Traumatic Incidents at Work, Work-to-Family Conflict, and Depressive Symptoms Among Correctional Supervisors: The Moderating Role of Social Support

Abstract

This cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the association between the direct and indirect effect of traumatic incident exposure at work on correctional supervisors’ experience of work-to-family conflict and depressive symptoms. The moderating role of coworker and supervisor social support was also examined. 156 correctional supervisors (i.e., lieutenants, captains, counselor supervisors) working in a Northeastern state participated in an online survey designed to assess perceptions of their work environment as well as health and family life. Structural equation modeling was used to conduct mediation and moderation analyses. Inmate assaults on inmates and staff were the most common exposures to work-related trauma among correctional supervisors. Correctional supervisors reported being more affected by traumatic incidents directed to self and/or peers (i.e., inmate assault on self/staff). The effect of traumatic incident exposure directed to inmates was associated with greater depressive symptoms for correctional supervisors [β = .31, p < .05]. The effect of traumatic incident exposure directed to self and/or peers was directly associated with greater work-to-family conflict [β = .26, p < .05]. Work-to-family conflict mediated the association between effect of traumatic incident exposure directed to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms [β = .13 (95% CI .016–.35)]. Social support moderated the association between the effect of traumatic incident exposure at work and depressive symptoms. Findings support the need for interventions addressing the adverse effect of traumatic incident exposure at work on correctional supervisors’ family life and mental health.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Occupational Health Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-021-00098-1
1 3
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Traumatic Incidents atWork, Work‑to‑Family Conflict,
andDepressive Symptoms Among Correctional
Supervisors: The Moderating Role ofSocial Support
SaraNamazi1· AliciaG.Dugan2 · RichardH.Fortinsky3· MazenElGhaziri4·
JanetL.Barnes‑Farrell5· JonathanNoel6· JenniferM.Cavallari7·
WilliamS.Shaw2· WayneA.ColeJr.8· MartinG.Cherniack2
Received: 10 June 2020 / Revised: 9 August 2021 / Accepted: 23 August 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
Abstract
This cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the association between the
direct and indirect effect of traumatic incident exposure at work on correctional
supervisors’ experience of work-to-family conflict and depressive symptoms. The
moderating role of coworker and supervisor social support was also examined. 156
correctional supervisors (i.e., lieutenants, captains, counselor supervisors) working
in a Northeastern state participated in an online survey designed to assess percep-
tions of their work environment as well as health and family life. Structural equation
modeling was used to conduct mediation and moderation analyses. Inmate assaults
on inmates and staff were the most common exposures to work-related trauma
among correctional supervisors. Correctional supervisors reported being more
affected by traumatic incidents directed to self and/or peers (i.e., inmate assault on
self/staff). The effect of traumatic incident exposure directed to inmates was associ-
ated with greater depressive symptoms for correctional supervisors [β = .31, p < .05].
The effect of traumatic incident exposure directed to self and/or peers was directly
associated with greater work-to-family conflict [β = .26, p < .05]. Work-to-family
conflict mediated the association between effect of traumatic incident exposure
directed to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms [β = .13 (95% CI .016–.35)].
Social support moderated the association between the effect of traumatic incident
exposure at work and depressive symptoms. Findings support the need for interven-
tions addressing the adverse effect of traumatic incident exposure at work on correc-
tional supervisors’ family life and mental health.
Keywords Trauma· Work-to-family conflict· Depressive symptoms· Coworker
social support· Supervisor social support
* Alicia G. Dugan
adugan@uchc.edu
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
Corrections work in the U.S. has become increasingly hazardous due to rising incar-
ceration rates (Swenson etal., 2008), with a notable increase in the number of vio-
lent and dangerous inmates and inmates with serious psychiatric and substance use
disorders (Ferdik & Smith, 2017). Mass incarceration, coupled with prison and jail
proliferation in almost every U.S. state, is mostly the result of changes in sentencing
laws for low-level drug offenses (Travis etal., 2014). Additionally, these changes in
sentencing laws have been racially motivated, targeting marginalized racial groups
in the U.S (Rosino & Hughey, 2018). Most U.S. Departments of Correction (DOC)
face significant budgetary constraints and operate above their established capacity
level due to overcrowding and inadequate staff coverage. Overcrowding and under-
staffing can jeopardize the health and safety of those working within correctional
facilities (Crawley, 2013; Ferdik & Smith, 2017). Despite the inherently dangerous
nature of the corrections occupation, little is known about the effect that exposure to
danger and traumatic incidents can have on the employees working within the prison
and jail walls.
This paper focuses on correctional supervisors (i.e., lieutenants, captains, and
counselor supervisors). Correctional supervisors are the middle managers in the
prison and jail occupational hierarchy and are an understudied group of employ-
ees in corrections (Buden etal., 2016, 2017; Namazi etal., 2019). Similar to line-
level correctional staff with custodial duties and responsibilities, correctional
supervisors work in an intrinsically dangerous and unpredictable environment
that repeatedly exposes them to traumatic incidents on a daily basis. Long term
exposure to traumatic incidents can adversely impact their family lives and their
mental well-being. However, research on the effect of traumatic incident exposure
(TIE) on family life and mental health in corrections is nearly non-existent.
According to Spinaris and colleagues, correctional employees are exposed to
both direct and indirect trauma. For correctional supervisors, direct exposure to
trauma can include violence among inmates, inmate attempted and/or completed
suicides and inmate-related assaults on staff (Denhof etal., 2014; Spinaris etal.,
2013). Correctional supervisors also respond to multiple traumatic incidents in a
single day and are in charge of arranging medical care for injured inmates and/or
staff.
Correctional supervisors are also exposed to indirect trauma due to their
administrative duties and responsibilities. Indirect trauma exposure for correc-
tional supervisors includes having to review materials related to the traumatic
incidents (e.g., videos, pictures), writing incident reports and debriefing staff
(Spinaris etal., 2013). Despite the critical role that correctional supervisors play
in handling traumatic incidents that occur within their facilities, the impact of
such incidents on their mental health and family life has not been studied.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the direct and indirect asso-
ciation between effect of TIE at work on correctional supervisors’ experience of
work-to-family conflict (W-FC) and depressive symptoms. This study also exam-
ined the moderating role (i.e., the buffering role) of social support in reducing the
adverse impact of TIE at work on correctional supervisors’ experience of W-FC
and depressive symptoms.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
Eect ofTraumatic Incident Exposure atWork onMental Health
andFamily Well‑Being
Previous research demonstrates that working in an environment such as corrections
leads to long-term chronic mental health problems that continue through work-life
and into retirement (Cherniack etal., 2016; Morse etal., 2011). The corrections cul-
ture that supports a code of silence around emotional suffering presents a barrier for
staff to seek help for their mental health problems. This may contribute to the high
rates of alcohol use and suicide observed among active and retired correctional staff
(Dawe, 2018; Stack & Tsoudis, 1997).
In addition to the adverse impact of work on their mental health, corrections work
can be detrimental to employees outside of work and can lead to work-to-family con-
flict (W-FC). W-FC occurs when stress from the work domain spills over and leads
to stress and conflict in the family domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Hobfoll,
1989). If left unaddressed, W-FC can negatively impact employees’ psychological
well-being (Dewe etal., 2012; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). However, research
that examines W-FC for correctional employees is limited. As such, the first aim of
this study was to examine the association between effect of TIE with correctional
supervisors’ experience of both W-FC and depressive symptoms. W-FC was also
examined as a mediating variable.
The relationships among the constructs in Aim 1 are based on the Conserva-
tion of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which states that individuals are moti-
vated to obtain, protect and conserve resources (e.g., time, energy, self-confidence,
social support) that they value as important in contributing positively to their well-
being. Stressful environmental conditions or demands, such as a traumatic incident,
can threaten, deplete, or prevent the gain of finite resources, which leads to fewer
resources available to fulfill the demands of different life domains, such as family.
Subsequently, the inability to meet the demands of other life domains can lead to
W-FC and psychological stress (Dewe etal., 2012; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999).
The following hypotheses (see Fig.1) emerged from the theoretical review:
Hypothesis 1 Effect of TIE at work will be positively associated with W-FC for cor-
rectional supervisors.
Hypothesis 2 Effect of TIE at work will be positively associated with depressive
symptoms for correctional supervisors.
Hypothesis 3 W-FC will be positively associated with depressive symptoms for cor-
rectional supervisors.
Hypothesis 4 W-FC will mediate the hypothesized positive association between TIE
at work with depressive symptoms for correctional supervisors.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
Moderating Role ofSocial Support
It is well established that correctional employees are exposed to various forms of
trauma over the course of their careers. Moreover, working under extreme pres-
sure and stress means that staff strive to develop and maintain strong bonds of
solidarity and social support networks as a mechanism of survival and coping
on the job (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Stephens & Long, 1999, 2000). Social
support has been identified as a resource and a healthy and adaptive way of cop-
ing to prevent the adverse impact of traumatic incidents on health and well-being
(Carver, 1997; Stephens & Long, 1999).
The protective effect of social support against poor psychological and physical
well-being has been well established in several studies across various occupations
(Gurung etal., 1997; LaRocco etal., 1980; Manning et al., 1996). Specifically,
among individuals exposed to traumatic incidents and/or life-threatening situa-
tions, higher levels of social support have been linked to resilience and recovery
from trauma.
Several studies with correctional officers have linked social support with
reduced work-related stress and W-FC (Obidoa etal., 2011); improved physical
and psychological functioning (Harvey, 2014); and decreased burnout (Lambert
etal., 2015a, 2015b; Useche etal., 2019). Conversely, low social support among
correctional officers has been linked to increased levels of stress and burnout (Tri-
plett etal., 1996), and declined psychological and physical well-being (Armstrong
& Griffin, 2004). For correctional supervisors, Buden and colleagues found that
coworker and supervisor social support predicted positive health behaviors (e.g.,
nutrition and physical activity), and helped reduce adverse health outcomes, such
as depression and anxiety symptoms (Buden etal., 2016).
To test the protective effect of social support, the second aim of this study was
to examine whether the social support that correctional supervisors receive from
their coworkers (i.e., other correctional supervisors) and their supervisors (i.e.,
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
administrative staff, such as deputy wardens and wardens) will reduce (i.e., mod-
erate) the effect of TIE at work on W-FC and depressive symptoms. The relation-
ships among constructs in Aim 2 are based on the stress-buffering hypothesis of
social support, which denotes that social support can help buffer (i.e., moderate) the
negative impact of stress on overall health and family functioning (Cohen & Wills,
1985). The following hypotheses (see Fig.1) were investigated:
Hypothesis 5 Coworker social support and supervisor social support will moderate
the effect of TIE at work on W-FC, such that the effect of TIE at work on W-FC will
be weaker when coworker social and supervisor social support are higher.
Hypothesis 6 Coworker social support and supervisor social support will moderate
the effect of TIE at work on depressive symptoms, such that the effect of TIE at
work on depressive symptoms will be weaker when coworker social support and
supervisor social support are higher.
Methods
Participants
Correctional supervisors (i.e., lieutenants, captains, and counselor supervisors)
working in prisons and jails throughout a Northeastern state participated in a
voluntary cross-sectional survey that assessed their perceptions of social sup-
port on the job, and the impact of their work on their health and family life. The
survey was designed and administered in partnership between research staff at
the University conducting this study and a design team of correctional supervi-
sors who were part of the correctional supervisors’ union bargaining unit. This
partnership was formed in 2014 to help researchers and the design team of union
members better understand the health needs and concerns of correctional super-
visors, and to subsequently develop interventions to address needs and concerns.
The survey was administered online over a one-month period through union list-
serv to all members of the correctional supervisors’ union bargaining unit. Par-
ticipants were told that the survey was voluntary, did not include an incentive,
and that it would take them approximately 20min to complete it. A total of 157
correctional supervisors participated in the survey out of 423 contacted (37%).
Based on data obtained from the DOC human resource office, participants had
approximately the same sex (sample: 76% male and 23% female; overall correc-
tional supervisor population: 78% male and 22% female) and age (sample age:
42; overall correctional supervisor population age: 44) distribution as the overall
correctional supervisor population working in the state. The Institutional Review
Board at the University in which the study was conducted approved of the study.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
Measures
Main Outcome Variable
Depressive symptoms were measured using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)
scale developed by Derogatis and Spencer (1992). This study used three items from
the depression subscale of the BSI, which measures the extent to which an indi-
vidual experienced the following symptoms in a typical week: feeling lonely, feeling
blue, and feeling no interest in things. The three items were measured on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely) (α = .89) such that a higher score
means that an individual is experiencing greater depressive symptoms.
Predictor Variable
Effect of TIE at work was measured using a nine-item questionnaire developed by
the researchers and a group of correctional supervisor union members who designed
the survey. A two-step process was used to derive this measure.
First, the measure was designed to capture the frequency of exposure to nine
traumatic incidents at work, including: inmate attempted suicide, inmate assault on
inmate, inmate suicide, inmate death (not suicide), inmate assault on staff, inmate
assault on self, coworker suicide, coworker death (not suicide), retired coworker
death. Correctional supervisors were asked to recall the number of times they wit-
nessed these specific traumatic incidents in a typical month, and in a typical year
(α = .75). During the design of this measure, researchers and correctional supervisor
union members determined that exposure to specific traumatic incidents occurred
more frequently and on a monthly basis (e.g., an inmate-attempted suicide), while
others occurred less frequently and on a yearly basis (e.g., an inmate suicide). As
such, differing recall periods were utilized for the traumatic incidents to gauge a rea-
sonable recall period and to reduce recall bias.
Second, the measure assessed correctional supervisors’ perceived effect of their
exposure to the nine traumatic incidents at work. The nine items were scored on
a four-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all affected) to 4 (extremely affected)
(α = .83), with a higher score representing greater effect ofTIE at work. For the pur-
pose of our analysis, we only used the part of the measure that assessed correctional
supervisors’ perceived level of effect of the nine TIEs at work.
The factor structure of the measure assessing the effect of TIE at work was tested
with exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Examination of eigenvalues suggested a
two-factor solution with an adequate model fit to the data with Factor 1 measuring
effect of TIE directed to inmates and Factor 2 measuring effect of TIE directed to
self and/or peers (see Supplementary Table1).
Mediator
W-FC was assessed using two items from the National Comorbidity Survey
(NCS) (Kessler, 1990) (e.g., “How often do things going on at work make you
feel tense and irritable at home?”) (α = .74). The two items follow a five-point
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A higher score indicates that an indi-
vidual perceives higher levels of W-FC.
Moderator Variables
Social support was measured using the social support subscale from the Job-Con-
tent Questionnaire (Karasek, 1985). Two items were used to assess supervisor
social support: “My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of those under him/
her” and “My supervisor is helpful in getting the job done.” Two items were also
used to assess coworker social support: “The people I work with take a personal
interest in me” and “The people I work with can be relied on when I need help.”
All items were scored on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (α = .70 and α = .86, respectively). A higher score
was interpreted as correctional supervisors experiencing greater supervisor social
support and coworker social support.
Control Variables
The following demographic variables were included as control variables: race
(coded as white = 1 and non-white = 0), job classification (coded as lieuten-
ant = 1, captains and counselor supervisors = 0), job tenure (measured in years),
age (measured in years), educational attainment level (less than high school = 1,
high school graduate or GED = 2, some college = 3, college degree (2 or 4years
college) = 4, and graduate degree = 5), marital status (coded as non-married = 0
and married or live with partner = 1), child care (having no child care responsi-
bility = 0 and having primary or shared responsibility = 1), and gender (coded as
male = 0, female = 1).
Job classification was included as a control variable in this study because lieu-
tenants in the current sample have a lower rank, differing job demands, and less
job flexibility when compared to captains and counselor supervisors (who hold
equal rank and have similar administrative duties; Namazi etal., 2019). Specifi-
cally, lieutenants often work evening and night shifts, and are frontline super-
visors working with correctional employees. In terms of marital status, age and
childcare, research reports that W-FC is more pronounced for individuals who are
married and have children compared to those who are not married and do not have
childcare (Amstad etal., 2011). Additionally, W-FC can increase with age due to
working families assuming caregiving responsibility for older adults (Baltes &
Young, 2007). Similarly, research highlights gender differences in experiences of
W-FC, such that women have been found to experience more W-FC as compared
to men due to traditional gender role differences (Byron, 2005). Finally, employ-
ees who report higher educational attainment have also been found to report
greater W-FC and depressive symptoms (Schieman & Galvin, 2011).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
Analysis Strategy
Cronbach’s alphas were calculated in SPSS version 25 to determine the internal con-
sistency of the scales. SPSS was also used to conduct descriptive analyses, deter-
mine the zero-order correlations between variables, and to conduct data screening to
determine whether assumptions of normality were met. One case was removed from
the analysis due to response inconsistency, resulting in a final sample size of 156.
EFA was conducted in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998) to assess the psychometric
properties of the construct: effect of TIE at work.
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used with Mplus (Muthén & Muthén,
1998) to test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4 (Aim 1). Bias-correlated bootstrapping was
used to conduct mediation analysis, constructing confidence intervals using 10,000
random bootstrap samples (MacKinnon, 2012). Prior to examining the structural
model, a measurement model was used to assess the psychometric properties of the
constructs being used.
Latent Moderated Structural Equations Method (LMSEM) using the XWITH
statement in Mplus (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000; Maslowsky etal., 2015) was used
to test Hypotheses 5, 6 (Aim 2). The LMSEM approach tests moderation by first
comparing a structural model without the latent interaction term to the structural
model with the latent interaction using a log-likelihood ratio test. A significant log-
likelihood ratio implies that the model with the latent interaction term is a better-
fitted model. All significant latent interaction terms were tested using simple slopes
analysis (Johnson & Neyman, 1936).
Additionally, the following fit indices were used to determine model fit: Chi-
Square (χ2) Test (p > .05); the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
(< .05); the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (> .95) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)
(> .95); and the Standard Root Mean Square (SRMR) (< .05) (Geiser, 2012). Miss-
ing data were handled using full maximum likelihood (Enders, 2005). Statistical sig-
nificance of study hypotheses was determined using two-tailed non-directional tests
and a p-value of < .05.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table1. Participants
were predominately male (78%) with an average age of 42years (SD = 6.06). Most
were lieutenants (59%), Caucasian (69%), had worked for the DOC for an average of
15.4years (SD = 4.73), worked first shift (i.e., a standard daytime shift), and worked
in a prison (64%) rather than a jail. Majority were also married or living with a part-
ner (72%) and had some form of childcare responsibility (74%). Table2 presents the
frequency of exposure to the nine traumatic incidents at work, as well as the mean
level of effect of TIE at work.
Table3 presents the zero-order correlation between the study variables, including
mean (SD) scores for the main outcome variables, predictor variables, and control
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
Table 1 Demographic
characteristics of study
participants (n = 156)
n = 156. The numbers do not add to 156 due to missing cases
Demographic n (%)
Demographic gender
Male 121 (78)
Female 34 (22)
Age (years)
All (mean ± SD) 42 (6.1)
Under 35years old 22 (14)
36 to 40years old 40 (26)
41 to 45years old 52 (34)
46 and older 41 (27)
Education
High school graduate or GED 24 (15)
Some college 61 (39)
College degree (2 or 4-year college) 55 (35)
Graduate degree 16 (10)
Job classification
Lieutenants 92 (59)
Other (captains and counselor supervisors) 64 (41)
Ethnicity
White 108 (69)
Non-white 48 (31)
Job tenure
All (mean ± SD) 15.4 (4.7)
5–10 29 (19)
11–15 45 (29)
16–20 61 (39)
21 + 20 (13)
Shift
1st shift (standard shift) 99 (64)
2nd and 3rd shift (non-standard shift) 55 (36)
Facility type
Prison 100 (64)
Jail 56 (36)
Marital status
Married or living with partner 113 (72)
Widowed, divorced, single, or never married 43 (28)
Child care
I have no children under 18 at home 40 (26)
Another adult has primary responsibility 2 (1)
I share responsibility with another adult 96 (62)
I have primary responsibility 18 (12)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
Table 2 Frequency of traumatic incident exposure (TIE) at work and level of effect
Mean level of effect from the various traumatic incident exposures at work
Frequency of TIE at work n 0 events n (%) 1–10 events n (%) 11 or more events n (%) Mean level of effect (SD)
1.In a typical month, number of times witnessed or experienced inmate
assault on an inmate
154 11 (7) 113 (73) 30 (20) 1.35 (0.61)
n 0 events n (%) 1 event n (%) 2 or more events n (%) Mean level of effect (SD)
2.In a typical month, number of times witnessed or experienced inmate
attempted suicide
153 69 (45) 49 (32) 35 (23) 1.33 (0.58)
3.In a typical year, number of times witnessed or experienced inmate suc-
cessful suicide
154 61 (40) 69 (45) 24 (16) 1.37 (0.60)
4.In a typical year, number of times witnessed or experienced inmate death
(not suicide)
153 54 (35) 63 (41) 36 (24) 1.31 (0.56)
5.In a typical year, number of times witnessed or experienced inmate
assault on staff
152 13 (9) 39 (26) 100 (66) 2.15 (0.91)
6.In a typical year, number of times witnessed or experienced inmate
assault on you
152 130 (86) 14 (9) 8 (5) 1.37 (0.80)
7.In a typical year, number of times witnessed or experienced coworker
suicide
152 84 (55) 43 (28) 25 (17) 2.09 (1.14)
8.In a typical year, number of times witnessed or experienced coworker
death (not suicide)
153 34 (22) 59 (39) 60 (39) 2.33 (0.99)
9.In a typical year, number of times witnessed or experienced retired
coworker death
153 35 (23) 48 (31) 70 (46) 2.18 (0.96)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
Table 3 Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of study variables
Statistical significance was set at *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Observed variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Depressive symptoms 1.57 0.76 –
2. W-FC 2.76 1.00 .37** –
3. Effect of TIE directed to inmates 1.34 0.46 .25** .15 –
4. Effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers 2.03 0.78 .12 .26** −.37** –
5. Coworker social support 3.54 0.75 −.29** −.20* −.02 .03 –
6. Supervisor social support 3.65 0.94 −.20* −.14 −.12 .01 .47** –
7. Age 42.3 6.06 −.06 −.10 .17* .04 −.00 .02 –
8. Race (white) – – .13 .18* −.02 −.04 .02 −.02 .03 –
9. Sex (female) – – .09 −.07 .03 .10 −.07 −.03 −.02 −.23** –
10. Job tenure 15.4 4.73 −.01 .01 .09 .06 .06 −.04 .60** .18* −.02 –
11. Job class (lieutenant) – – −.01 .03 .03 .01 −.20* −.03 −.05 −.05 −.16* −.35** –
12. Facility type (prison) – – .13 .09 .06 .14 −.16* −.09 −.12 .17* .10 .01 −.03 –
13. Marital status (married) – – −.14 .32** .06 .09 .09 −.01 −.07 .15 −.24** .09 −.05 .02 –
14. Child care – – −.03 .02 −.12 −.00 .00 .03 −.26** −.03 −.20* −.08 −.12 .12 .24**
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
variables. The mean scores for depressive symptoms and W-FC were 1.57 and 2.76,
respectively (out of 5 possible points). Further, correctional supervisors’ mean
scores of coworker and supervisor social support were 3.54 and 3.65, respectively
(out of 5 possible points).
Frequency ofTraumatic Incident Exposure atWork
Table 2 presents the frequency of correctional supervisors’ exposure to the nine
traumatic incidents at work. In a typical month, 93% of correctional supervisors
reported witnessing or experiencing one or more inmate assault on an inmate, and
55% reported witnessing or experiencing at least one inmate suicide attempt. In
a typical year, 61% reported witnessing or experiencing one or more inmate sui-
cide; 65% reported witnessing or experiencing one or more inmate death (not due
to suicide); 92% reported witnessing or experiencing one or more inmate assault on
staff; 14% reported witnessing or experiencing one or more inmate assault on self
(personal assault); 45% reported witnessing or experiencing one or more coworker
suicide; 78% reported witnessing or experiencing one or more coworker death (not
suicide); and 77% reported witnessing or experiencing one or more retired coworker
death.
Effect ofTraumatic Incident Exposure atWork andtheMediating Role ofW‑FC
A measurement model was first tested with the following variables: effect of TIE
directed to inmates, effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers, W-FC and depres-
sive symptoms. There was a good model fit: χ2 (71) = 99.7; RMSEA = .05 (95% CI
.024–.073); CFI = .97; TLI = .96; SRMR = .05. The structural model also showed
good model fit: χ2 (167) = 224.4; RMSEA = .05 (95% CI .029–.062); CFI = .94;
TLI = .93; SRMR = .06. Key findings included the following (see Fig. 2 and
Table4): effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers was positively associated with
W-FC (β = .26, p < .05); effect of TIE directed to inmates was positively associated
with depressive symptoms (β = .31, p < .01); and W-FC was positively associated
with depressive symptoms (β = .52, p < .001). Moreover, W-FC mediated the rela-
tionship effect of TIE directed to self and/or peer and depressive symptoms (β = .13,
95% CI [.016, .35]).
Moderating Role ofSocial Support
Coworker Social Support
The interaction between coworker social support with effect of TIE directed to
inmates and effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers was tested by first specifying
a measurement model, which included the latent variables: coworker social support,
effect of TIE directed to inmates, effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers, work-to-
family conflict and depressive symptoms. There was good model fit: χ2 (94) = 131.9;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
Fig. 2 Mediation model for the relationship between effect of TIE directed to inmates and the effect of
TIE directed to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms, mediated by work-to-family conflict. All
beta coefficients are standardized. Statistical significance indicated by bolded coefficients at *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001; p values are those from the test of the unstandardized coefficient. Note: mediation
was run separately for each exposure variable
Table 4 Effect of Traumatic Incident Exposure at Work on W-FC and Depressive Symptoms
All beta coefficients are standardized. Statistical significance indicated by bolded coefficients at *p<.05;
**p<.01; ***p<.001; p values are those from the test of the unstandardized coefficient. Table also
includes results from control variables
Direct Paths Standardized Effect Size P
Effect of TIE directed to inmates --> W-FC .07 >.05
Effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers --> WFC .26 <.05
W-FC --> Depression .52 <.001
Effect of TIE directed to inmates --> Depression .31 <.01
Effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers --> Depression -.11 >.05
Race (White) --> W-FC .18 .05
Job Classification (Lieutenant) --> W-FC -.00 >.05
Job Tenure --> W-FC .02 >.05
Age --> W-FC -.17 >.05
Education --> W-FC -.15 >.05
Marital Status (Married) --> W-FC .33 <.001
Childcare --> W-FC -.08 >.05
Sex (Female) --> W-FC .01 >.05
Race (White) --> Depression .14 >.05
Job Classification (Lieutenant) --> Depression .01 >.05
Job Tenure --> Depression .05 >.05
Age --> Depression -.09 >.05
Education --> Depression .05 >.05
Marital Status (Married) --> Depression -.32 <.001
Childcare --> Depression .06 >.05
Sex (Female) --> Depression .09 >.05
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
RMSEA = .05 (95% CI .028–.070); CFI = .96; TLI = .95; SRMR = .05, and all load-
ings of the items on the latent variables were significant (p < .001).
Next, we compared the log-likelihood value of the baseline model (i.e., the model
without the interaction terms) with the structural model (i.e., the model with the
interaction terms), which yielded a log-likelihood difference value of D = 23.4,
which was statistically significant (p < .001). Table5 shows a summary of the stand-
ardized path coefficients. Key findings include: coworker social support moderated
the relationship between effect of TIE directed to inmates and depressive symp-
toms (β = − .81, p < .001), and coworker social support moderated the relation-
ship between effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms
(β = .91, p < .001).
Assessing the interaction between effect of TIE directed to inmates and coworker
social support (see Fig.3), the test of simple slopes indicated that the slope for low
coworker social support was statistically significant (β = 3.36, p < .001), and the
slope for high coworker social support was also statistically significant (β = −2.67,
p < .01). Under conditions of low coworker social support, individuals who reported
greater effect of TIE directed to inmates reported more depressive symptoms. Under
conditions of high coworker social support, individuals who reported greater effect
of TIE directed to inmates reported lower depressive symptoms.
Assessing the interaction between effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers
and coworker social support (see Fig.4), the test of simple slopes indicated that
the slope for low coworker social support was statistically significant (β = − 2.58,
p < .001), and the slope for high coworker social support was also statistically signif-
icant (β = 1.73, p < .01). Under conditions of low coworker social support, individu-
als who reported greater effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers reported lower
Table 5 First stage moderation examining the role of coworker social support and supervisor social sup-
port
All beta coefficients are standardized. Statistical significance indicated by bolded coefficients at *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001; p values are those from the test of the unstandardized coefficient
Direct paths Standard-
ized effect
size
p
Coworker social support × effect of TIE directed to inmates → W-FC .04 > .05
Coworker social support × effect of TIE directed to inmates → depression −.81 < .001
Coworker social support × effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers →
WFC
−.17 > .05
Coworker social support × effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers →
depression
.91 < .001
Supervisor social support × effect of TIE directed to inmates → W-FC −.06 > .05
Supervisor social support × effect of TIE directed to inmates → depression −.29 < .01
Supervisor social support × effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers →
WFC
−.17 > .05
Supervisor social support × effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers →
depression
0.18 > .05
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
depressive symptoms. Under conditions of high coworker social support, individu-
als who reported greater effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers reported higher
depressive symptoms.
Supervisor Social Support
Finally, we tested the interaction effect of supervisor social support with both
effect of TIE directed to inmates and effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers (see
Table5). First, we tested a measurement model including the latent variables: super-
visor social support, effect of TIE directed to inmates, effect of TIE directed to self
and/or peers, W-FC and depressive symptoms, which showed good model fit: χ2
Fig. 3 Moderation effect of coworker social support on the relationship between effect of traumatic inci-
dent exposure directed to inmates and depressive symptoms. Standardized beta weights are depicted for
depressive symptoms
Fig. 4 Moderation effect of coworker social support on the relationship between effect of traumatic
incident exposure directed to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms. Standardized beta weights are
depicted for depressive symptoms
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
(94) = 140.7; RMSEA = .06 (95% CI .036–.075); CFI = .96; TLI = .95; SRMR = .06,
and all factor loadings were significant (p < .001). Log-likelihood difference test
yielded a value of D = 19.0, which was statistically significant (p < .001).
Key findings were as follows: supervisor social support moderated the relation-
ship between effect of TIE directed to inmates and depressive symptoms (β = −.29,
p < .01). As can be seen in Fig. 5, the test of simple slopes indicated that the slope
for low supervisor social support was statistically significant (β = 1.08, p < .01),
and the slope for high supervisor social support was not statistically significant
(β = −.07, p = 0.83). Thus, under conditions of low supervisor social support, indi-
viduals who reported greater effect of TIE directed to inmates reported more depres-
sive symptoms.
Discussion
The first aim of this study was to examine the association between effect of TIE at
work and correctional supervisors’ experience of W-FC and depressive symptoms.
This study also examined the mediating role of W-FC in the association between
effect of TIE at work and depressive symptoms. The second aim of this study was to
examine the moderating role of both coworker and supervisor social support in the
relationships mentioned above.
Effect ofTraumatic Incident Exposure atWork andtheMediating Role ofW‑FC
We found that effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers was positively associated
with W-FC. This finding is consistent with previous research that has examined the
adverse effects of trauma exposure on the family lives of public safety employees
(Crawley, 2002; Regehr, 2005; Rothrauff etal., 2004). We also found that effect
of TIE directed to inmates was positively associated with depressive symptoms.
Fig. 5 Moderation effect of coworker social support on the relationship between effect of traumatic inci-
dent exposure directed to inmates and depressive symptoms. Standardized beta weights are depicted for
depressive symptoms
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
This finding is also consistent with previous research that links exposure to trau-
matic incidents among correctional staff (Isenhardt & Hostettler, 2016; Keinan &
Malach-Pines, 2007) and other public safety professionals such as police (Hartley
etal., 2007; Shakespeare-Finch etal., 2002) to poor psychological health and well-
being. Finally, we found that W-FC mediated the relationship between effect of TIE
directed to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms. However, we did not find
support for our hypothesis that W-FC mediates the relationship between effect of
TIE directed to inmates and depressive symptoms.
The mediating effect of W-FC in the relationship between effect of TIE directed
to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms is in line with the principles out-
lined in the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989). Specifically, the COR theory implies that
work-related trauma can place unique demands on one’s personal resources and can
threaten or lead to rapid loss of resources, known as resource loss spirals (Hobfoll
etal., 2018). Further, exposure to work-related trauma can challenge an individual’s
ability to cope with trauma exposure. Thus, the threatened or rapid loss of resources,
and the inability to cope with work-related trauma can lead to stress in the form
of W-FC (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). This can, in turn, impair one’s ability to
maintain good psychological health and functioning (Hobfoll, 1989).
Correctional employees have indicated that their family members lack under-
standing about their profession and are unable to provide them with the support
they need following a work-related traumatic event. This can serve as a barrier to
their ability to seek support from their families for their work-related stressors and
may lead to correctional supervisors’ experience of conflict in their family domain
(Crawley, 2002). Correctional supervisors often turn to their work peers for support,
who they consider to be better able to understand the stressors they face from work
(Delprino, 2002). While we did not examine the role that correctional supervisors’
family members play after a traumatic incident exposure, we recommend that future
research examine both the role that family members play for correctional employ-
ees after a traumatic incident and the strain it places on the families of correctional
employees.
We recommend that future studies examine our hypothesized model using a
larger sample size of correctional supervisors. However, our finding that effect of
TIE directed to inmates was directly associated with depressive symptoms suggests
that correctional supervisors, despite organizational norms associated with deper-
sonalization of inmates and emotional avoidance (Boudoukha etal., 2013; Spinaris
etal., 2013) are nonetheless affected by work-related traumatic incidents involving
inmates only.
Moderating Role ofSocial Support
The second aim of this study was to examine the moderating role of both cow-
orker social support (i.e., support that correctional supervisors receive from cow-
orkers) and supervisor social support (i.e., support that correctional supervisors
receive from wardens/deputy wardens) in the relationship of effect of TIE at work
with both W-FC and depressive symptoms.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
Coworker Social Support
First, we found that coworker social support (i.e., support correctional supervi-
sors receive from coworkers) moderated the relationship between effect of TIE
directed to inmates and depressive symptoms. Specifically, we found that under
conditions of low coworker social support, individuals who reported greater
effect of TIE directed to inmates also reported more depressive symptoms.
These findings suggest that, for correctional supervisors who are greatly
affected by exposure to TIE directed to inmates, the lower their perceptions of
social support from their coworkers, the more susceptible they are to the negative
impact of work-related trauma exposure on their mental health. This is supported
by previous research that has found low coworker social support among correc-
tional officers to be associated with increased levels of job stress (Schaufeli &
Peeters, 2000) and psychosomatic complaints (Armstrong et al., 2015; Bezerra
etal., 2016).
Further, we found that under conditions of high coworker social support, indi-
viduals who reported a greater effect of TIE directed to inmates reported lower
depressive symptoms. This finding supports our hypothesis, such that for cor-
rectional supervisors who are greatly affected by exposure to TIE directed to
inmates, the more social support they receive from their coworkers, the less sus-
ceptible they are to the negative impact of TIE at work on their mental health.
Our finding that greater coworker social support reduced the negative impact
of exposure to TIE at work on correctional supervisors’ depressive symptoms
is consistent with the buffering hypotheses of social support, which posits that
social support can help ameliorate the negative impact of stress on poor mental
health outcomes (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
We also found that coworker social support moderated the relationship
between effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers and depressive symptoms, such
that under conditions of low coworker social support, individuals who reported
greater effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers also reported lower depressive
symptoms. Similarly, we found that under conditions of high coworker social sup-
port, individuals who reported a greater effect of TIE directed to self and/or peers
reported higher depressive symptoms.
These findings may suggest that for correctional supervisors, the weaker their
social ties at work, the less willing they are to admit to being negatively impacted
by TIE at work. On the other hand, for correctional supervisors with stronger
social ties, the greater they feel the impact of TIE directed to self and/or peers,
the more willing they are to admit to feeling depressive symptoms. This is sup-
ported by several studies that suggest that the quality of the relationships formed
at work with peers and supervisors significantly impacts the overall health and
well-being of correctional staff (Moon & Maxwell, 2004; Rousseau etal., 2008).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
Supervisor Social Support
Finally, we examined the moderating role of supervisor social support (i.e., sup-
port correctional supervisors receive from wardens/deputy wardens). Our findings
showed that under conditions of low supervisor social support, individuals who
reported greater effect of TIE directed to inmates reported more depressive symp-
toms. These findings highlight the importance that supervisor social support can
play in reducing the deleterious effect of TIE on correctional supervisors’ mental
health and supports previous research that highlights the critical role that super-
visors can play in helping correctional staff cope with potential workplace strains
(Armstrong etal., 2015; Cherniss & Cherniss, 1980; Cullen etal., 1985; Lambert &
Hogan, 2009; Lambert etal., 2015a, 2015b; Maslach etal., 2001).
Study Strengths andLimitations
Our study is novel in that we examined TIE from the perspective of correctional
supervisors. Most studies on TIE have focused primarily on line-level staff, such
as correctional officers (Boudoukha et al., 2013; Denhof et al., 2014; Isenhardt &
Hostettler, 2016; Spinaris etal., 2012, 2013). To our knowledge, no study has exam-
ined TIE from the perspective of correctional supervisors.
Furthermore, the measure we used to assess the effect of TIE at work was specifi-
cally tailored for correctional employee occupational and non-work exposures and
covered a comprehensive list of work-related traumatic incidents experienced by
correctional employees. We used participatory action research methods by engaging
a group of correctional supervisors in the development of the measure. This method
allowed supervisors to identify specific work-related traumatic incidents that are
relevant to their occupation (Dugan etal., 2016, 2021). We included both indirect
and direct trauma exposure in our assessment of TIE at work among correctional
supervisors.
In terms of our study limitations, it is essential to note that the measure we used
to assess correctional supervisors’ perceptions of social support did not include
other sources of social support that can be beneficial in helping correctional employ-
ees cope with the effects of TIE at work. For example, research among public safety
professions indicates that social support from friends, family members (Delprino,
2002), employee assistance programs (EAPs), and union representatives may play a
role in helping reduce stress for these employees. Moreover, unlike non-union mem-
bers, unionized correctional employees oftenenjoy instrumental support in the form
ofbenefits such as paid time off and annual wellness days. These sources of support
for employees may help improve recovery from exposure to work-related stressors.
As such, we recommend that future studies examine other sources of social support
for correctional supervisors that may be protective against the deleterious impact
of TIE at work. Another notable limitation is that we did not control for prior his-
tory of trauma exposure among our study participants (many of whom are military
veterans). Therefore, we recommend that future studies control for previous trauma
exposure, perhaps by using veteran status as a proxy measure. We also recommend
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
that objective measures be used in future studies, such as physiological responses to
trauma among correctional supervisors.
Future studies may also examine the main causes of trauma experience by cor-
rectional employees. Our study only captures the frequency and types of TIE expe-
rienced by correctional supervisors at work. While jobs in the corrections sector are
traditionally held by male/caucasian people, experiences of TIE at work may vary
significantly based on sex/gender and race/ethnicity. As such, we recommend that
future studies examine the impact of TIE of correctional employees based on sex/
gender identity and racial/ethnic background (e.g., comparing people of color with
caucasians).
Our reliance upon self-reported data can increase the risk for common method
bias and misreporting, especially of the measure assessing depressive symptoms
among correctional supervisors. Previous research conducted with correctional staff
has highlighted under-reporting on questionnaires assessing mental health (Obidoa
etal., 2011) and substance use disorders (Shepherd etal., 2018). It is therefore pos-
sible that correctional supervisors in our sample underreported their level of depres-
sive symptoms.
Our study design was also cross-sectional, so we are unable to make causal infer-
ences. Additionally, we conducted mediation analysis using a cross-sectional study
design. A longitudinal study would be needed to examine the true temporal order
of TIE and its association with depressive symptoms and potential mediators in this
relationship. Our study may also include self-selection bias because we obtained a
convenience sample of correctional supervisors who volunteered to participate in
our online survey.
Our study sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistically significant
relationships observed. In SEM, the sample size plays a vital role in the ability to
observe true relationships in the data. A sample size below 200 may produce unre-
liable standard errors of estimates. We accounted for the small sample size in our
study by using robust estimators and bootstrapping confidence intervals for media-
tion and moderation analysis (Wolf etal., 2013).
Practical Implications
Our study found that correctional supervisors’ effect of TIE adversely impacted
their family domain and their mental well-being. Despite working in an organization
where exposure to traumatic incidents occurs regularly, interventions aimed at pre-
venting and/or reducing the negative effects of such exposures among correctional
employees are limited (Spinaris etal., 2013).
In the event of a work-related traumatic incident, most DOC have an estab-
lished Critical Incident Stress Response Team (CISRT) whose specific role is to
provide staff with emotional support following a traumatic stress. Some of the
services CISRT provide include: pre-incident traumatic stress education, defus-
ing, debriefing, and support for family members of affected staff (Connecticut
Department of Correction, 2015). However, the culture within DOC is such that
seeking help and admitting to emotional stress after a TIE, is perceived as a sign
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
of weakness (Crawley, 2013; Tracy, 2005). Therefore, most correctional employ-
ees are often reluctant to use CISRT services.
Most DOCs also contract with EAPs to provide a variety of services to help
employees cope with both personal and work-related stressors. Nevertheless, cor-
rectional staff utilization of EAPs is highly stigmatized because such services are
more commonly offered or mandated in the context of disciplinary actions or sub-
stance use problems. Further, contracted EAP services may not be equipped to
handle the types of traumatic incidents that correctional employees are regularly
exposed to (Spinaris etal., 2013). Thus, correctional agencies may benefit from
providing in-house counseling and training to help affected correctional staff.
This can help normalize reactions to TIE, particularly TIE involving inmates
(Shakespeare-Finch etal., 2002).
In addition, our study findings suggest that coworker social support and super-
visor social support can help buffer against the harmful effects of TIE at work on
correctional supervisors’ mental health. As such, having a strong social network
at work can be protective against the loss of resources following a TIE. Manage-
ment should focus on implementing interventions that strengthen the social cli-
mate at DOC (Thompson etal., 2005), which may include the implementation of
peer-led mentoring programs (Cherniack etal., 2016).
It is also worth noting that improving social support on the job for correctional
employees could have an indirect effect on the health and well-being of the incar-
cerated. Social support can foster safer working conditions, which in turn, could
create safer living environments for those who are incarcerated. We recommend
that this be examined in future corrections research.
Finally, family members play a critical role in helping correctional employees
cope with the traumatic incidents to which they are exposed on the job. The DOC
can help increase family members’ social support by educating them about the
nature of corrections work and by providing organizational programs that help
correctional employees and their family members cope with the stress that comes
with working in corrections (Delprino, 2002).
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s41542- 021- 00098-1.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Center for Promotion of Health in the New-Eng-
land Workplace (CPH-NEW). The authors would like to acknowledge the correctional supervisor union
members working in a Northeastern state for their continued support.
Funding Grant sponsor: this publication was supported by The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily repre-
sent the official views of NIOSH. Grant Number: 2U19OH008857.
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of
interest.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
References
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of
work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus
matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 151. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ a0022 170
Armstrong, G. S., Atkin-Plunk, C. A., & Wells, J. (2015). The relationship between work–family con-
flict, correctional officer job stress, and job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(10),
1066–1082. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00938 54815 582221
Armstrong, G. S., & Griffin, M. L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among
treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6), 577–592. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcrim jus. 2004. 08. 007
Baltes, B. B., & Young, L. M. (2007). Aging and work/family issues. Aging and work in the 21st cen-
tury (pp. 251–275). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bezerra, C. D., Assis, S. G., & Constantino, P. (2016). Psychological distress and work stress in cor-
rectional officers: A literature review. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva, 21(7), 2135–2146. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1590/ 1413- 81232 015217. 00502 016
Boudoukha, A. H., Altintas, E., Rusinek, S., Fantini-Hauwel, C., & Hautekeete, M. (2013). Inmates-
to-staff assaults, PTSD and burnout: Profiles of risk and vulnerability. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 28(11), 2332–2350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60512 475314
Buden, J. C., Dugan, A. G., Faghri, P. D., Huedo-Medina, T. B., Namazi, S., & Cherniack, M. G.
(2017). Associations among work and family health climate, health behaviors, work schedule,
and body weight. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(6), 588–599. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1097/ JOM. 00000 00000 001049
Buden, J. C., Dugan, A. G., Namazi, S., Huedo-Medina, T. B., Cherniack, M. G., & Faghri, P. D. (2016).
Work characteristics as predictors of correctional supervisors’ health outcomes. Journal of Occu-
pational and Environmental Medicine, 58(9), e325–e334. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ JOM. 00000 00000
000843
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 67(2), 169–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2004. 08. 009
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol ‘too long: Consider the brief cope.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7558i jbm04
01_6
Cherniack, M., Dussetschleger, J., Dugan, A., Farr, D., Namazi, S., El Ghaziri, M., & Henning, R. (2016).
Participatory action research in corrections: The HITEC 2 program. Applied Ergonomics, 53, 169–
180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. apergo. 2015. 09. 011
Cherniss, C., & Cherniss, C. (1980). Staff burnout: Job stress in the human services (p. 21). Sage
Publications.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bul-
letin, 98(2), 310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 2909. 98.2. 310
Connecticut Department of Correction. (2015). Employee handbook. Retrieved from https:// portal. ct.
gov/-/ media/ DOC/ Pdf/ HR/ A01Em pHand bookp df. pdf? la= en. Accessed 5 Jun 2021.
Crawley, E. (2002). Bringing it all back home? The impact of prison officers’ work on their families. Pro-
bation Journal, 49(4), 277–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02645 50502 04900 403
Crawley, E. (2013). Doing prison work. Willan.
Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Wolfe, N. T., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer
stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505–533. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07418 82850 00887 11
Dawe, B. (2018). PTSD, depression, suicide & divorce are highest among correctional officers. Retrieved
from https:// armor upnow. org/ 2018/ 05/ 21/ ptsd- depre ssion- suici de- divor ce- are- highe st- among- corre
ction al- offic ers/. Accessed 5 Jun 2021.
Delprino, R. P. (2002). Work and family support services for correctional officers and their family mem-
bers; a national survey. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved fromhttps:// www. ncjrs. gov/ pdffi les1/
nij/ grants/ 192292. pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2021.
Denhof, M. D., Spinaris, C. G., & Morton, G. R. (2014). Occupational stressors in corrections organi-
zations: Types, effects and solutions. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved
fromhttps:// info. nicic. gov/ nicrp/ system/ files/ 028299. pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2021.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
Derogatis, L. R. (1992). The brief symptom inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring & procedures man-
ual-II (2nd ed.). National Computer Systems.
Dewe, P. J., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Theories of psychological stress at work.
Handbook of occupational health and wellness (pp. 23–38). Springer.
Dugan, A. G., Farr, D. A., Namazi, S., Henning, R. A., Wallace, K. N., El Ghaziri, M., & Cherniack,
M. G. (2016). Process evaluation of two participatory approaches: Implementing total worker
health® interventions in a correctional workforce. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
59(10), 897–918.
Dugan, A. G., Namazi, S., Cavallari, J. M., Rinker, R. D., Preston, J. C., Steele, V. L., & Cherniack,
M. G. (2021). Participatory survey design of a workforce health needs assessment for correc-
tional supervisors. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 64(5), 414–430.
Enders, C. K. (2005). Maximum likelihood estimation. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Sci-
ence. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 04700 13192. bsa200
Ferdik, F., & Smith, H. (2017). Correctional officer safety and wellness literature synthesis. Washing-
ton, DC: Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved fromhttp:// www. corre
ctions. com/ system/ assets/ 0000/ 1308/ Corre ction al_ Offic er_ Safety_ and_ Welln ess. pdf. Accessed 5
Jun 2021.
Geiser, C. (2012). Data analysis with Mplus. Guilford Press.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–fam-
ily conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 350–370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/
jvbe. 1998. 1666
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy
of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 258214
Gurung, R., Sarason, B., & Sarason, I. (1997). Close personal relationships and health outcomes:
A key to the role of social support. Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and
interventions (2nd ed., pp. 547–573). Wiley.
Hartley, T. A., Violanti, J. M., Fekedulegn, D., Andrew, M. E., & Burchfiel, C. M. (2007). Associa-
tions between major life events, traumatic incidents, and depression among buffalo police offic-
ers. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 9(1), 25.
Harvey, J. (2014). Perceived physical health, psychological distress, and social support among prison
officers. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 242–259. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00328 85514 524883
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44(3), 513. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 44.3. 513
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in
the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.
Isenhardt, A., & Hostettler, U. (2016). Inmate violence and correctional staff burnout: The role of
sense of security, gender, and job characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(1–2),
173–207.
Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some
educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
Karasek, R. (1985). Job content questionnaire and users guide. University of Massachusetts.
Keinan, G., & Malach-Pines, A. (2007). Stress and burnout among prison personnel: Sources, outcomes,
and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 380–398. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
00938 54806 290007
Kessler, R. C. (1990). National comorbidity survey: Baseline (NCS-1). Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research.
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with
the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457–474. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF022 96338
Lambert, E. G., Barton-Bellessa, S. M., & Hogan, N. L. (2015a). The consequences of emotional burnout
among correctional staff. SAGE Open, 5, 2158244015590444.
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34(1), 96–118. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07340 16808 324230
Lambert, E. G., Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., & Hogan, N. L. (2015b). Leave your job at work: The possible
antecedents of work–family conflict among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 95(1), 114–134.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00328 85514 563284
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Occupational Health Science
1 3
LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R., Jr. (1980). Social support, occupational stress, and health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 21366 16
MacKinnon, D. (2012). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03809 556
Manning, M. R., Jackson, C. N., & Fusilier, M. R. (1996). Occupational stress, social support, and the
costs of health care. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 738–750. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/
256662
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1),
397–422. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. psych. 52.1. 397
Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions:
A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01650 25414 552301
Moon, B., & Maxwell, S. R. (2004). The sources and consequences of corrections officers’ stress: A
South Korean example. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(4), 359–370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcrim
jus. 2004. 04. 006
Morse, T., Dussetschleger, J., Warren, N., & Cherniack, M. (2011). Talking about health: Correction
employees’ assessments of obstacles to healthy living. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 53(9), 1037–1045. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ JOM. 0b013 e3182 260e2c
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Namazi, S., Dugan, A. G., Fortinsky, R. H., Barnes-Farrell, J., Coman, E., El Ghaziri, M., & Cherniack,
M. G. (2019). Examining a comprehensive model of work and family demands, work–family con-
flict, and depressive symptoms in a sample of correctional supervisors. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 61(10), 818–828. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ JOM. 00000 00000 001664
Obidoa, C., Reeves, D., Warren, N., Reisine, S., & Cherniack, M. (2011). Depression and work family
conflict among corrections officers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(11),
1294–1301. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ JOM. 0b013 e3182 307888
Regehr, C. (2005). Bringing the trauma home: Spouses of paramedics. Journal of Loss and Trauma,
10(2), 97–114. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15325 02059 09088 12
Rosino, M. L., & Hughey, M. W. (2018). The war on drugs, racial meanings, and structural racism: A
holistic and reproductive approach. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77(3–4), 849–
892. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ajes. 12228
Rothrauff, T., Cable, S. M., & Coleman, M. (2004). All that you can be: Negotiating work and family
demands in the military. Journal of Teaching in Marriage & Family, 4(1), 1–25. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1300/ J226v 04n01_ 01
Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., Chiocchio, F., Boudrias, J., & Morin, E. M. (2008). Social interactions at work
and psychological health: The role of leader-member exchange and work group integration 1. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7), 1755–1777. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1559- 1816. 2008.
00368.x
Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature
review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(1), 19–48.
Schieman, S., & Glavin, P. (2011). Education and work-family conflict: Explanations, contingencies and
mental health consequences. Social Forces, 89(4), 1341–1362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ sf/ 89.4. 1341
Shakespeare-Finch, J., Smith, S., & Obst, P. (2002). Trauma, coping resources, and family functioning in
emergency services personnel: A comparative study. Work & Stress, 16(3), 275–282. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 02678 37021 00003 4584
Shepherd, B. R., Fritz, C., Hammer, L. B., Guros, F., & Meier, D. (2018). Emotional demands and alco-
hol use in corrections: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
24(4), 438.
Spinaris, C. G., Denhof, M. D., & Kellaway, J. A. (2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder in united states
corrections professionals: Prevalence and impact on health and functioning. Desert Waters Correc-
tional Outreach. Retrieved fromhttps:// www. ncjrs. gov/ App/ Publi catio ns/ abstr act. aspx? ID= 264389.
Accessed 5 Jun 2021.
Spinaris, C., Denhof, M., & Morton, G. (2013). Impact of traumatic exposure on corrections profession-
als. Desert Waters Correctional Outreach. Retrieved fromhttps:// info. nicic. gov/ virt/ sites/ info. nicic.
gov. virt/ files/ 06Imp act_ of_ Traum atic_ Expos ure. pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2021.
Stack, S. J., & Tsoudis, O. (1997). Suicide risk among correctional officers: A logistic regression analy-
sis. Archives of Suicide Research, 3(3), 183–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13811 11970 82582 70
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Occupational Health Science
Stephens, C., & Long, N. (1999). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the New Zealand police: The moderat-
ing role of social support following traumatic stress. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12(3), 247–264.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10615 80990 82504 77
Stephens, C., & Long, N. (2000). Communication with police supervisors and peers as a buffer of work-
related traumatic stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 407–424. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ (SICI) 1099- 1379(200006) 21:4% 3c407:: AID- JOB17% 3e3.0. CO;2-N
Swenson, D. X., Waseleski, D., & Hartl, R. (2008). Shift work and correctional officers: Effects and strat-
egies for adjustment. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 14(4), 299–310. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
10783 45808 322585
Thompson, B. M., Kirk, A., & Brown, D. F. (2005). Work based support, emotional exhaustion, and spill-
over of work stress to the family environment: A study of policewomen. Stress and Health, 21(3),
199–207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smi. 1056
Tracy, S. J. (2005). Locking up emotion: Moving beyond dissonance for understanding emotion labor dis-
comfort. Communication Monographs, 72(3), 261–283. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03637 75050 02064
74
Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (Eds.). (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States:
Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academic Press.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J. L., & Scarborough, K. E. (1996). Work-related stress and coping among cor-
rectional officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(4),
291–308.
Useche, S. A., Montoro, L. V., Ruiz, J. I., Vanegas, C., Sanmartin, J., & Alfaro, E. (2019). Workplace
burnout and health issues among Colombian correctional officers. PLoS ONE. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1371/ journ al. pone. 02114 47
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for struc-
tural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64413 495237
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Authors and Aliations
SaraNamazi1· AliciaG.Dugan2 · RichardH.Fortinsky3· MazenElGhaziri4·
JanetL.Barnes‑Farrell5· JonathanNoel6· JenniferM.Cavallari7·
WilliamS.Shaw2· WayneA.ColeJr.8· MartinG.Cherniack2
1 Depar tment ofHealth Sciences, Springfield College, Springfield, MA, USA
2 Division ofOccupational andEnvironmental Medicine, UConn School ofMedicine, 263
Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT06030, USA
3 UConn Center onAging, UConn School ofMedicine, Farmington, CT, USA
4 Solomont School ofNursing, Zuckerberg College ofHealth Sciences, University
ofMassachusetts, LowellMA, USA
5 Depar tment ofPsychological Sciences, University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
6 Depar tment ofHealth Science, Johnson andWales University, Providence, RI, USA
7 Division ofOccupational andEnvironmental Medicine, Department ofPublic Health Sciences,
UConn School ofMedicine, Farmington, CT, USA
8 CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, 760 Capital Avenue, Hartford, CT06106, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com