiliency against the harms that come from working in this traumatizing and often dehumanizing environment, which collectively are known as “corrections fatigue.” The way to do so is by creating an institutional culture that values mental health and wellness.

What is Corrections Fatigue?

The term corrections fatigue was coined by Dr. Caterina Spinaris, Founding Director of Desert Waters, to describe “the cumulative and commingled effects of operational, organizational, and traumatic stressors on an individual staff’s personality, health, and functioning, as well as core beliefs and behaviors.”⁷ Operational stressors are often inherent to the job, such as loud environments, temperature extremes, and equipment issues. Organizational stressors refer to harmful elements in the workplace, such as constant conflict, harassment, or a lack of clear purpose. Traumatic stressors include direct experiences of violence, or the indirect trauma of witnessing or hearing stories of violence.

Traumatic stressors are crucial to identify and address to ward off corrections fatigue and ensure staff wellness. The build-up of repeated traumatic stressors results in chronic stress and a constant fear of violence. Without appropriate support, this can lead to a state of hyper-vigilance, a state of heightened alertness to threat or danger, for both corrections officers and incarcerated people. Unfortunately, exposure to violence in correctional facilities is not at all uncommon. Corrections officers who experience or witness violence in facilities are often expected to return to work as though nothing has happened.

Left unchecked, staff exposure to traumatic stressors causes: personality changes, decline in health and functioning, and development of dysfunctional core beliefs and behaviors. In these instances, the brain itself literally has changed, as a way to prepare for stressors that may occur in the future. This kind of chronic stress is insidious; it sneaks up on people before they notice, and after they might be in real trouble.

Left unchecked, staff exposure to traumatic stressors causes: personality changes, decline in health and functioning, and development of dysfunctional core beliefs and behaviors.

Personality Changes

The traumatic stressors of corrections work can sometimes cause personality changes. This may include “becoming highly irritable, impatient, prone to unprovoked anger outbursts, aggressive, emotionally numb, or exhibiting negative moods.”⁸ These are common responses to regular exposure to traumatic stressors and can happen to anyone. Charles Elward, Warden at the Riverhead Correctional Facility in New York, puts it bluntly, “You almost become nonhuman, robotic, emotionless.”⁹

Decline in Health and Functioning

Corrections professionals, as a group, tend to have poor long-term health outcomes, and may struggle with physical health challenges such as high blood pressure and sleep disturbances. Staff mental health fares no better. Research has shown that “the high rates of mental health conditions exhibited by correctional officers exceeded those of first responders, people in the military, and national data by multiple times.”¹⁰

Development of Dysfunctional Core Beliefs and Behaviors

People who develop corrections fatigue can sometimes experience a change in how they see themselves, other people, and the world around them. They may develop views that are negative and pessimistic, which, over time, can lead to a tendency to dehumanize others. In the case of corrections staff, the “other” is more often than not incarcerated people in their custody. This may be a result of the facility or agency culture, or the “us versus them” dynamic that can seem inherent to corrections culture and therefore may not be identified as a problem.

However, the problem becomes clearer when the “other” extends to administrative staff, family members, or the overall community outside the facility. Corrections staff then have no safe harbor other than colleagues who are similarly suffering, and the cycle deepens.

Staff may fail to recognize negative changes in their beliefs or behaviors, or deny or minimize the effects of traumatic exposure. Staff often believe that seeking external help for the effects of repeated trauma is a sign of weakness. In some cases, staff may turn to high-risk behaviors to cope, such as alcohol or substance abuse. One study of a state prison system identified that one in five custody staff — and one in four custody staff at men’s prisons — used alcohol excessively.¹¹

Corrections fatigue hurts staff and affects the overall culture and safety of an institution. Dr. Spinaris compares corrections fatigue to a contagion: staff who are experiencing corrections fatigue are likely to “infect” one another, damaging the overall health of the organization. Specifically, staff are more likely to see incarcerated people as adversaries who are undeserving of the rehabilitation and support that are foundational principles of the profession. Carrying chronic stress can also lead to distrust between staff and a sense of isolation. In such a climate, overall morale can go into free fall. However, corrections fatigue is not inevitable, and corrections leaders can shift the cultural norms and mindset that allow corrections fatigue to set in.

Corrections Fatigue and Cultural Norms

The corrections field is increasingly recognizing the need to address corrections fatigue in staff. Many agencies have Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) that offer a range of confidential support services for staff.¹² Unfortunately, using such programs has not yet become part of the institutional culture of the broader corrections community. According to a National Institute of Corrections (NIC) survey, only 13% of corrections staff found EAPs to be helpful.¹³ Conversely, most middle managers and senior administrators (77% and 84%, respectively) believe that their EAP offerings fit the needs of staff — demonstrating a clear disconnect between the views of officers and leadership. Indeed, many initiatives designed to increase EAP usage “fail to address the impact of stigma, misunderstandings about mental illness, and the reluctance of many employees to seek counseling.”¹⁴

Given the tendency to discourage any expression of emotion, it is little wonder that so few corrections officers have embraced their agency’s EAP benefits as a trusted source for help and support. Per the NIC study, many COs worried that their sessions would not be confidential. Relatedly, some worried that disclosing a mental health problem would put their job at risk, an understandable concern in a culture that does not encourage open discussion of these challenges. Whatever the reason, it is clear that many people in corrections don’t feel they can get help — and suffer in silence as a result.

Consider a common scenario in corrections: a staff person, overwhelmed and stressed out, vents to a colleague. Their colleague, similarly overwhelmed and stressed out, responds, “Suck it up. That’s the job.” The colleague’s response is both an indication of the culture of the facility and their own stress, and replicates the expectation that staff should be unfazed by their workplace environment, no matter how chaotic or harmful it is to their mental health. Struggling with trauma or chronic stress can be perceived as a personal and professional failure, which in turn exacerbates the staff member’s stress reaction.

This response sets the tone for the entire facility, with devastating results. As Desert Waters Research Associate Greg Morton put it, “Denying corrections fatigue kills people.”¹⁵

Effective leaders can address corrections fatigue and thereby improve staff mental health and overall facility culture.

Building Resiliency and Shifting Mindsets

Fortunately, effective leaders can address corrections fatigue and thereby improve staff mental health and overall facility culture. One of the most effective ways they can do so is by helping staff find positive meaning in their work. The grim reality facing the field is that most corrections officers do not think that what they do matters. According to one survey, fewer than half of corrections officers believe that prison time makes a person more likely to follow the law upon their release.¹⁶ If staff believe that their work does not create positive outcomes, it’s understandable that they will feel pessimistic about it.

Staff health is inextricably linked to the health of incarcerated people, and a warden’s job is to build a culture of safety and wellness for everyone in the facility. Research has found that officers with at least one symptom of PTSD are less likely to put value on the rehabilitation of people in their care. However, when staff are able to recognize and value personal growth among incarcerated people, staff stress levels actually decrease.¹⁷ The bottom line is that one of the best ways for wardens to make sure that their staff are healthy and resilient is by emphasizing their duty to promote the rehabilitation of the people in their custody, and valuing their efforts.

Corrections leaders should call out staff successes, and create opportunities for their staff to celebrate the positive outcomes of their work. Hosting events or gatherings, such as a family day or staff appreciation barbecue, are important for morale. Since these events take time and require resources that are not always readily available, it may be worth carving out space from existing routines. For example, staff meetings or shift briefings — which typically consist of going through a laundry list of problems — can be modified to include an agenda item for people to share personal accomplishments and gratitude for colleagues. This simple change not only can help lift staff spirits but also lead to a broader shift in the culture of the facility, where people feel seen and appreciated. This strategy can be widely applied. Any setting where staff are gathered is an opportunity to highlight achievements.

The presence of wellness programs alone won’t fix the problem of corrections fatigue. As corrections leaders, it is crucial to model support for bold initiatives and for the very concept of wellness. Leaders have to be open to new ideas, help make them happen, and take care of their own well-being. You can send memos and give pep talks about wellness and self care and taking time off, but it won’t mean much if you never touch your own vacation time. As Mike Capra, former Superintendent with the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and member of the Great Wardens Project Task Force, explained, “‘Do as I say not as I do’ just doesn’t work. Wardens need to take time off and need to assign someone to take on decision making responsibilities while they are out.” Leading by example in this way gives others permission to take time off, sends the message that time off is truly time off, and demonstrates trust in your team.

Positive, open communication is a cornerstone of a strong institutional culture. This is true in any kind of setting — whether it’s a factory or a farm, a college campus or a corrections facility. How we interact with one another — not just the words we speak and write, but how we speak and write them — sets the tone for the overall environment.

Communication is particularly vital in corrections settings because the stakes are so high. A vaguely worded message can have profound ramifications for a person’s safety. Consider, for example, a protocol that spells out how to help someone having a mental health crisis. If one step is missing or is unclear, the person in crisis — or even the person administering care — could be at risk of harm. Messages that are intentionally harmful will have even more dire consequences, particularly if the person on the receiving end is incarcerated. If a staff person harasses or demeans someone, it sends a signal to everyone — staff and incarcerated people alike — that that kind of behavior is acceptable and the person’s safety has no value.

Wardens and superintendents have a strong degree of control over how people communicate in their facility. They can shape how people interact by implementing written policies, establishing strong practices, and modeling good behaviors that are based on the principles of person-first, human-rights centered communication. These principles should shape how wardens interact with staff and how staff talk to one another — as well as how leaders and staff talk to incarcerated people. While distinct, communication among corrections staff and between staff and incarcerated people are mutually reinforcing. When staff engage with one another in a respectful way, they are more likely to engage with incarcerated people in a respectful way — who then, in turn, are more likely to show that respect back to staff.

Communication is particularly vital in corrections settings because the stakes are so high.

Communicating with Staff

Good leaders know first-hand the importance of strong communication. They’ve seen how the way that they talk to their staff can make a difference in the running of the facility — how the tone of a conversation or in a memo can lead to changes in behavior. But there are also basic steps that even the most seasoned corrections officials can take to improve how they communicate.

It may seem obvious, but simply being available for staff matters a great deal. As Joe Page III, Warden at a large metropolitan jail and member of the Great Wardens Task Force, explained, “I call my staff regularly to check in if they are out sick, to ask if they need anything.” Warden Page regularly gives support to staff, and these acts of kindness make up what he calls an “emotional bank.” He learned the concept from one of his first corrections mentors, who he credits for using money as a metaphor to make emotional investments easier to understand. Using this framing, Warden Page considers his everyday interactions with staff and incarcerated people as opportunities to make investments, or deposits, into an emotional bank. Infusing these everyday interactions with positivity increases the account balance. “I can’t control what they think about me,” he explained, “But I can control what I put out there, and make sure it’s positive.” As the number of positive interactions increases the account balance, so does the ability to see the return on the investment. “A detention facility can be an emotionless environment,” Warden Page added. “Give people five minutes, and you’ll get more knowledge. I’ve seen staff start verbalizing the need to invest in each other’s emotional banks during roll calls.” When staff and incarcerated people receive positive communication from facility leadership, they are significantly more likely to reflect that back.

The person in charge needs to be plugged into what’s happening; in a corrections setting, that means the warden is present and observes and interacts with staff first-hand. Finding a balance is important — no one enjoys having a boss who breathes down your neck. The way to be a helpful presence, and not perceived as unhelpful or even a threat, is by demonstrating compassion and offering positive reinforcement to make it clear that the people on your staff are valued. When Warden Page calls to check in on staff who are out sick, he makes sure to say he’s calling to ask about their well-being, not to ask them about unfinished tasks or because he was suspicious that they were faking it.

A hands-on approach to leadership makes facilities safer. This point was a theme of the Review Panel on Prison Rape, an initiative within the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs that examines best practices for making facilities safe from sexual abuse. “By walking around the facility and being more visible,” one warden told the panel in 2016, “[Incarcerated people and staff] become more familiar with [the facility’s] leaders and are more likely to raise concerns with them.”¹⁸

It should go without saying that wardens should talk respectfully to their staff and never belittle them. Equally important, wardens should make sure to clamp down on bullying and harassment among staff. Even seemingly small things, such as “good-hearted” teasing, can have a detrimental effect on staff morale. Staff on the receiving end may not feel like they can express how hurtful the teasing is and ask for it to stop. If facility culture allows for such behavior, it will continue unchecked. Verbally abusive behavior is harmful in its own right and is a violation of policy (and, in some cases, the law); it also paves the way for other forms of harm, like physical and sexual violence.

Communicating with Incarcerated People

There are a number of best practices for how to talk to incarcerated people in a professional manner. It should go without saying that strong leaders must enforce a policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment, for example. And any sexualized language at all — such as innuendos, jokes, or conversations about sex — should be forbidden, whether it is between staff or between staff and incarcerated people.

When staff cross the line of what’s appropriate in their speech, it not only harms the person they’re speaking to or who overhears them, it also creates a climate of permissiveness for physical and sexual violence. As one expert noted to the Review Panel, “Verbal harassment in prison is a key indicator of the level of violence a correctional institution may tolerate.”¹⁹

The words that we use matter. How we talk about people, either directly to them or about them to others, can have an impact on their mental health — especially when they are in your custody. But even beyond affecting any one individual, the language you use influences the culture of the facility. The power that a word can have should be a familiar concept to many people in corrections. There are a number of corrections officers who feel undermined by the term “guard,” because it suggests a lack of professionalism.

There are ways beyond cracking down on harassment and bullying that wardens can communicate to demonstrate their absolute respect for people in custody. One way is to normalize people-first communication (see text box on the previous page). If it feels like a huge shift to use a new set of terms, that’s because it is. For years, it has been standard practice to use words like “inmate” and “convict”; these words come as second nature, not just to people working in corrections, but across society at large. Still, it is possible to change norms around language used in a facility and, by doing so, change its overall culture.

Accountability and safety go hand in hand. This is true of any workplace, but especially in corrections. If people know that what they do has consequences, they are less likely to act unprofessionally. In detention settings, wardens have the power to hold others to account — both incarcerated people and their staff. They do so by setting rules that align with policy, and by following through when those rules are not followed. Too often, however, accountability is defined purely in terms of punishing rulebreakers (either staff or incarcerated people). This approach is overly narrow and leaves out other forms of accountability that emphasize dialogue and mutual respect, without letting anyone off the hook.

Decision-making around whether and how to discipline a staff person or incarcerated person can be difficult, resting on a complex set of factors that include the person’s prior behavior, the nature of the infraction, the culture of the facility, and existing laws and regulations around punishment. But there are key principles that wardens should keep in mind when addressing rule violations, and what kinds of sanctions will be effective.

Creating a Culture of Accountability

Leaders can’t create a safe environment if they don’t know what’s happening. But as any leader knows, it’s not easy to always be in the loop, particularly when a facility culture labels staff who come forward with concerns as “snitches.” This taboo on speaking out isn’t just prevalent among officers; it also exists among incarcerated people. It’s not hard to see why the pressure to stay silent could have an impact on safety. If people do not, or feel they cannot, speak out about the bad things that they’re experiencing or seeing — including physical and sexual violence — change is impossible. Keeping secrets and looking the other way when there are problems has ramifications for overall safety. After all, few things are more detrimental to the smooth running of a facility than staff, or incarcerated people, ignoring dangerous, even criminal, behavior.

The good news is that wardens can break the culture of silence. It starts with trust. As a leader, you have to take steps to ensure that both incarcerated people and staff feel safe coming to you with concerns. Leaders must make it clear to everyone that not only will any reports of rule violations be appreciated and handled appropriately, but that retaliation for speaking out will not be tolerated.

Establishing trust isn’t easy. The fear that people have around speaking out is real and justified. One simple way to allay those concerns is by establishing a presence on the ground, as a way to gain knowledge and also demonstrate that you are available. Wardens should not make themselves accessible for critical issues only. People need to feel empowered to discuss more mundane concerns; otherwise, they won’t feel safe talking about the larger ones. “One of the things that drive my staff crazy, but that I love, is when children file grievances,” explains Johnitha McNair, who heads the Northern Juvenile Detention Center in Alexandria, Virginia. “If kids feel safe to complain about the brand of soap, they can complain about anything.” Johnitha’s approach is no less valid for adults in custody. For any person who is locked up, pointing out that something is wrong can be a brave act. A person who takes that leap should be treated respectfully and should even receive a bit of gratitude for pointing out a problem.

Positive Accountability

By earning the trust of staff and incarcerated people, wardens can develop a culture of accountability. Holding staff accountable might seem impossible without betraying trust.

An officer might not want to share anything with you if that information will be used to get a fellow staff member in trouble. But accountability doesn’t need to be solely punitive. There is also an approach known as positive accountability. Under this approach, leaders give encouraging feedback and offer praise for good work. This model recognizes that it’s possible to be both firm and kind, and that when you want to get people to follow the rules, it’s often more effective to use the carrot than the stick. To be clear, sanctions can be a necessary tool. When leaders respond to infractions in a manner that is proportional and consistent, it can reduce the likelihood of them happening again.

Wardens can break the culture of silence. It starts with trust.

Progressive Discipline

It is undoubtedly the case that holding people accountable — both staff and incarcerated people — is a key attribute of an effective warden. But it can be difficult to balance the need to enforce the rules and build trust. One approach is progressive discipline.

The core idea underpinning progressive discipline is prevention, specifically by addressing minor problems before they escalate. This method of holding people accountable is well known and commonly used in human resources, and it can be effective in a corrections environment, too. Eric Aldridge, the warden at Fluvanna Women’s Correctional Center, has adopted a progressive discipline approach in his facility that is peoplecentered and rooted in kindness. For example, he makes sure to address problems with a staff person in private, and never in front of a group. The tone is always positive and affirming, with a focus on what should have been done. The key, as ever, is building trust.

Progressive discipline also works as an approach for holding incarcerated people accountable. Rather than instinctively cracking down harshly on all rule infractions, leaders should try to identify the underlying causes of why people are breaking the rules in the first place. One way to do so is to ask questions. In many cases, incarcerated people act inappropriately or disruptively — or even violently — in response to trauma, unaddressed needs, or because they themselves feel unsafe or at risk. Once that issue is resolved, or a plan is put in place to address it, the behavior is more likely to stop.

At Fluvanna, the impact of this approach has been overwhelmingly positive. “Warden Aldridge actively promotes a culture of respect, kindness, and accountability,” shared one woman incarcerated at Fluvanna. “He set a standard of conduct he expected everyone to abide by.” The core tenets of progressive discipline are found in the acronym IDOC: Instruct what you expect; Demonstrate what you expect; Observe for changes; Compliment success or provide Constructive feedback. If a warden needs to address a problem, they should explain clearly to the person what the issue is and why it matters. After that initial conversation, the warden should monitor the person to see if they’ve changed how they handle similar situations — and then follow up regularly with appropriate feedback.

In many cases, incarcerated people act inappropriately or disruptively — or even violently — in response to trauma, unaddressed needs, or because they themselves feel unsafe. The key is to ask questions and dig for more information. This can involve checking in with staff and incarcerated people who may know about an incident during rounds; it also can entail reviewing relevant past disciplinary records.

To be clear, the progressive discipline approach can be time-consuming — and not every leader has the luxury of examining the prior infractions of every person who breaks a rule. Sometimes swift measures are necessary. It’s worth keeping in mind, however, that harsh punishments carry their own risks. For example, placing people in solitary can lead to a more chaotic environment.

Multiple studies have shown that people who spend time in isolation are far more prone to suffer severe and debilitating mental health problems, which can lead to conflict with staff and incarcerated people alike.²² In other words, making an effort on the front end yields better long-term results.

Accountability Goes Both Ways

Wardens are at the top of a rigid hierarchy, within the larger hierarchy of the overall agency. They, too, can and should be held accountable; they are managed by and answerable to people at the agency, even if it’s at a distance. Accountability can also come from the bottom up. Officers can give feedback to leadership on policy and on the running of a facility, either through their union or through more informal staff committees. Wardens should invite staff to become involved in decision-making. When staff are given an opportunity to offer input in how their facility is run, they feel more invested in its culture. They are also less likely to experience burn out. Research on the mental health of corrections officials in the US and Canada has consistently shown that staff who are shut out of decision-making feel more stress.²³ A workplace is its own community, and everyone should have a voice.

It may seem counterintuitive, but incarcerated people can also hold staff — and even wardens — accountable. No one is in a better position to provide insight into the running of a facility than the people who live there. Incarcerated people can offer wisdom on every facet of facility life, from the food to the programming. One way to solicit feedback is by establishing incarcerated persons advisory councils. These councils offer opportunities for incarcerated people to discuss facility conditions and then draw up recommendations. At Joseph Harp Prison in Oklahoma, leadership worked with an Inmate Advisory Council to develop and analyze quality-of-life surveys sent to the entire population. “They have a voice to tell me why, and not just why, but to bring solutions to the table,” said one staff person in an interview with The Oklahoman. “Then, I can take that information to the executive team and say, ‘OK, here’s where we’re lacking at Joseph Harp.’”²⁴

The ongoing corrections staffing crisis is a top concern in the field.

Conversations around staffing tend to focus on hiring practices and how to recruit the best people. While many corrections agencies have invested in recruitment strategies, staffing remains low and turnover remains high. Per the American Correctional Association, almost half of corrections agencies have officer turnover rates ranging from 20-30% annually. The turnover rate is even higher for newer officers, with 38% of staff leaving within one year, and 48% leaving within one to five years.²⁵ It is costly in both time and money for agencies to recruit, train, and onboard new staff. State corrections agencies lose between $20,000 and $31,000 for each officer who resigns within their first year.²⁶

Corrections leaders have a crucial role to play in ensuring that their staff are skilled, have been trained, and feel good about their work. But recruitment is usually handled at the agency level; while wardens have a voice in the process, they are not the final decision-makers. On the other hand, wardens have direct influence over staff retention. A leader who is strategic and committed to retention can address the staffing crisis, while improving morale and the workplace culture overall.

Stay Interviews

Many workplaces use exit interviews as a tool to understand why staff leave. Armed with this information, leaders can make improvements. But the exit interview gives an incomplete picture. It’s not only important to understand why people leave, but also why they stay. This is the principle behind the stay interview.

A stay interview consists of a formal — or informal — conversation with current staff about how they feel about their job. It covers their overall satisfaction with the job and with the agency, their level of engagement with the agency and facility mission, and what changes they would like to see. Interviews can be conducted via anonymous survey or in person, or both. Wardens can include questions that are specific to their facilities or address concerns that have been discussed among staff. Stay interviews can also highlight the positives, encouraging staff to reflect on what aspects of their job provide the most meaning.

Oriana House, Inc., a community corrections facility in Ohio, implemented stay interviews to better understand the needs of their staff. Jacob Sadon, the facility’s Organizational Development Manager, says that in the years since conducting these interviews, they have made a range of changes that have helped address staff needs. For example, the interviews showed that supervisors may have a lot of technical knowledge but sometimes lacked an understanding of their role as leaders. “People who get promoted are usually people who have mastered the job, but that doesn’t mean they have the skills to lead a team,” Sadon shared. Supervisor training was then reworked to include more on leadership, teamwork, and a strengths-based approach to supervision. Oriana House also added a standing agenda item for monthly supervisor meetings that includes a testimonial from a formerly incarcerated person or a staff person on how the facility has positively impacted their lives. “People have really responded to these stories,” Jacob said. “They help remind us of our mission.”

Supporting Staff to Increase Retention

Information from stay interviews can help corrections leaders shift communication strategies and refocus resources to address staff needs. The Vermont Department of Corrections has used stay interviews to focus on new staff, starting from the moment they walk in the door for training. They created a new position at each facility — Facility Staff Experience Supervisors (FSES) — who meet with new staff beginning at the training academy and follow them to their facilities, continuing to meet weekly to provide support.

James Rice, the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards for the VDOC, shared that the original intent of the stay interviews was to encourage new staff to view corrections as a career. In practice, however, they learned that newer staff were not focused on long-term goals, but rather more concerned with immediate needs. The Department adjusted their stay interview questions used by the FSES to include, “What is happening today that is making you think about leaving tomorrow?” Because each staff person is paired with the same Facility Staff Experience Supervisor over the course of their first year, trust can be built, encouraging staff to be more open and upfront with their concerns. The information learned from stay interviews provides invaluable insight into why retention in the first year can be such a challenge. “If not for the weekly stay interviews, we’d still be talking anecdotally,” James Rice shared. “Now, we have data to refer to. The conversation has changed from ‘stick it out longer and have a 30-year career’ to focusing on the immediate.”

Culture change is a steady, deliberate process — a marathon, not a sprint. A culture that has developed over decades takes time to change and sustain. With deliberate attention to the process and modifications as necessary, change can move consistently in the right direction, if not always at high speed.

How you treat your staff — and how your staff treat incarcerated people — is crucial to the process of culture change. Leadership should model the behavior they expect by regularly being present in the facility; understanding the daily demands on staff; engaging in meaningful, respectful communications with staff regarding both their duties and their well-being; really listening to staff; and providing supportive feedback and coaching. Although leadership must ensure fair and consistent application of facility rules and procedures, while the facility norms are changing, staff will benefit more from coaching, guidance, and training for minor missteps than from strict discipline for unintentional errors. Above all, predictability is key to achieving a desired culture: staff should know both what to expect and what is expected of them.

A thoughtful, fair-minded approach to managing staff will help combat the very real — and increasingly common — problem of corrections fatigue. Wardens and superintendents who support an infrastructure of wellness programming will see improvements in staff morale, performance, and mental health.

These changes, in turn, will lead to positive changes in the treatment of incarcerated people. When staff have experienced traumatic stressors and do not receive needed support, they lash out at incarcerated people and sometimes each other and even their loved ones. When they have a healthy outlet for their feelings, a facility culture that values safety and dignity for staff and incarcerated people alike is more likely to take hold.

The aim of this guide is to help wardens and superintendents along the pathway to building a safe and healthy facility culture. Reading this guide is an important step on the journey, but it is not the end point. As leaders assess their facility culture, new challenges will emerge. But it is vital to remember that no corrections leader needs to do the work alone.

ABOUT THE GREAT WARDENS PROJECT

The Great Wardens Project is an initiative that aims to build a corrections culture based on safety and dignity. Recognizing the vital role of prison leaders, the initiative provides wardens and superintendents with leadership resources.

The project’s core beliefs are that wardens and superintendents have a responsibility to promote safe, secure, and healthy corrections facilities; and that advocates and prison leaders can work together to reimagine how corrections facilities operate and shape a new generation of committed corrections professionals.

The Great Wardens Project is managed by staff at Just Detention International, a nonprofit organization that seeks to end sexual abuse in all forms of detention. The project is guided by the Great Wardens Task Force, a group of prison leaders who are widely recognized for their cutting-edge approaches to facility safety.

GREAT WARDENS TASK FORCE

Eric Aldridge, Warden, Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, Virginia Department of Corrections

Art Beeler, Warden (ret.), Federal Bureau of Prisons

Lynn Bissonnette, Superintendent (ret.), MCI-Framingham, Massachusetts Department of Corrections

Michael Capra, Supervising Superintendent of the New York City Hub (ret.), New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Dawn S. Davison, Warden (ret.), California Institution for Women, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Lisa Engram, Deputy Director of Programs, South Carolina Department of Corrections

Joe Page III, Warden, DC Department of Corrections

Mark S. Nooth, Eastside Institutions Administrator (ret.), Oregon Department of Corrections

Mel Williams, Executive Director (ret.), North American Association of Wardens & Superintendents

Deborah Wofford, Gender Responsive Administrator, Washington State Department of Corrections