The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2016

50 JULY-AUGUST 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Studies show that continuous exposure to live combat and extreme violence can lead even the hardiest individuals to develop PTSD. Trauma can trigger a cycle of violence, with some people “acting in” against themselves (e.g., alcoholism, drug addiction) and others “acting out” (e.g., beating their spouses, screaming at their employees). This kind of violence can also be seen as an ethical violation of FS norms: It is not only illegal to beat your spouse, it is unethical, too. Especially in the foreign context, where one’s behavior takes place “in a glass house.” The Department of State needs to rethink and reform the way it cares for employees and their families, adopting systems and processes that are compassionate and consumer-friendly. Fail- ing to provide this care has consequences for the individual con- cerned, his or her family, the larger Foreign Service and foreign affairs community, and U.S. foreign policy generally. Helping Employees Help Themselves Providing such care is a matter of both political will and resources. While the department lacks the funding to develop an adequate mental health and psychosocial support infrastructure to help employees cope with the demands and consequences of repeated stressful assignments abroad, a system of peer-led interventions could help support colleagues who may be suffer- ing from illnesses and challenges. Peer trainers could supple- ment the work of the Bureau of Medical Services (MED) and the National Foreign Affairs Training Center/Foreign Service Insti- tute in helping participants become more aware of the linkages between brain and body—particularly in relation to trauma— and learn to care for themselves and others. A wealth of management literature supports the proposition that healthy, well-led teams are happy, more productive and better equipped to carry out their tasks than those worried about family problems, illness and so forth. As the Antares guidelines put it: “Under conditions of chronic stress, staff may be poor decision-makers and may behave in ways that place themselves or others at risk or disrupt the effective functioning of the team. Their own safety and security and that of beneficiaries may be put at risk, and their teammay experience internal conflict and scapegoating. ‘Stressed out’ staff members are less efficient and less effective in carrying out their assigned tasks. Stress fun- damentally interferes with the ability of the agency to provide services to its supposed beneficiaries.” A country team that does not function smoothly can have a direct, deleterious impact on U.S. policy toward the host country. As the faces of America in a given country, FS personnel shape attitudes toward the United States and any given bilateral rela- tionship. When a U.S. diplomat abroad behaves in an unethical manner, the action reflects poorly on the U.S. government and people. Given the perennial and persistent pressures on the U.S. budget, it is unlikely the U.S. Congress will provide significant new mental health resources (e.g., large numbers of additional psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors) for the Foreign Ser- vice. This is especially so since the department has no baseline data on the prevalence of trauma among employees. True, MED is expanding its resources, research and outreach to the FS population. But without cooperation from Human Resources and all the geographic and functional bureaus, change cannot occur. At present, the workings of HR are not transparent regarding staff care. Geographic bureaus run their own personnel empires, with unwritten and unstated policies that may or may not be congruent with overall department policy. All parts of the organization must resolve to abandon “stovepipe” approaches and work together to provide the necessary knowledge, skills and care to optimize the health and wellbeing of the foreign affairs community. In the past two years NFATC/FSI has launched pilot programs in individual and community resilience. This new curriculum is not only for personnel coming out of combat zones but also for A-100 (entry-level), deputy chiefs of mission and new ambas- sadors. It also is being introduced in leadership courses required of all employees. The next step in spreading knowledge about this topic would seem to be to train trainers who can help deliver training to their colleagues. A peer-led program on trauma awareness is not a substitute for psychological or psychiatric care, of course. However, peer training can help embassy country teams identify personnel who are having trouble and can refer these cases to the appropriate medical officer. A Pilot Project to Introduce Trauma Awareness The work that NFATC/FSI is already doing in terms of resil- ience training is admirable and needs to be reinforced. Other models could supplement what is already being done. For example, one model that could be adapted to the Foreign Service is the STAR—Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience— curriculum at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The STAR program, in which several employees from the U.S. Agency for International Development and from the School of Professional Studies at FSI have participated, describes itself as “a five-day research-supported trauma awareness and resilience