Aggression and violence, posttraumatic stress, and absenteeism among employees in penitentiaries

On the basis of the Labour Conditions Act of 18 March 1999, employers are obliged to take care of their employees’ safety and health, and to pursue a policy aimed at creating the best possible labour conditions. The prevention of aggression towards employees falls under this obligation. In November 2005, the Scientific Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) carried out a large-scale study into the prevalence of aggressive behaviour targeting employees of penitentiaries during their work, which was commissioned by the Judicial Penitentiary Service (DJI) (Bogaerts & Den Hartogh, 2006). One of the remarkable findings of this study was that ‘aggression and violence among employees’ is a frequently occurring phenomenon within the prison system; of the 5,750 responding employees, no less than 641 reported to have fallen victim to one or more forms of aggression and violence among employees in the course of the previous twelve months. In this context, the term ‘aggression and violence among employees’ includes experienced unwanted sexual attention, intimidation, and physical violence. Aggression and violence among employees consists either of incidents between staff members, or of incidents between executive staff members and ordinary staff members. A substantial part of prison personnel is comprised of penitentiary workers (in Dutch, so-called ‘PIW-ers’). In order to improve the safety of penitentiary workers, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the DJI, and the unions have reached an agreement about a reduction of aggression and violence among employees, laid down in the ‘Arboplus Covenant Judicial Penitentiary Service on the Policy on Absenteeism, Integral Personal Safety, and the Career Perspective of Executive Personnel’2. The goal was for this reduction to be brought about halfway through 20073. To enable itself to successfully act upon the agreement, in addition to many actions and measures, the Sector Directorate of the Prison System asked the WODC to conduct an in-depth study on aggression and violence among employees within the penitentiaries. It was decided to examine only personal factors in this study. Organisational and economic factors and the institutional features of organisations that, without any doubt, play an important role in both the prevention and the occurrence of aggression and violence among employees were not studied. Framing mechanisms, for instance, which occur in every organisation, were not included in the study, the importance of this and other concepts notwithstanding. In his book ’Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience’, Goffman writes: “The concept of framing is taken to label schemata of interpretation that allows individuals or groups to locate, perceive, identify, and label events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions.” (Goffman, 1974, p. 21) The study ‘Benchmark Penitentiaries’, which will start in the autumn of 2007, will include institutional, organisational, and economic characteristics as well, besides the personal indicators, in order to assess the quality of the penitentiaries. In this way, aggression and violence among employees will not only be linked to personal factors, but will also be related to institutional factors and characteristics specific to the organisation. Another correlation not included in the present study is that between domestic violence (partner violence), violence at work, absenteeism, and the economic costs, even though this correlation is regularly established in the literature (e.g. Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2007; Swanberg, Macke, & Logan, 2007). With this study, the aim of the Judicial Penitentiary Service is to gain insight into the possible effects of aggression and violence among employees and in the factors which are at the roots of it. The DJI is especially interested in absenteeism as a possible effect of aggression and violence among employees, and in the psychosocial factors that play a role. In the present report, we will present the findings of this study. It is set up as follows. In chapter 2, we will examine the potential effects of aggression and violence among employees and the factors at their source, such as can be assumed to exist when we base ourselves on the literature. Next, we will take these findings as the basis for our hypothetical model presented in chapter 3, which will be the starting point for the empirical part of the study. We will also discuss how this model was tested. In chapter 4, we will present de results of this test and we will examine whether it is necessary to break down the model into sub-models. In chapter 5, we will subsequently formulate twelve specific research questions, which deserve further exploration in the researchers’ view, both on the basis of the literature study and of the hypothetical model derived from it. All these questions are in logical keeping with the formulated hypothetical model. Again, we will indicate how these questions were tested. Finally, chapter 6 will provide a summary of the study. In this chapter we will present some conclusions as well

Assessing the Acceptability, Feasibility and Sustainability of an Intervention to Increase Detection of Domestic Violence and Abuse in Patients Suffering From Severe Mental Illness: A Qualitative Study

Rationale: Despite interventions to improve detection rates, domestic violence, and abuse (DVA) remains largely undetected by healthcare services. We therefore aimed to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability of an intervention aiming to improve DVA detection rates, which included a clear referral pathway (i.e., the BRAVE intervention) and to explore the acceptability and feasibility of DVA management and referrals in general, in the context of low detection rates. Methods: Qualitative study design with four focus groups of 16 community mental health (CMH) clinicians from both control and intervention arms. The focus groups discussed managing DVA in clinical practice and staff experiences with the BRAVE intervention in particular. Focus groups continued until saturation of the subject was reached. Interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results: DVA was seen to be highly relevant to mental healthcare but is also a very sensitive subject. Barriers in CMH professionals, institutions, and society meant CMH professionals often refrained from asking about DVA in patients. Barriers included communication difficulties between CMH professionals and DVA professionals, a fear of disrupting the therapeutic alliance with the patient, and a lack of appropriate services to help victims of DVA. Conclusion: The BRAVE intervention was acceptable but not feasible or sustainable. Personal, institutional, and public barriers make it not feasible for CMH professionals to detect DVA in mental healthcare. To increase the detection of DVA, professional standards should be combined with training, feedback sessions with peers and DVA counselors, and routine enquiry about DVA

Дослідження руху індексу Doing Business України

Background: Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) is associated with a range of psychosocial and mental health problems. Having a psychiatric illness increases likelihood of being a victim of DVA. Despite the evidence of a high risk for DVA and the serious effects of violent victimization in psychiatric patients, detection rates are low and responses are inadequate. The aim of the BRAVE (Better Reduction trough Assessment of Violence and Evaluation) study is to improve detection of and response to DVA in psychiatric patients. In this article, we present the protocol of the BRAVE study which follows the SPIRIT guidelines. Methods: The BRAVE study is a cluster randomized controlled trial. We will include 24 community mental health teams from Rotterdam and The Hague. Twelve teams will provide care as usual and 12 teams will receive the intervention. The intervention consists of 1) a knowledge and sk

Criminal victimisation in people with severe mental illness: A multi-site prevalence and incidence survey in the netherlands

Background: Although crime victimisation is as prevalent in psychiatric patients as crime perpetration (and possibly more so), few European figures for it are available. We therefore assessed its one-year prevalence and incident rates in Dutch severely mentally ill outpatients, and compared the results with victimisation rates in the general population. Method: This multisite epidemiological survey included a random sample of 956 adult severe

Serious, Minor, and Non-Delinquents in Early Adolescence: The Impact of Cumulative Risk and Promotive Factors. The TRAILS Study

This study uses a social-ecological approach to the development of delinquency. The authors emphasize that a balance between eliminating risk and enhancing protection across domains is essential in reducing problems and promoting competence. The cumulative risk and promotive effects of temperament, family and school factors in preadolescence were examined on different groups of delinquents (based on self-report) in early adolescence. Data from the first two waves of the TRAILS study (N = 2,230) were used. The results provide evidence for a compensatory model that assumes main effects of risk and promotive factors on problem behavior. Accumulation of risks in preadolescence promoted being a serious delinquent in early adolescence, with the strongest effects for temperament. Accumulation of promotive effects decreased being a delinquent and supported being a non-delinquent. Furthermore, evidence is found for a counter-balancing effect of cumulative promotive and risk factors. Exposure to more promotive domains in the relative absence of risk domains decreased the percentage of serious delinquents. Our results did not support a protective model. Implications for prevention and intervention are discussed