Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Marilyn Cox
 -- 3892 2022-06-23 12:48:57 |
2 Reference format revised.
Lindsay Dong
-17 word(s) 3875 2022-06-24 02:50:09 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Cox, M.;  Norris, D.;  Cramm, H.;  Richmond, R.;  Anderson, G.S. Public Safety Personnel Family Resilience. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24388 (accessed on 06 August 2024).
Cox M,  Norris D,  Cramm H,  Richmond R,  Anderson GS. Public Safety Personnel Family Resilience. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24388. Accessed August 06, 2024.
Cox, Marilyn, Deborah Norris, Heidi Cramm, Rachel Richmond, Gregory S. Anderson. "Public Safety Personnel Family Resilience" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24388 (accessed August 06, 2024).
Cox, M.,  Norris, D.,  Cramm, H.,  Richmond, R., & Anderson, G.S. (2022, June 23). Public Safety Personnel Family Resilience. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24388
Cox, Marilyn, et al. "Public Safety Personnel Family Resilience." Encyclopedia. Web. 23 June, 2022.
Public Safety Personnel Family Resilience
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph19095224

The families of public safety personnel (PSP) face demands that are unique to these occupations. Nonstandard work, trauma exposure, and dangerous work environments affect both workers and the families who support them. Factors influencing family functioning and the availability and accessibility of resources provide clues about the type of skills and supports that PSP families rely on. Meaning-making, collaboration, a sense of coherence, and communication were identified as themes associated with intrafamilial processes. Extrafamilial themes included public perceptions, a lack of recognition for the roles families fulfill, and the need for information and education. The vulnerability of PSP families is variable and extrafamilial resources in the form of formal and informal supports are necessary to enhance family resiliency. 

family resiliency public safety personnel nonstandard work family time family capabilities trauma exposure

1. Introduction

There is an expectation that Public Safety Personnel (PSPs), such as firefighters, police, communicators, corrections, paramedics [1], make a commitment to protect the communities that they serve, which may require sacrifices and endanger their lives; fortunately, there has been increasing interest in the demands on and consequences for PSPs (e.g., [2][3][4][5]). However, the occupational risks and requirements that PSPs take on to keep our communities safe do not end with them but transfer through to their families [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Unfortunately, existing research about PSP families often focuses solely on PSPs and their careers, neglecting the effects that PSP careers have on other family members (e.g., [12][13][14]).
There are similarities between the experiences of PSP and military personnel and by extension, a more developed body of literature on military family resilience can aid research on PSP families. Public safety (PS) organizations are paramilitary in structure, meaning they often utilize components of the organizational hierarchical reporting structure, tactics, and training methods of the military, as well as incorporating the often highly masculine and stoic subculture of the military [1][13][15]. Just as there are similarities in occupational risk across military and public safety sectors, so too are their shared experiences for their families. Military families face specific lifestyle dimensions and challenges such as relocation, separation, and risks of injury and death [16]. While certain PS sectors are impacted by relocation orders (e.g., RCMP [17]), this factor is more pervasive among military families. Many PSP families are also affected by separation, although it is experienced differently than the separation associated with military deployment. PSP can be away from home for days or weeks (e.g., wildland firefighters [18]), but the absence felt by families is more often related to long shifts and mandatory overtime [10][19][20]. PS work can also be dangerous and there are inherent risks to both physical and mental health for PSPs due to the nature and unpredictability of their work [1][21].

2. Public Safety Personnel Family Resilience

2.1. Structural Interference

2.1.1. Role Overload

The extent to which nonstandard work schedules are intertwined with the number, ages, and special needs of children, the availability of childcare, single parenting, and dual-career couples generates unique challenges for PSP families. A common sentiment shared by participants in qualitative studies was the feeling of being a single parent in a two-parent family when one of the parents was a PSP [6][7][10][22][23][24][25][26]. This is due to rotating shifts, unscheduled overtime, and unpredictable call-ins that place an unequal share of responsibility for childcare and managing the household on the non-PSP spouse. PSP family members often require recovery time due to long hours and shift changes which further reduces their availability at home. As Hill et al. [20] note, “the needs of the FRS [fire and rescue services] permeate the lives of relatives by the FRS being the clear priority of the family” (p. 398). The onus is on non-PSP spouses to be flexible and adjust to the scheduling demands of PSPs, which can lead to role overload, exhaustion, and resentment [11][23][25][26][27][28][29][30].
There is some evidence that the family roles of spouses are more egalitarian when the PSP is female. According to a Canadian study, female police officers tend to share parenting equally with their spouses, whereas male police officers spend significantly less time caring for dependents than their spouses who also work full-time outside of the home (22 versus 34 h) [31]. Fathers whose shift work allows them to be at home in the daytime often take on more childcare responsibilities than fathers who work standard hours [10][32]. Firefighters and their spouses in Sommerfeld et al. [33] considered shift work to be advantageous for childcare, though this can only have utility when the work hours of parents do not overlap and, therefore, is of limited advantage for those with rotating shifts. When workable, tag-team parenting was deemed beneficial for childcare but came at the expense of “couple time” [10][25]. Rotations of four days on and four days off also had advantages for family time; availability during the off shift provided relief for the non-PSP spouse [25]. Roth and Moore [30] found that families of emergency medical services personnel coped with tensions prompted by nonstandard schedules by negotiating role responsibilities and being flexible; however, participants pointed out that the division of labor in the home was not always equitable.
Childcare can present logistical challenges for single parents and dual-career families, particularly when both parents are PSPs or the non-PSP spouse also works nonstandard hours. Institutional childcare is often unavailable for nonstandard hours, and parents must rely on older children, extended family, or live-in nannies [10][34]. Some women in the studies postponed their own careers to care for their children because coordinating childcare was unworkable; others worked fewer hours or had to request time off to care for children because the PSP family member’s work with less flexibility and predictability was prioritized in spousal employment [10][24][25][27]. As Carrington [27] notes, “equity in household tasks might not be feasible in policing relationships, especially in the early phases of an officer’s career when rotational shiftwork and volunteer overtime are necessary” (p. 148). Spouses in the studies often expressed that they were committed to supporting PSP’s careers by managing the home and taking care of the family; however, this required both flexibility and sacrifices [6][7][10][20][23][24][25][26][27][30]. Young families must adapt simultaneously to the new demands of a PSP career, the couple relationship, and parenthood, making it difficult to define and balance family roles.
Separation and relocation of PSPs are more variable than they are for military families but important to note since these aspects of the job have a significant impact on family roles and responsibilities. Wildland firefighters and disaster relief workers might be gone for days or weeks, for example, and transfers between detachments are common in police forces [27][31][35]. PSPs can also be required to be away from home for training or work extended hours with no notice due to critical incidents, putting additional demands on family members for childcare and household responsibilities [11][28][34][36]. Spouses of RCMP officers reflected on the challenges of relocation, noting that, while their partners moved to detachments with familiar roles and responsibilities, spouses had “to start their lives over and over again … [and] had to start from “scratch”” [27] (p. 69). Relocation compounds challenges for the careers of spouses who are unable to find work or childcare, particularly when they are posted to rural and remote communities and lose the instrumental support of extended family and close friends [25][27][37].

2.1.2. Family Time and Socializing

PSPs must be available twenty-four hours a day, seven days per week (24/7) which requires rotations that include nights, weekends, holidays, and unscheduled call-ins. Despite the fact that families understand the 24/7 demands of PS work, the absence of the PSP on holidays was identified in empirical data as a significant source of stress for spouses of police officers [6][7] and echoed in qualitative studies for a variety of PSP occupations [9][10][22][23][24][25][30][33][38][39]. Some families developed strategies and celebrated holidays at different times [9][10][39], but this was not possible for events external to the family that are planned to accommodate standard work schedules such as weekend weddings, graduation ceremonies, and children’s sports [30]; moreover, young children did not always understand why their families did things differently [10]. Carrington [27] found that a few PSP families coped with the inevitable scheduling conflicts by adopting a “Family First philosophy”, which respected the time-based demands of PS work but nonetheless communicated that the family was their top priority; “they always knew or “felt” that they came first” (p. 120). In this way, the PSP schedule was accommodated with holidays and family events marked in unconventional ways rather than neglected.
A primary issue for children of PSPs is that they spend too little time with the PSP parent [9][11][29][34]. Spouses and children reported that the PSP parents frequently miss children’s sports activities, school events, and special days [9][30][39]. Regehr et al. [10] and Watkins et al. [26] identified a tendency for firefighters to work a second job during off shifts, which could further reduce opportunities for family time. On the other hand, PSPs who had off shifts that allowed them to be home when their partner was at work were reported to spend more time in the parenting role [10][22][25][27][32]. There is uncertainty about the PSP’s physical presence in the family due to unscheduled overtime and call-ins; the chronic absence of PSP parents has been expressed in terms of anger and sadness for children [9][10][11][22][23][34]. There is evidence of PS organizations addressing this by allowing flexibility so that PSP parents can manage their schedules to attend family events and children’s activities by trading with co-workers or using lieu days (time off in exchange for working public holidays) [10][22][33]. However, there was also reference to the inflexibility of PS organizations [11][12][14][30][34], and study participants contend that schedule flexibility is largely associated with seniority, which disadvantages younger PSPs who often have greater childcare demands [14][25][27][33].
Factors such as the stage of the family, the number and age of children, and the rank of the PSP make the demands on each PSP family unique. For example, a sample of correctional officers under the age of 40 who were married with young children reported more time-based conflict with work and family than officers over the age of 40 with older children [14]. PSPs and spouses reported that their relationships were strained, and time alone as a couple was sacrificed to accommodate childcare and fulfill the demands in the early stages of the PSP’s career when there was less flexibility regarding shifts, transfers, and overtime [10][27][33][34][40][41]. Spouses of PSPs who were more advanced in their careers reported less disruption in part because the PSP had more flexibility regarding shifts and because the family had adjusted to the scheduling demands [10][14][25]. Many researchers have concluded there is a need for more organizational support and flexibility for PSP families early in their careers and those with young children to help them manage the structural demands associated with PS work [14][20][30][31][42].

2.1.3. Routines

The maintenance of routines and rituals is particularly important for pre-school children [43] and supports communication between parents and adolescents [44]. The degree to that routines are impacted by nonstandard work depends on the type of shift. Studies suggest that the evening shift (work time between 2 p.m. and midnight) is the most difficult for families because parents are not available for after-school sports, evening meals, homework, or bedtime rituals [30][43][45][46][47][48]. The need for daytime sleep by PSPs working the night shift can be problematic for families with toddlers who simultaneously try to support the PSP’s sleep recovery and interact with their children [11].
Night shifts and emergency calls during the night can interrupt sleep and be accompanied by worry for the PSP’s safety and a subsequent lack of sleep for family members, which results in tension and stress [19][26][49]. Spouses have reported feeling exhausted due to hypervigilance during night shifts, having their own sleep patterns affected by the PSP’s rotating shifts, and the challenge of supporting the PSP’s sleep recovery (e.g., keeping children quiet) [6][26][30]. PSPs who prioritize family responsibilities over sleep recovery, though well-intended, accumulate sleep loss which can impact families due to negative affect and poorer interactions with children and spouses (e.g., fall asleep or become agitated) [26].

2.1.4. Ambivalence

Family members appreciate the essential roles that PSPs fulfill, and the importance of this work influences how families function and perceive their roles. Many family members express a sense of pride in the work of PSPs and their roles in supporting the PSP, but this is tempered by ambivalence [7][8][25][39][50]. Family interactions are often controlled by nonstandard schedules that require spouses and children to make significant sacrifices to support PSPs’ work commitments [6][10][20][25][27][30]. In some cases, women forgo opportunities for paid employment and accept traditional gender roles in the home to accommodate PSP schedules or participate in full-time paid employment but remain the primary caregiver for children [6][10][22][24][29]. Others develop strategies and negotiate and share responsibilities for both childcare and the household with PSP partners (e.g., tag-team parenting) [22][30][34][51]. Duxbury et al. [31] note that male police officers report that they are taking on a more egalitarian role in families, which is exerting pressure on organizations to adjust outdated expectations regarding traditional family roles. Family members believe that the instrumental support they provide so that PSPs can fulfill work commitments is substantial but largely goes unnoticed by PS organizations [20][27][37][52].

2.2. Emotional Interference

2.2.1. Behavior-Based Conflict

Certain types of behaviors that are necessary for PSPs to perform work roles become problematic when they spill over into family relationships [53]. Miller [29] notes that some police officers can compartmentalize work and family, but others find it difficult to “turn off the job”, particularly when they have worked long hours and have been exposed to trauma [54].
PSPs exposed to accidents and criminal activity are at risk of transferring protective, suspicious, hypervigilant, and authoritarian behaviors that are important to their roles in the workplace into the home environment [29]. Johnson et al. [54] researched authoritarian spillover and found that forty percent of police officers in their sample reported that they had been abusive to spouses during a period of six months prior to the survey. There is evidence that after a long or difficult shift, PSP families can be subjected to anger and irritability from PSPs [10][22][23][24][25][40][50][55][56][57].

2.2.2. Ambiguous Loss

In addition to the uncertain physical absence of PSPs due to unscheduled overtime and call-ins, the psychological absence of PSPs who are present but withdrawn from their families because they are either physically exhausted or processing a traumatic event manifests as an ambiguous loss. Boss [58] posits that ambiguous loss, the uncertainty of physical or psychological presence, poses the greatest challenge for family functioning and was a common theme in qualitative studies [9][10][22][23]. As the wife of a first responder reflected on the breakdown of communication with her husband, “[i]t’s like he’s here, but he’s not” [9] (p. 48). The PSP is present in the family but unable to provide instrumental or emotional support, which “creates significant unpredictability regarding the boundary that surrounds the family, its rules, roles, and patterns of relating” [10] (p. 425). The ambiguous loss was more pronounced for family members when PSPs suffered from PTSD [32][35][52].
Family members reported anticipating withdrawal by “reading and monitoring” the PSP [10][20] and giving the PSP “space” [30] and “downtime” [39] when they returned home to allow recovery time. When spouses were also PSPs or in an allied occupation like healthcare, PSPs were more likely to communicate with their spouses about their work at the end of a shift which allowed them to “decompress” and aided the transition from work to family [23][24][27][29][30][40].

2.2.3. Crossover

Whereas spillover refers more generally to the effects of the work environment on the home environment, the crossover is a subset described in the work-family conflict literature as “interindividual transmission of stress or strain” [59] (p. 901). In other words, the stress that the PSP experiences in the workplace crosses over or is transferred to family members. Spouses described being a “sounding board” for first responders [9] (p. 48) and some felt discomfort and anxiety with the details that PSPs shared [23][24][25]. In a mixed-methods study, Friese [6] found that spouses of law enforcement officers who experienced high levels of job-related stress experienced equal or greater levels of stress arising from their relationships. Similarly, Roberts and Levenson [60] reported that negative affect on days with a high level of work stress for police officers corresponded with low positive affect for their spouses. Spouses of law enforcement professionals in Landers et al. [8] “described experiences with nausea, intrusive thoughts, anxiety, shaking, confusion, mood changes, fear, and worry stemming from their own responses to the LEP’s [law enforcement professional] exposure to traumatic events” (p. 314).
Children are also vulnerable to crossover effects. In a study associated with the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks, Hoven et al. [61] posit that children of first responders exposed to dangerous work environments are at greater risk of mental health problems than the general population, in part, due to fear, worry, and impaired parenting. Kishon et al. [62] found a higher incidence of separation anxiety disorder among children whose fathers were first responders with reports of “recurrent excessive distress when anticipating or experiencing separation from parents, reluctance/refusal to go to sleep without being near the parents, and physical symptoms (e.g., headaches, stomach aches, nausea) when separation occurs or is anticipated” (p. 911). Helfers et al. [19] concluded that the stress of police work could transfer to children, affecting behaviors and academic achievement. All the children in Helfers's study expressed fears about the safety of their police parents and just under half of the participants said that the police parent was reluctant to talk about their work which may have exacerbated worry and fear about the dangers. Helfers et al. stressed the importance of mental health initiatives for children at an organizational level.

2.2.4. Identity

In a 24/7 economy, shiftwork is common in the general population, but the essential nature of PS work, the trauma exposure, and the risks of injury or death combined intensify work demands for both the PSP and their family. The work identity of the PSP and their commitment to the PS organization spills over to the family due to the unavoidable structural and emotional demands of the work. Family members share the PSP identity by describing themselves as a “cop’s kid” or “cop’s wife” [27][29], or “half the badge” [27] and many families adopt the “first responder lifestyle” [9] by choice, obligation, or necessity [11][20][22][25][30]. Families become immersed in the PSP way of life due to expectations of loyalty to the organization [27][29], the importance of PS work [11][20][23][25], and work schedules that require families to “expect the unexpected” [20] (p. 398).

2.3. Risk of Injury or Death

PSPs responding to dangerous situations are vulnerable to physical injuries and operational stress injuries, which can be life-threatening and the stress from this working environment can spill over into family life [8][12]. One aspect of this is the negative effect that can accompany high levels of job stress [60] and result in emotional reactivity or withdrawal of the PSP in the family environment [10][63]. The challenges for family members subjected to the PSPs’ stress responses are significant (ambiguous loss, crossover), which was addressed previously in the context of emotional interference. A significant stressor that accompanies spillover is the stress and tension experienced directly by family members due to uncertainty about PSPs’ safety at work. Although an earlier study by Alexander and Walker [50] suggested that dangers related to police work do not significantly impact families, more recent studies indicate that dangers are a primary stressor for PSP family members [8][9][10][22][25][27][39][40][49][62][64].

2.3.1. Life-Threatening Work

Some spouses expressed the constant fear of a “knock” on the door [20][49], while others said that they tried not to think about it [20]. One study participant shared that the fear was amplified when the death of a PSP was reported in the news [8]. Fear was also heightened for family members when PSPs worked unscheduled overtime because the PSP family member could not contact them, and the organization did not inform them [33][37]. Helfers et al. [19] point out the probability of police being injured is magnified through mainstream and social media and the negative accounts of police officers have drawn attention which has increased children’s worry for their parents’ safety.
Strategies to deflect the fear and worry associated with the inherent dangers of PSP work are prevalent in the literature. Bochantin [64] explored sensemaking by PSP families who use humor to ease the tension, which was helpful but ineffective in addressing the real dangers of the PSP job. The reporting of critical incidents through social media was a theme in Friese [6], with spouses of police officers both experiencing fear upon hearing news and relief as more information was quickly made available. Parents expressed concern that children worried too much about their safety because they got their information from the news and television shows, but they also wanted to protect them and were unsure what information they should provide [22][64]. In turn, children who have concerns about the PSP parent’s safety are sometimes reluctant to talk to their parents: “What good is it for my dad to worry that I’m worrying about him?” [64] (p. 287). Children who could talk to their parents about their work and the risks expressed fewer concerns about their safety [22].

2.3.2. Injuries

A further concern is an impact that physical or operational stress injuries (OSIs) can have on the family. There are a number of chronic diseases associated with shiftwork and work exposure (e.g., toxic fumes, HIV) as well as acute and disabling physical injuries associated with unpredictable and dangerous work environments [26]. OSIs are also more common among PSPs than in other occupations due to repeated exposures to danger and trauma [52]. Although there is a lack of research on the effects of OSIs on PSP family members [52], a literature by Norris et al. [65] in the military literature provides evidence of the negative impacts of OSIs with emphasis on secondary trauma. Along with the mental health risks, spouses often become primary caregivers for injured PSPs [8][9], which may result in role overload. There are also financial concerns, as the spouse of an RCMP officer noted: “Something could happen to him, he could be injured permanently, and I need to be able to support the family” [25] (p. 176). The families of injured PSPs may require significant adjustments with an increased demand for both instrumental and emotional support.

3. Conclusions

It was apparent that the interdependence of family members and the availability of social support are factors that enhance family capabilities, and many PSP families successfully manage the demands by adjusting routines and making accommodations. However, as Cramm et al. [66] note, outcomes depend on the “type, frequency, length, and accumulation of stressors and limited opportunity for a reprieve from stressors, be compressed, family resiliency can be undermined as each of these factors, along with individual family members’ tolerance to withstand them” (p. 630). There is, therefore, a need for PS organizations and communities to be cognizant of the variability and vulnerability of PSP families and to supplement intrafamilial resources with formal and informal supports to enhance their capacity for resilience.
Information, education, and support networks can play a role in the awareness and prevention of mental health issues and help PSP families develop skills to endure cumulative demands. Currently, programs that directly target PSP family resiliency are not widely available, with some evidence-based support extended by the military community (https://woundedwarriors.ca (accessed on 15 August 2021), https://focusproject.org/ (accessed on 15 August 2021)), which can be instructive for developing resiliency programs for PSP families. However, a more comprehensive body of research is needed to inform intervention strategies. Research that is representative of all sectors of PSP families and focuses on the relational aspect of resilience will advance an appreciation of the demands and capabilities within the context of PSP families.

References

  1. Oliphant, R. Healthy Minds, Safe Communities, Supporting Our Public Safety Officers through a National Strategy for Operational Stress Injuries: Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; House of Commons/Chambre des Communes Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2016.
  2. Anderson, G.S.; Di Nota, P.M.; Groll, D.; Carleton, R.N. Peer Support and Crisis-Focused Psychological Interventions Designed to Mitigate Post-Traumatic Stress Injuries among Public Safety and Frontline Healthcare Personnel: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7645.
  3. Carleton, R.N.; Afifi, T.O.; Taillieu, T.; Turner, S.; Krakauer, R.; Anderson, G.S.; MacPhee, R.S.; Ricciardelli, R.; Cramm, H.A.; Groll, D.; et al. Exposures to Potentially Traumatic Events among Public Safety Personnel in Canada. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 2019, 51, 37–52.
  4. Krakauer, R.L.; Stelnicki, A.M.; Carleton, R.N. Examining Mental Health Knowledge, Stigma, and Service Use Intentions among Public Safety Personnel. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 949.
  5. Ricciardelli, R.; Czarnuch, S.; Afifi, T.O.; Taillieu, T.; Carleton, R.N. Public Safety Personnel’s Interpretations of Potentially Traumatic Events. Occup. Med. 2020, 70, 155–161.
  6. Friese, K.M. Cuffed Together: A Study on How Law Enforcement Work Impacts the Officer’s Spouse. Int. J. Police Sci. Manag. 2020, 22, 407–418.
  7. Karaffa, K.; Openshaw, L.; Koch, J.; Clark, H.; Harr, C.; Stewart, C. Perceived Impact of Police Work on Marital Relationships. Fam. J. 2015, 23, 120–131.
  8. Landers, A.L.; Dimitropoulos, G.; Mendenhall, T.J.; Kennedy, A.; Zemanek, L. Backing the Blue: Trauma in Law Enforcement Spouses and Couples. Fam. Relat. 2020, 69, 308–319.
  9. Porter, K.L.; Henriksen, R.C., Jr. The Phenomenological Experience of First Responder Spouses. Fam. J. 2016, 24, 44–51.
  10. Regehr, C.; Dimitropoulos, G.; Bright, E.; George, S.; Henderson, J. Behind the Brotherhood: Rewards and Challenges for Wives of Firefighters. Fam. Relat. 2005, 54, 423–435.
  11. Bochantin, J.E. Sensemaking in a High-Risk Lifestyle: The Relationship between Work and Family for Public Safety Families. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA, 2010.
  12. Tuttle, B.M.; Giano, Z.; Merten, M.J. Stress Spillover in Policing and Negative Relationship Functioning for Law Enforcement Marriages. Fam. J. 2018, 26, 246–252.
  13. O’Neill, O.A.; Rothbard, N.P. Is Love All You Need? The Effects of Emotional Culture, Suppression, and Work–Family Conflict on Firefighter Risk-Taking and Health. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 78–108.
  14. Lambert, E.G.; Hogan, N.L.; Barton, S.M. The Nature of Work-Family Conflict among Correctional Staff: An Exploratory Examination. Crim. Justice Rev. 2004, 29, 145–172.
  15. Ricciardelli, R.; Carleton, R.N.; Groll, D.; Cramm, H. Qualitatively Unpacking Canadian Public Safety Personnel Experiences of Trauma and Their Well-Being. Can. J. Criminol. Crim. Justice 2018, 60, 566–577.
  16. Daigle, P. On the Homefront: Assessing the Wellbeing of Canada’s Military Families in the New Millennium; Office of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2013.
  17. Smith, C.R. Annual Report 2019–2020; RCMP External Review Committee: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2020.
  18. Jeklin, A.T.; Davies, H.W.; Bredin, S.S.D.; Perrotta, A.S.; Hives, B.A.; Meanwell, L.; Warburton, D.E.R. Using a Biomathematical Model to Assess Fatigue Risk and Scheduling Characteristics in Canadian Wildland Firefighters. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2021, 30, 467.
  19. Helfers, R.C.; Reynolds, P.D.; Scott, D.M. Being a Blue Blood: A Phenomenological Study on the Lived Experiences of Police Officers’ Children. Police Q. 2021, 24, 233–261.
  20. Hill, R.; Sundin, E.; Winder, B. Work–Family Enrichment of Firefighters: “Satellite Family Members”, Risk, Trauma and Family Functioning. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 2020, 9, 395–407.
  21. Carleton, R.N.; Afifi, T.O.; Turner, S.; Taillieu, T.; Duranceau, S.; LeBouthillier, D.M.; Sareen, J.; Ricciardelli, R.; MacPhee, R.S.; Groll, D.; et al. Mental Disorder Symptoms among Public Safety Personnel in Canada. Can J. Psychiatry 2017, 63, 54–64.
  22. Carrico, C. A Look inside Firefighter Families: A Qualitative Study. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Colorado, Greeley, CO, USA, 2012.
  23. Ewles, G. Enhancing Organizational Support for Emergency First Responders and Their Families: Examining the Role of Personal Support Networks after the Experience of Work-Related Trauma. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, 2019.
  24. Regehr, C. Bringing the Trauma Home: Spouses of Paramedics. J. Loss Trauma 2005, 10, 97–114.
  25. Thompson, A.J. Operational Stress and the Police Marriage: A Narrative Study of Police Spouses. Master’s Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012.
  26. Watkins, S.L.; Shannon, M.A.; Hurtado, D.A.; Shea, S.A.; Bowles, N.P. Interactions between Home, Work, and Sleep among Firefighters. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2021, 64, 137–148.
  27. Carrington, J.L. Elements of and Strategies for Maintaining a Police Marriage: The Lived Perspectives of Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers and Their Spouses. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada, 2006.
  28. Cowlishaw, S.; Evans, L.; McLennan, J. Work–Family Conflict and Crossover in Volunteer Emergency Service Workers. Work Stress 2010, 24, 342–358.
  29. Miller, L. Police Families: Stresses, Syndromes, and Solutions. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 2007, 35, 21–40.
  30. Roth, S.G.; Moore, C.D. Work-Family Fit: The Impact of Emergency Medical Services Work on the Family System. Prehosp. Emerg. Care 2009, 13, 462–468.
  31. Duxbury, L.; Bardoel, A.; Halinski, M. ‘Bringing the Badge Home’: Exploring the Relationship between Role Overload, Work-Family Conflict, and Stress in Police Officers. Polic. Soc. 2021, 31, 997–1016.
  32. Kelly, K.V. Heroes at Home: The Transmission of Trauma in Firefighters’ Families. In Lost in Transmission; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 203–213.
  33. Sommerfeld, A.; Wagner, S.L.; Harder, H.G.; Schmidt, G. Behavioral Health and Firefighters: An Intervention and Interviews with Canadian Firefighters. J. Loss Trauma 2017, 22, 307–324.
  34. Agocs, T.; Langan, D.; Sanders, C.B. Police Mothers at Home: Police Work and Danger-Protection Parenting Practices. Gend. Soc. 2015, 29, 265–289.
  35. Black, A. The Treatment of Psychological Problems Experienced by the Children of Police Officers in Northern Ireland. Child Care Pract. 2004, 10, 99–106.
  36. Cowlishaw, S.; Evans, L.; McLennan, J. Families of Rural Volunteer Firefighters. Rural Soc. 2008, 18, 17–25.
  37. Alrutz, A.S.; Buetow, S.; Cameron, L.D.; Huggard, P.K. What Happens at Work Comes Home. Healthcare 2020, 8, 350.
  38. Amendola, K.L.; Valdovinos Olson, M.; Grieco, J.; Robbins, T.G. Development of a Work–Family Conflict Scale for Spouses or Partners of Police Officers. Policing 2021, 44, 275–290.
  39. Bochantin, J.E. “Morning Fog, Spider Webs, and Escaping from Alcatraz”: Examining Metaphors Used by Public Safety Employees and Their Families to Help Understand the Relationship between Work and Family. Commun. Monogr. 2016, 83, 214–238.
  40. Brodie, P.J.; Eppler, C. Exploration of Perceived Stressors, Communication, and Resilience in Law-Enforcement Couples. J. Fam. Psychother. 2012, 23, 20–41.
  41. Duxbury, L.; Higgins, C. Caring for and About Those Who Serve: Work-Life Conflict and Employee Well Being within Canada’s Police Departments. Available online: https://sprott.carleton.ca/wp-content/uploads/Duxbury-Higgins-Police2012_fullreport.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2021).
  42. Anderson, L. The Impact of Paramedic Shift Work on the Family System: A Literature Review. Br. Paramed. J. 2019, 3, 43.
  43. Strazdins, L.; Clements, M.S.; Korda, R.J.; Broom, D.H.; D’Souza, R.M. Unsociable Work? Nonstandard Work Schedules, Family Relationships, and Children’s Well-Being. J. Marriage Fam. 2006, 68, 394–410.
  44. Offer, S. Assessing the Relationship between Family Mealtime Communication and Adolescent Emotional Well-Being Using the Experience Sampling Method. J. Adolesc. 2013, 36, 577–585.
  45. Perry-Jenkins, M.; Goldberg, A.E.; Pierce, C.P.; Sayer, A.G. Shift Work, Role Overload, and the Transition to Parenthood. J. Marriage Fam. 2007, 69, 123–138.
  46. Rapoport, B.; Le Bourdais, C. Parental Time and Working Schedules. J. Popul. Econ. 2008, 21, 903–932.
  47. Strazdins, L.; Korda, R.J.; Lim, L.L.-Y.; Broom, D.H.; D’Souza, R.M. Around-the-Clock: Parent Work Schedules and Children’s Well-Being in a 24-h Economy. Soc. Sci. Med. 2004, 59, 1517–1527.
  48. Wight, V.R.; Raley, S.B.; Bianchi, S.M. Time for Children, One’s Spouse and Oneself among Parents Who Work Nonstandard Hours. Soc. Forces 2008, 87, 243–271.
  49. Thompson, B.; Kirk-Brown, A.; Brown, D. Women Police: The Impact of Work Stress on Family Members. In Stress, Workload, and Fatigue; Hancock, P.A., Desmond, P.A., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001; pp. 200–210.
  50. Alexander, D.A.; Walker, L.G. The Perceived Impact of Police Work on Police Officers’ Spouses and Families. Stress Med. 1996, 12, 239–246.
  51. Maynard, P.; Maynard, N.; McCubbin, H.I.; Shao, D. Family Life and the Police Profession: Coping Patterns Wives Employ in Managing Job Stress and the Family Environment. Fam. Relat. 1980, 29, 495–501.
  52. Waddell, E.; Lawn, S.; Roberts, L.; Henderson, J.; Venning, A.; Redpath, P. “Why Do You Stay?”: The Lived-experience of Partners of Australian Veterans and First Responders with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Health Soc. Care Community 2020, 28, 1734–1742.
  53. Greenhaus, J.H.; Beutell, N.J. Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 76–88.
  54. Johnson, L.B.; Todd, M.; Subramanian, G. Violence in Police Families: Work-Family Spillover. J. Fam. Violence 2005, 20, 3–12.
  55. Camaro, A.; Belmonte, E.; Demar, J.; Timm, A. The Impact of 911 Telecommunications on Family and Social Interaction. Ann. Emerg. Dispatch Response 2020, 8, 4–10.
  56. Jackson, S.E.; Maslach, C. After-Effects of Job-Related Stress: Families as Victims. J. Organ. Behav. 1982, 3, 63–77.
  57. King, D.B. Daily Dynamics of Stress in Canadian Paramedics and Their Spouses. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013.
  58. Boss, P. Primacy of Perception in Family Stress Theory and Measurement. J. Fam. Psychol. 1992, 6, 113–119.
  59. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Dollard, M.F. How Job Demands Affect Partners’ Experience of Exhaustion: Integrating Work-Family Conflict and Crossover Theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 901–911.
  60. Roberts, N.A.; Levenson, R.W. The Remains of the Workday: Impact of Job Stress and Exhaustion on Marital Interaction in Police Couples. J. Marriage Fam. 2001, 63, 1052–1067.
  61. Hoven, C.W.; Duarte, C.S.; Wu, P.; Doan, T.; Singh, N.; Mandell, D.J.; Bin, F.; Teichman, Y.; Teichman, M.; Wicks, J.; et al. Parental Exposure to Mass Violence and Child Mental Health: The First Responder and WTC Evacuee Study. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 12, 95–112.
  62. Kishon, R.; Geronazzo-Alman, L.; Teichman, M.; Teichman, Y.; Cheslack-Postava, K.; Fan, B.; Duarte, C.S.; Wicks, J.; Musa, G.J.; Djalovski, A.; et al. Parental Occupational Exposure Is Associated with Their Children’s Psychopathology: A Study of Families of Israeli First Responders. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 62, 904–915.
  63. King, D.B.; DeLongis, A. When Couples Disconnect: Rumination and Withdrawal as Maladaptive Responses to Everyday Stress. J. Fam. Psychol. 2014, 28, 460–469.
  64. Bochantin, J.E. “Ambulance Thieves, Clowns, and Naked Grandfathers”: How PSEs and Their Families Use Humorous Communication as a Sensemaking Device. Manag. Commun. Q. 2017, 31, 278–296.
  65. Norris, D.; Cramm, H.; Eichler, M.; Tam-Seto, L.; Smith-Evans, K. The Impact of Operational Stress Injuries on Canadian Armed Forces Military and Veteran Families. Available online: https://cimvhr.ca/documents/Appendix%20B.pdf?cimlang=en (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  66. Cramm, H.; Norris, D.; Venedam, S.; Tam-Seto, L. Toward a Model of Military Family Resiliency: A Narrative Review: Military Family Resiliency. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2018, 10, 620–640.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Family Studies
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Marilyn Cox
,
Deborah Norris
,
Heidi Cramm
,
Rachel Richmond
,
Gregory S. Anderson
View Times: 489
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 24 Jun 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback