A Framework for Facilitating Stress Management Educational Groups for Police Officers

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 31 October 2014, At: 05:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work with GroupsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

A Framework for Facilitating Stress ManagementEducational Groups for Police OfficersGeorge T. Patterson PhD aa Hunter College School of Social Work , 129 East 79th Street, New York, NY, 10021 E-mail:Published online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: George T. Patterson PhD (2008) A Framework for Facilitating Stress Management Educational Groups forPolice Officers, Social Work with Groups, 31:1, 53-70, DOI: 10.1300/J009v31n01_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J009v31n01_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J009v31n01_05

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J009v31n01_05

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Framework for FacilitatingStress Management Educational Groups

for Police Officers

George T. Patterson

ABSTRACT. Social workers provide a variety of stress managementinterventions to police officers and their families. Educational groupscan be useful for providing information regarding stress management in-terventions. The purpose of this article is to describe a framework for fa-cilitating stress management educational groups for police officers. Theframework was developed and implemented to inform officers aboutsources and types of work and life stress, as well as the cognitive-behav-ioral coping strategies that have been found to be useful in creating andmaintaining a sense of well-being among police officers. doi:10.1300/J009v31n01_05 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Docu-ment Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2008 byThe Haworth Press. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Educational groups, work and life stress, coping, policeofficers

George T. Patterson, PhD, is Assistant Professor at Hunter College School of SocialWork, 129 East 79th Street, New York, NY 10021 (E-mail: [email protected]).

The author wishes to thank Robert Salmon and Carmen Morano for their helpfulcomments and suggestions.

Social Work with Groups, Vol. 31(1) 2008Available online at http://swg.haworthpress.com

© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J009v31n01_05 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

INTRODUCTION

Stressful work and life events often have a negative impact on policeofficers that can be quite pervasive. These events can adversely affectan officer’s sense of well-being, job performance, family members, thelaw enforcement organization and the community (Finn & Tomz, 1997).Since their work is critical to society, and they are the first line in thecriminal justice system (Lester, Leitner, & Posner, 1984), stress man-agement interventions should be provided to police officers to help im-prove their ability to cope and their overall well-being.

Law enforcement agencies utilize social workers to offer a variety ofstress management interventions to police officers and their families.Zastrow (2001) notes that “a stress management group is an educationalgroup” (p. 254) and “the educator gives information to clients and teachesthem adaptive skills. To be an effective educator the worker must first beknowledgeable” (p. 37). Indeed, educational group work practice can bea useful method for providing information to police officers that can aidin coping with stress. When facilitating stress management groups so-cial workers might act as skills trainers in the role of educator (Gioia-Hasick & Brekke, 2002).

The purpose of this article is to present a framework for facilitatingstress management educational (SME) groups for police officers. Theframework serves as a guideline for providing information to police of-ficers regarding sources and types of work and life stress, and teachingexamples of cognitive- and behavioral-coping strategies. To achievethis purpose the knowledge needed by group facilitators is reviewed.Next, illustrations are provided that describe the practical application ofthe group module with police officers. The group module was derivedfrom three curriculum-based educational groups. Each of these groupsused a prepared curriculum.

EDUCATIONAL GROUPS

The terms “psychoeducational groups” and “educational groups” areoften used interchangeably (Sands & Solomon, 2003). Toseland andRivas (2005) conceptualized educational groups as treatment groups be-cause of the socioemotional assistance provided in such groups. More-over, when social workers assume educator roles they may not think ofthemselves as teachers even though they are indeed applying teaching

54 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

interventions (Strom-Gottfried, 2001). Although social workers useteaching skills their orientation remains as a social worker.

Numerous purposes of educational groups are described in the litera-ture. Clarity of purpose is essential and should be explicit, discussed,agreed upon and accepted by group members (Kurland & Salmon,1998). “The purpose of education is to provide new knowledge andskills for coping with a particular situation” (Northen & Kurland, 2001,p. 92). Educational group members learn new information and skillsthrough presentations, and discussion of shared experiences in a didacticformat while the group leader assumes the role of teacher (Toseland &Rivas, 2005). Specialized skills and knowledge are taught in a class-room environment which involves group interaction and discussion,and a social worker facilitator who assumes the role of teacher (Zastrow,2001). The provision of education is an important component of socialwork practice with groups and a key component for educational groups(Reid, 2002; Sands & Solomon, 2003). Structured educational groupshave been developed to address a wide range of social problems, pro-vide content that is informational and affective, didactic and experien-tial, and offer skills development, resources and behavioral assistance(Apgar & Coplon, 1985).

SOURCES OF STRESS FOR POLICE OFFICERS

Sands and Solomon (2003) suggest that “social workers who initiateeducational groups should have or develop substantive knowledge aboutthe focal issue or problem” (p. 12). In order to provide information to po-lice officers regarding stress, its sources and effects, it is important thatgroup workers have knowledge about the types stressful events that po-lice officers are likely to experience and how such events are categorized.

Finn and Tomz (1997) categorized four sources of stress for policeofficers:

1. The bureaucratic structure of the law enforcement organizationthat involves situations such as inadequate equipment, shift work,inadequate training or supervision, and excessive paperwork.

2. Law enforcement work within the community that involves fre-quent exposure to individuals that are suffering, the responsibilityfor protecting others, role conflicts, and exposure to dangerous workand stressful assignments.

George T. Patterson 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

3. Negotiating the criminal justice system, working with the public,and the media. Examples include officers’ negative perceptionsthat court rulings are too lenient on offenders and too restrictiveon law enforcement functions such as evidence collection and in-vestigations, perceptions of a lack of respect from the public andnegative media coverage of police officers.

4. Officers may be personally affected by events such as the birth ofa child, purchasing a new home, the death of a family member orclose friend, and experiencing financial or relationship problems.

Patterson (2001) contends that the traumatic incidents that police of-ficers experience should be reconceptualized as a fifth category of workstress given the potential negative effects that such incidents have on of-ficers’ psychological well-being.

TRAUMATIC INCIDENTS

Most traumatic incidents experienced by law enforcement personnelare intentional, human-made disasters (as opposed to natural, accidentaldisasters) such as sexual assault, officers involved in shootings, hostagesituations, the death of an officer in the line of duty, and the death or se-rious injury of children (Kirschman, 1997).

COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL COPINGRESPONSES TO STRESS

Lukens and Prchal (2002) suggest that cognitive-behavioral theory iscongruent with educational group practice. When applied in group prac-tice the theory provides group members with opportunities for learningproblem-solving skills, increased socialization, exchange of information,opportunities for self-understanding and increased social networks.

The cognitive phenomenological theory of stress and coping pro-vides the theoretical foundation for the SEM groups. The theory positsthat cognitive appraisal and coping function to mediate the effects ofstress on well-being, and consists of several components: stress, cogni-tive appraisal, and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Each componentis summarized as follows.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Stress

Stress and stressors are conceptualized as “a relationship between theperson and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing orexceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being”(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 21). Cognitive appraisal is a central themein an individual’s experiences of stress.

Cognitive Appraisal

Cognitive appraisal is the process that individuals use to assess the im-pact that a stressful event has for their psychological or physical well-be-ing. Two forms of cognitive appraisal are associated with the theory andboth influence subsequent coping strategies.

Primary appraisal involves an examination of what is at stake duringa stressful event. Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, andGruen (1986) suggested that individuals assess what is at stake duringa stressful event by considering threats to their self-esteem, health, sa-fety, or physical well-being, or threats to a loved one’s well-being. Theauthors found that when threats to an individual’s self-esteem were atstake, individuals reported more use of confrontive coping (problem-fo-cused coping), more self-control (emotion-focused coping), more accept-ing of responsibility (emotion-focused coping), more escape-avoidance(emotion-focused coping), and less seeking of social support. When aloved one’s well-being was at stake, individuals reported more use ofconfrontive coping (problem-focused coping), more escape-avoidance(emotion-focused coping), less planful problem solving (problem-fo-cused coping), and less distancing (emotion-focused coping).

Secondary appraisal is examined by assessing whether somethingcan or cannot be done to change a stressful event (Folkman et al., 1986;Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). When stressful events were appraised aschangeable, individuals used more confrontive coping (problem-focusedcoping), planful problem solving (problem-focused coping), and positivereappraisal (emotion-focused coping) (Folkman et al., 1986). Stressfulevents that were appraised as changeable were associated with the use ofproblem-focused coping strategies and less depression, and emotion-fo-cused coping was associated with more depression (Vitaliano, DeWolfe,Maiuro, Russo, & Katon, 1990).

In response to stressful events appraised as unchangeable, more distanc-ing and escape-avoidance (emotion-focused coping) were used (Folkmanet al., 1986). When stressful events are appraised as unchangeable, the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

use of problem-focused coping is not only considered to be ineffectivecoping, but, when a specific coping strategy does not fit or match the ap-praisal of a stressful event, such appraisals can have a negative impacton psychological well-being. Consequently, the use of problem-focusedcoping strategies in response to stressful events appraised as unchange-able are likely to result in feelings and expressions of frustration and an-ger (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988).

Individuals with Type A personality are described as hostile, aggres-sive, impatient, and competitive. In contrast, those described as Type Bpersonality are characterized by non-aggression, patience, and non-com-petitiveness. Kirmeyer and Diamond (1985) investigated the relation-ships between these personality characteristics and secondary appraisalamong police officers. They found that officers assessed as Type A per-sonality more often appraised stressful events as changeable, whereasType B officers appraised events as unchangeable. Police officers asses-sed as Type A personality also reported more use of problem-focusedcoping strategies regardless of whether stressful events were appraised aschangeable or unchangeable, although no differences were found in theuse of emotion-focused coping between the two personality types. Policeofficers also report stressful work events as unchangeable regardless ofdemographic factors such as age, gender, race, education, years of po-lice experience, or rank (Patterson, 1999).

Coping

Coping is conceptualized as “cognitive and behavioral efforts tomanage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised astaxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman,1984, p. 141). Cognitive-coping efforts refer to what an individual wasthinking during a stressful event. Emotion-focused coping strategies area type of cognitive coping and includes efforts to manage emotional re-sponses through acceptance, compromise or denial that arise from astressful event. For example, “Tried to forget the whole thing” and “Did-n’t let it get to me, refused to think about it too much” (Folkman et al.,1986).

Behavioral-coping efforts refer to what an individual did during astressful event. Problem-focused coping strategies are behavioral-copingstrategies that include efforts to manage the event through problem-solv-ing and direct action activities. For example, “I made a plan of action andfollowed it” and “Came up with a couple of different solutions to theproblem” (Folkman et al., 1986). Individuals use both problem-focused


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

coping and emotion-focused coping strategies in response to stressfulevents (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985).

Seeking social support involves attempts to seek informational, tangi-ble, and emotional support from others, (i.e., “Talked to someone to findout more about the situation”) (Folkman et al., 1986). Seeking social sup-port can function as both an emotion-focused (cognitive) and prob-lem-focused (behavioral) coping strategy simultaneously (Folkman &Lazarus, 1991). Among samples of police officers, seeking social supportin response to stressful work, but not life events, was associated withless distress (Patterson, 2003), lower perceptions of work stress (Graf,1986), and less alcohol use and distress (Burke, 1993). However,Kaufmann and Beehr (1989) found that police officers who reported re-ceiving more support also reported more stressful work events and neg-ative stress outcomes.

The Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WAYS) (Folkman & Lazarus,1988), a measurement instrument associated with the cognitive phenom-enological theory of stress and coping theory, is perhaps the most widelyused instrument to assess cognitive- and behavioral-coping strategies. Ina research study using the WAYS among a sample of police officers, offi-cers reported more problem-focused (behavioral) coping and seekingsocial support (cognitive and behavioral) coping strategies, and less emo-tion-focused (cognitive) coping strategies in response to stressful workevents (Evans, Coman, Stanley, & Burrows, 1993).

THE STRESS MANAGEMENTEDUCATIONAL (SME) GROUP MODULE

Folkman and Lazarus (1988) suggested that the WAYS questionnairecan be used to stimulate discussion in training and workshops. However,no literature describes the use of the WAYS questionnaire or the cogni-tive phenomenological theory for training and workshops, or educationalgroups. In describing the cognitive phenomenological model of stressand coping, Folkman and Lazarus (1984) suggest that the goal of stressprevention and reduction training is to change feelings and thoughts whichsubsequently changes actions and behaviors that individuals use in re-sponse to stress.

As the literature review has shown, in order to facilitate SME groupswith police officers it is important to understand the sources and typesof stress inherent in police work. Alternatively, a peer consultant (an indi-vidual who possesses expertise and personal experience with the same


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

problem experienced by the group) can be used to provide informationregarding the problem (Sands & Solomon, 2003; Toseland & Rivas,2005). For example, a police officer can act as a peer consultant providinginformation about law enforcement stress and sharing personal copingexperiences with the group. If a peer consultant is used, the consultantshould participate in the planning and curriculum development for thegroup as well as debrief with the facilitator immediately following thegroup. Another method utilizes an expert speaker who possesses sub-stantive knowledge in the material. For example, an expert speaker canprovide information to group members regarding cognitive- and behav-ioral-coping strategies. Whichever method is used, the information thatis provided should be accurate and relate to the needs of the group(Northen & Kurland, 2001).

Planning and Development

The SME groups were developed specifically for police officers. Thebasis for the groups were assertions regarding the usefulness of the cogni-tive phenomenological theory for training and workshops, recommenda-tions for educational group practice that were previously discussed, andlaw enforcement stress management training needs. For instance, Anshel(2000) contended that a limitation of law enforcement training and jobsupervision is the lack of teaching a cognitive-behavioral model for cop-ing. Anshel proposed that in-service training be provided to teach cog-nitive models to police officers, including appraisals of stressful events,and adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies. Stress managementinterventions designed for police officers should also consider stressfulevents that occur in work and non-work domains and help officers ac-quire cognitive, behavioral, and social support seeking coping skills(Patterson, 2003).

During the planning and development of the groups the author metwith supervisors from each unit to obtain information about the expec-tations for the group. The supervisors provided information regardinghow their units function, and the author offered information regardingthe framework for the SME groups. The meetings were crucial for en-suring that the SME groups were relevant for police officers who wereemployed within each unit. These tasks followed Meichenbaum’s (1985)suggestions to analyze what has to be trained, establish a working rela-tionship with clients and enlist them as collaborators in development,implementation, assessment and evaluation, and to select training taskscarefully.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

ILLUSTRATIONS

Three SME groups were conducted in a large urban law enforcementagency located in the Northeastern U.S. The first SME group was de-signed for newly assigned police officers to an internal affairs unit andfocused on their perceptions of stress arising from the isolation that in-ternal affairs officers experience as a result of performing their duties,as well as their emotional reactions to colleagues engaging in illegal orunethical behaviors. Twenty-eight police officers attended the 1 hourand 30 minute mandatory on-site group that was conducted at the end ofa 2-week training program.

The second SME group was also a mandatory group that was providedfor officers who had recently completed a stressful work assignment.Forty-one police officers attended the 1 hour and 30 minute off-site groupwhich focused on a discussion of stress and coping. The third SME was a7-hour full day on-site group that was provided to police officers whoheld supervisory positions. The group was voluntarily attended by 15police officers. The law enforcement agency’s purpose for the group wasto help supervisors understand and recognize stress reactions in theirsupervisees.

Phase 1: Overview of the Educational Group Module

The purpose of each of the three groups was to provide information topolice officers about the sources, types, and effects of stress that theyare likely to experience in both work and non-work domains. This pur-pose was achieved by facilitating a discussion regarding cognitive- andbehavioral-coping strategies that was intended to help officers understandsources of stress and use cognitive- and behavioral-coping strategies. Table1 shows the five phases of the group. Each phase is associated with specifictasks that need to be achieved before proceeding on to the next phase. Asthe table shows, the first phase of the group provides group memberswith an overview of the structure of the group, the cognitive pheno-menological theory of stress and coping, the relevance of the subject mat-ter for their personal well-being, their families, the law enforcementorganization, and the community with whom they work. Also during thefirst phase the ground rules for the group were established. Each SMEgroup provided an overview of the implications for using adaptive andmaladaptive coping strategies. Maladaptive coping strategies that werediscussed included drinking, smoking, and cynicism. Handouts were dis-tributed that included a bibliography for further reading.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

The structure for each group involved selecting a volunteer groupmember who was first asked to share an example of a stressful work andor life event with the group and then apply the cognitive appraisal processand coping strategies. Group members were informed that after discuss-ing the volunteer’s example the group would act as collaborators. Thus,the same example that was initially provided by the volunteer group


Table 1. Stress Management Educational Group Module

Phase Tasks

Phase 1: Overview of the educationalgroup

1. Introductions and overview.2. Establish the group context through adiscussion of the relevance of the groupcontent for the police officer, family members,the community and the law enforcementorganization.3. Provide an overview of adaptive andmaladaptive coping.4. Establish ground rules.5. Describe the structure for the group.

Phase 2: Stressful work and life events 1. Identify the types of stressful workand life events that police officers are likelyto experience.2. Select one volunteer group member, andguide a discussion of a stressful work or lifeevent.

Phase 3: Cognitive appraisal 1. Identify and discuss the two formsof cognitive appraisal and their relevancefor coping.2. Using the same stressful event andvolunteer group member, guide a discussionof the two types of appraisals in terms ofwhat is at stakes and the changeabilityof the stressful event.

Phase 4: Coping strategies 1. Discuss what is known and not knownabout stress and coping.2. Discuss the differences betweenemotion-focused (cognitive), problem-focused (behavioral) and support seeking(cognitive and behavioral) coping strategies.3. Using the same volunteer group memberand stressful event, guide a discussion of theuse of coping that links cognitive appraisalto coping strategies.4. Use the group members as collaboratorsto discuss the relationship between cognitiveappraisal and coping options.

Phase 5: Wrap-up 1. Review and summarize group content.2. Evaluate the group.D

ownl

oade

d by

[St

ony

Bro

ok U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

38 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

member was used in each of the subsequent phases to assess cognitiveappraisal and coping options until the example was completed. A list ofthe volunteer’s responses was maintained by the group leader since thematerial was addressed in subsequent phases of the group. If time per-mitted, another stressful event was solicited from a different volunteergroup member and the process was repeated again.

Group workers often have little or no control over the composition ofgroups in terms of combining supervisory and non-supervisory policeofficers or whether such groups are voluntary or mandatory. Given thatthe bureaucratic law enforcement organization is a source of stress forpolice officers, officers with non-supervisory functions may perceivesupervisors as the cause of stress. These perceptions may result in groupmembers avoiding a discussion of stressful organizational events re-lated to supervision when supervisors attend the educational group. Forthese reasons, the law enforcement agency excluded superiors from theeducational group provided to the internal affairs unit.

Issues for consideration during Phase 1 were the establishment ofboundaries, rules for confidentiality, and the need to form an immediaterelationship with group members in which trust is established. For ex-ample, the group worker informed group members that informationwould be kept confidential and that individual comments made in thegroup would not be shared with supervisors and others within the orga-nization. Group members were asked to also follow the same rules forconfidentiality.

Phase 2: Identify a Stressful Event

The second phase of the group focuses on the identification of stress-ful work and life events. Using knowledge of the type of stressful workand life stressful events that police officers are likely to experience andhow officers rank such events, this information was used to stimulategroup members’ thinking about stressful events. As mentioned, the groupwas structured so that one volunteer group member was asked to sharean example of a stressful event with the group. The volunteer was in-structed to think about the most meaningful stressful work or life eventthat occurred within the last 6 months and to consider the individualsthat were involved, and the behaviors and emotional responses thatwere associated with the event. This time frame was suggested to assistthe volunteer with recalling the details of the stressful event. Because allgroup members shared the same occupation and similar tasks they were


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

able to act as collaborators in the identification and discussion of stress-ful events.

During this phase, most group members appeared to be hesitant aboutproviding examples. Their hesitancy could be attributed to several fac-tors: uncertainty regarding confidentiality, having superiors and otheradministrative personnel present during the groups, or their perceptionsthat discussing stress was too demonstrative for a law enforcement set-ting. For example, one group member provided a written comment onan evaluation form suggesting that the SME group was “Very interest-ing and helpful even if it was a bit touchy feely.”

Phase 3: Cognitive Appraisal

After a stressful work or life event was identified and discussed bythe volunteer group member, the volunteer was then instructed to focuson the entire event, not just one aspect of the event and to appraise thestressful event by first considering what was at stake during the event,and second whether the event was changeable or unchangeable. Partici-pants were informed that stressful events may be appraised in differentways by individuals and what one individual considers stressful maynot be stressful for another.

In order to assess primary appraisal, the volunteer was asked to con-sider if his or her professionalism as a police officer, personal well-beingor that of a family member was at stake. Folkman et al. (1986) identifieditems that help individuals assess what is at stake during a stressfulevent such as threats to a loved one’s well-being, harm to one’s ownhealth, safety, or physical well-being, or a strain on one’s financial re-sources.

The relevance of primary appraisal for police officers became partic-ularly apparent during the group that was provided to officers assignedto the internal affairs unit. Some group members were concerned that asa result of their new work assignment their family members’ could possi-bly receive threatening telephone calls. Group members were informedthat when threats to a loved one’s well-being was at stake, individuals re-ported more confrontive coping and escape-avoidance, and less problemsolving and distancing (Folkman et al., 1986). Confrontive coping involvesaggressive and risky efforts to change the stressful event, whereas es-cape-avoidance involves efforts to detach from the event and minimizeits importance (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). Group members once againacted as collaborators to explore options for coping with threateningtelephone calls made to a loved one.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

During the discussion group members were supportive of one an-other and acknowledged that threatening calls made to their homes andfamily members could be a real possibility. Some suggestions providedby group members for handling such calls were to first be prepared thatthere is a real possibility that they may occur as a result of their work as-signment investigating other police officers for complaints, and inap-propriate or illegal behaviors. Group members further suggested thatsince the source of the call is not known, there is not much that can bedone. They agreed that these issues were something that they would allneed to accept as part of a very difficult work assignment, and that indi-viduals need to continue their investigations without being influencedby the calls.

After considering what was at stake during a stressful event, the vol-unteer was then asked to consider the changeability of the event. Groupmembers were informed that in general, cognitive-coping strategies aremore likely to be used when stressful events were appraised as unchange-able, and behavioral coping was more likely in response to changeableevents (Folkman et al., 1986). Secondary appraisal was assessed by ask-ing whether the event was one: “(1) that you could change or do some-thing about, (2) that must be accepted or gotten used to” (Folkman &Lazarus, 1980, p. 226). These two questions have been empirically linkedto coping strategies (Folkman et al., 1986). Because certain aspects of astressful event may be appraised as changeable while other aspects ofthe event may be appraised as unchangeable, the volunteer participantwas encouraged to focus on the entire event in order to make an as-sessment.

Phase 4: Coping Strategies

The fourth phase focused on a discussion of cognitive, behavioral andsocial support seeking coping strategies and provided an overview of thefunction of these coping strategies. Several recommendations made byMeichenbaum (1985) were followed in this phase. Meichenbaum recom-mended that trainers enlist participants as collaborators in determiningthe most useful coping approaches. Additional recommendations includethe need to be frank, open, and honest in telling group members what isand is not known about stress, train a range of coping strategies, train forgeneralization, and to be sensitive to the role of cognitive and affectivefactors. In addition to these activities, group members were informedthat stress and coping are complex processes affected by factors such aspersonality and culture.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Anderson, Swenson, and Clay (1995) suggest that police officersshould have a positive attitude toward any coping strategies in order toapply them in practice successfully. To facilitate such positive attitudesgroup leaders should help police officers to identify, refine and expandcoping strategies that they are currently using as well as to help officersuse the coping strategies. Otherwise officers may view stress manage-ment interventions as too esoteric or mundane. Anderson et al. do notrecommend instructing all police officers to use one coping strategyover another since the coping strategy will not be effective for all offi-cers. Indeed, coping strategies that may be effective for one individualin response to a stressful event may not be effective for another, or cop-ing that may be effective in response to one event may not be effectivewithin another (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004).

When the coping strategies were reviewed and group members wereasked to reflect on the strategies that were used, group members statedthat the strategies were very practical and appeared to be based on com-mon sense. Additionally, group members stated that they were alreadyusing some of the coping strategies such as “I made a plan of action andfollowed it.” Group members’ comments were used to reinforce the useof adaptive coping strategies that can be beneficial in response to futurestressful events. Finally, a comparison was provided between maladap-tive coping strategies such as drinking to illustrate how such coping strat-egies do not provide the same effects as an adaptive coping.

Phase 5: Wrap-Up

The final phase of the group consisted of a review, summary, andevaluation of the informational material covered in the group. The SMEgroups were evaluated using forms that were provided by the law en-forcement agency. The forms only assessed the usefulness of the groupas well as group members’ satisfaction with the group leader, and weredistributed and collected by law enforcement personnel at the end ofeach group.

The written responses of the internal affairs group members indicatedthat the group helped them to feel less alone and isolated as a result ofworking in the internal affairs unit, and provided them with support inknowing that other group members shared similar concerns regardingstressful events. Group members were also very satisfied with the cog-nitive phenomenological approach for discussing stress and indicatedthat more time should have been provided for the group. The other twogroups were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale that assessed group


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

members’ satisfaction with the group. Overall, the items were rated fourand five points indicating a high level of satisfaction with both the groupcontent and the group leader.

Outcome measures that assessed the efficacy of the SEM groups forincreasing group members’ knowledge, or use of cognitive- and behav-ioral-coping strategies were not used. For example, the evaluation formthat was used for the SME group provided for officers who had recentlycompleted high stress tours of duty contained 5 items such as “the facili-tator was helpful” and “after being in the group, I am better able tocope.” The evaluation form distributed to the internal affairs unit SMEgroup members only had two words that formed a question regardingthe SME group. These two words were “coping strategies.” Groupmembers provided a written response to this phrase.

CONCLUSION

This article provides a framework for facilitating SME groups withpolice officers. The purpose of each group was to provide informationto police officers regarding work and life stress, and cognitive- and behav-ioral-coping strategies that have been empirically linked to well-beingamong police officers. Numerous issues were considered in the devel-opment and implementation of the groups that also made it difficult toassess coping outcomes such as whether police officers improved theircoping responses after participating in the groups. In sum, these issueswere: (1) coping is a complex process, (2) individuals should not betrained to utilize coping strategies in a cookbook fashion, (3) individu-als are likely to use both problem-focused and emotion-focused strate-gies, (4) coping strategies that may be effective for one individual maynot be effective for another, (5) coping strategies that may be effective inresponse to a specific stressful event may not be effective in response toa future event, and finally (6) stress management interventions are de-signed for general use and interventions may not be applicable for spe-cific group members.

The effects of culture also influence coping strategies and should beconsidered when assessing the efficacy of coping strategies (Tweed &DeLongis, 2006). When considered together, these issues make it diffi-cult and challenging to evaluate the efficacy of coping strategies.

The group facilitator was not given a copy of any of the evaluationforms completed by police officers who participated in the groups, butwas able to view the forms. It is not clear why copies of the evaluation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

forms were not given to the group facilitator. Perhaps the agency viewedthe purpose of the form as having police departmental business use only.This procedure was used by this law enforcement agency and may notbe the norm among all law enforcement agencies. When group facilita-tors conduct groups within law enforcement agencies, the agency shouldprovide copies of the evaluation forms. This will help group facilitators toimprove on future performance, and to modify issues that group membersraise.

Despite these complexities involved in evaluating coping outcomes,the framework described in this article was beneficial for police officersbased on their comments made during the groups, and their favorableratings as evidenced on the evaluation forms. Somerfield and McCrae(2000) suggest that the assessment of effective and ineffective coping isdifficult to establish. During concrete time-limited stressful events, theassessment of effective and ineffective coping may be more obvioussuch as calling 911 in response to a house fire. However, effective copingmay be less obvious in situations that are chronic and complex. Giventhese complexities, Somerfield and McCrae suggest that an evaluationof coping strategies should assess how such strategies assist individualsin some situations while not in others, build upon existing copingstrengths, speed up the process of recovery from losses, and assist indi-viduals to enhance their interpersonal relationships. Group members’comments indicated that the groups did build upon their existing copingstrengths. Particularly in the SME group provided to the internal affairsunit, group members stated that the group helped to enhance their inter-personal relationships with each other and to feel less isolated. Theseoutcomes are consistent with Somerfield and McCrae’s assertions.

REFERENCES

Anderson, W., Swenson, D., & Clay, D. (1995). Stress management for law en-forcement officers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Anshel, M. H. (2000). A conceptual model and implications for coping with stressfulevents in police work. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 375-400.

Apgar, K. & Coplon, J. K. (1985). New perspectives on structured life educationgroups. Social Work, 30 (2), 138-143.

Burke, R. J. (1993). Work-family stress, conflict, coping and burnout in police officers.Stress Medicine, 9, 171-180.

Evans, B. J., Coman, G., Stanley, R. O., & Burrows, G. D. (1993). Police officers’ cop-ing strategies: An Australian police survey. Stress Medicine, 9, 237-246.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Finn, P. & Tomz, J. E. (1997). Developing a law enforcement stress program for offi-cers and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged commu-nity sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emo-tion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Ways of coping questionnaire: Permissions set.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Mind Garden.

Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Coping and Emotion. In A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus(Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (pp.207-227). New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986).Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter out-comes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.

Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 55, 745-774.

Gioia-Hasick, D. & Brekke, J. S. (2002). Social workers as skills trainers. In K. J.Bentley (Ed.), Social work practice in mental health: Contemporary roles, tasks,and techniques (pp. 143-179). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Graf, F. (1986). The relationship between social support and occupational stressamong police officers. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14, 178-186.

Kaufmann, G. M. & Beehr, T. A. (1989). Occupational stressors, individual strains,and social supports among police officers. Human Relations, 42, 185-197.

Kirmeyer, S. L., & Diamond, A. (1985). Coping by police officers: A study of rolestress and Type A and Type B behavior patterns. Journal of Occupational Behavior,6, 183-195.

Kirschman, E. (1977). I love a cop: What police families need to know. New York:Guilford Press.

Kurland, R. & Salmon, R. (1998). Teaching a methods course in social work withgroups. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:Springer.

Lester, D. Leitner, L. A., & Posner, I. (1984). The effects of stress management trainingprogramme on police officers. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33,25-31.

Lukens, E. P. & Prchal, K. (2002). Social workers as educators. In K. J. Bentley (Ed.),Social work practice in mental health: Contemporary roles, tasks, and techniques(pp. 122-142). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New York: Pergamon Press.Northen, H. & Kurland, R. (2001). Social work with groups. New York: Columbia

University Press.Patterson, G. T. (1999). Coping effectiveness and occupational stress among police of-

ficers. In J. M. Violanti & D. Paton (Eds.), Police trauma: The psychological after-math of civilian combat (pp. 214-226). Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Patterson, G. T. (2001). Reconceptualizing traumatic incidents experienced by law en-forcement personnel. The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies.Retrieved November 12, 2001 from http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/

Patterson, G. T. (2003). Examining the effects of coping and social support on workand life stress among police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 215-226.

Reid, K. E. (2001). Clinical social work with groups. In A. R. Roberts & G. K. Greene(Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference (pp. 432-436). New York: Oxford Press.

Sands, R. G. & Solomon, P. (2003). Developing educational groups in social workpractice. Social Work with Groups, 26 (2), 5-21.

Somerfield, M. R. & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodologi-cal challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical application. American Psycholo-gist, 55, 620-625.

Strom-Gottfried, K. (2001). Enacting the educator role: Principles for practice. In A. R.Roberts & G. K. Greene (Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference (pp. 437-441). NewYork: Oxford Press.

Toseland, R. W. & Rivas, R. F. (2005). An introduction to group work practice. (5th ed.).Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tweed, R. G. & DeLongis, A. (2006). Problems and strategies when using rating scalesin cross-cultural coping research. In Paul P. T. Wong and Lilian C. J. Wong (Eds.),Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 203-221). Dallas,TX: Spring Publications.

Vitaliano, P. P., DeWolfe, D. J., Maiuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Katon, W. (1990). Ap-praised changeability of a stressor as a modifier of the relationship between copingand depression: A test of the hypothesis of fit. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59, 582-592.

Zastrow, C. (2001). Social work with groups: Using the class as a group leadershiplaboratory. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED: 11/20/06MANUSCRIPT REVISED: 03/10/07

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED: 03/24/07

doi:10.1300/J009v31n01_05


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:38

31

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

A Framework for Facilitating Stress Management Educational Groups for Police Officers