|Model to Increase Understanding of Boundary Violations: Female Correctional Employees with Male Inmates - Part 1|
|By Dr. Susan Jones|
The following is the first in a three part series.
The corrections profession has been plagued by instances of boundary violations between their employee and inmates. Stories of corrections employees who have been fired for having sex with an inmate or of a corrections employee who fell in love with an inmate and helped the inmate escape from a correctional facility have been widely publicized. The boundary violations that occur in correctional facilities involve a wide range of behaviors but the violations that seem to get the most public attention are ones that involve sexual contact between inmates and correctional employees. Sexual contacts between corrections employees and inmates have included both male and female employees with male and female inmates, including same sex incidents (Guerino & Beck, 2011). Although sexual abuse of inmates by employees is a serious issue, this type of behavior is merely one stage on a progression of boundary violations. Each time a sexual boundary violation between an employee and an inmate is discovered in an institutional setting, there is often a whole list of boundary violations that occurred prior to the actual sex act (Blackburn, Fowler, Mullings, & Marquart, 2011; White, 1993). Cheeseman and Worley (2008) found that the majority of all boundary violations in correctional facilities did not include sex. As a result, the very limited research that has been done in this area is normally limited to boundary violations that include sexual misconduct (Blackburn et al., 2011).
All boundary violations, even those that do not include sexual activity, create safety and security risks (Blackburn et al., 2011). Incidents where an employee has “crossed the line” and threatened the safety of the institution and the public include aiding an inmate to escape, introducing contraband or weapons and facilitating violence within a facility. These types of incidents are easily seen as dangerous because they have a direct impact on safety, but other boundary violations may seem less harmful. When a correctional employee falls in love with an inmate, some may equate this to an office romance. What often is not understood is the range of possible consequences related to this relationship within the correctional environment. The correctional environment makes every act more intense and each act is often magnified (Schafer, 1997). This intensity changes the impact of many day to day actions that would not be an issue in free society. Many seemingly normal interactions between employees and clients could have dramatic and dangerous repercussions inside a correctional facility. As a result of this intense environment, all boundary violations place correctional employees and inmates at some form of risk in an institution. Therefore, public safety is at risk.
The boundary violation model presented in this article focuses on explaining the dynamics of the relationship between a female correctional employee and a male inmate. Relationships that have developed between employees and inmates of the same sex or between male employees and female inmates were not the focus of this work.
The methodical framework for the dissertation study was conducted by using the portraiture framework. Portraiture has been described as a method that “capture[s] the complexity, dynamics, and subtlety of human experience and organizational life” (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. xv). The ability to place the issue into a social and cultural context is a primary strength of this approach (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1994). Through the process of portraiture, the stories of four female former correctional employees that developed relationships with male inmates, was described. The process that leads a female correctional employee into a relationship with an male inmate is a process that can only be understood within the cultural context of corrections work. Therefore, the use of portraiture provided the researcher with the ability to understand and describe the process within this context.
A key component of this approach is the use of “voice” (Dixson, Chapman, & Hill, 2005). The correctional system effectively silences the voice of the female employees that develop such relationships (Young, 1989) as these female employees are seldom asked for their story or they are only asked details in the context of a criminal investigation. The portraiture method is more than just recording the stories of the participant, it goes beyond to incorporate the voice of the researcher, the voice of the participant, and the context into a thick, rich description that may allow the information to be generalized to similar settings (Geertz, 1977).
The researcher’s voice is a key component to this process; therefore the threat of bias is a concern to the validity of the research. As the researcher, I entered into this study with a clear understanding of my experiences that could influence the data. As a former correctional employee (positions ranged from entry level officer through prison warden) I undertook an examination of my reactions to incidents of boundary violations throughout my career, which included my changing attitudes towards the women involved in these violations. As I analyzed the data provided by the participants in this study, I was diligent to be aware of my current and past attitudes regarding this issue.
Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), was obtained on August 2, 2012, for this study. Participant selection was based on informal communication from members of the prison town in a western state. No official state department of corrections records were used in this selection process. The ability to identify potential participants in this manner was not difficult because the prison culture extends into the community. Community members had information regarding many potential study participants which provided details regarding many different relationship processes. The final sample for this study included four women who developed different types of relationships with inmates, and who were in different types of personal relationships at the time of the boundary violations. Other differences included the type of contact the participant maintained with the inmate at the time of the study, how they left corrections work (resigned, terminated, etc.), the type of preparation for corrections work they possessed, their age when the boundary violation occurred, the security level of the facility where the violation occurred, the number of years they had worked in corrections, and their job title when the boundary violation occurred.
Four unstructured interview sessions were conducted with each participant that covered the following topics: the path that lead each participant to corrections; the correctional environment; the relationship process; and the effect on the participant’s life. The use of open-ended questions encouraged participants to provide information in their own words, pace and style (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997). Emerging themes were discovered through an open coding process (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) and these themes were discussed with participants at each subsequent session to increase the validity of the process (Newton, 2005). During the composition of the portraits demographic or other identifiable information was changed to protect the identity of the people described. Each participant was then asked to read their portrait to provide feedback regarding accuracy of details and to ensure that changes made to mask the identity of the participants or others described in the process did not change the meaning of the portrait.
This use of member checking with the participants, examination of disconfirming evidence, and the development of a portrait that included a thick, rich description were part of the process to ensure validity of the data (Bamberger, Ruch, & Mabry, 2012; Creswell & Miller, 2000). The data presented in this article is limited to that which helps to illuminate the construction of the model.
Boundary Violation Model
The data collected in this study led to the development of a boundary violation model (see Figure 5.1). The development of this model was a built upon the data from this study, guided by the theories of social identity theory, boundary theory, and power theory. The model was developed to describe the boundary violations process which includes the relationships between, the community, the correctional organizational culture, and relationships within the prison environment. Each component of the model was derived directly from the data provided by study participants. Even though the stories revealed different details, consistent themes, such as lack of fit in the environment, were found in each portrait.
Many prisons in the United States are located in rural areas which result in the development of prison towns. The prison towns are not merely towns that have a prison, but they have a history, economy, and social structure that cannot be separated from the corrections industry. In addition, this intertwined structure, coupled with the remoteness and size of these communities may magnify the amount of scrutiny that boundary violations receive. Residents of a prison town possess a great deal of knowledge about events that happen within the prisons, including everyday routine functions, incidents of violence, and details of staff misconduct. Consequently, when a boundary violation occurs in a prison town, the judgment from members of the community plays a role in the process. The interplay between the participants, the relationship with the inmate, and the community was clearly communicated by each participant. One study participant talked about how she felt when going into the community after her relationship with an inmate was known:
That doesn’t bother me as much, I mean I do get nervous, because I think, oh my God, they know what I did. It is not enough to make it drastically affect me more than the moment, but I find myself thinking that I used to be an officer until I did that. There is one officer that when I run into him in Wal-Mart, he won’t look at me or talk to me.
Surprisingly, three of the four participants chose to remain in the same community after they developed relationships with an inmate. Only one participant left the area, to start over. All participants divulged information about encounters that caused them to feel moments of shame, judgment, and embarrassment when interacting with members of the community in this prison town.
Check back next week for the second installment in this three part series.
Dr. Susan Jones retired from a warden’s position within the Colorado Department of Corrections. She worked in a variety of corrections positions in Colorado for 31 years, including: community corrections, correctional officer, sergeant, lieutenant, manager, associate warden and warden. Dr. Jones research interests have focused on the issues that correctional employees face on a daily basis. Visit Dr. Jones's Facebook page "A Glimpse Behind the Fence".
Allen, B., & Bosta, D. (1981). The games criminals play: How you can profit by knowing them. Sacramento, CA: Rae John Publishers.
Arvil, S. C., Beale, D., Benfer, B., Collins, D. T., Kennedy, L., Myers, J., . . . Zoble, E. (1989). Preventing staff-patient sexual relationships. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinc, 53(5), 384-393.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316059
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Bamberger, M., Ruch, J., & Mabry, L. (2012). Real world evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baro, A. L. (1997). Spheres of consent. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(3), 61-84. doi: 10.1300/J012v08n03_03
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
Beck, A. J., & Johnson, C. (2012). Sexual victimization reported by former state prisoners, 2008. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Blackburn, A. G., Fowler, S. K., Mullings, J. L., & Marquart, J. W. (2011). When boundaries are broken: Inmate perceptions of correctional staff boundary violations. Deviant Behavior, 32(4), 351-378. doi: 10.1080/01639621003748837
Calhoun, A. J., & Coleman, H. D. (2002). Female inmates' perspectives on sexual abuse by correctional personnel. Women & Criminal Justice, 13(2-3), 101-124. doi: 10.1300/J012v13n02_06
Cheeseman, K., & Worley, R. (2008). Crossing the line: A quantitative analysis of inmate boundary violators in a southern prison system. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 69-84.
Colorado Department of Corrections. (2011). Code of penal discipline (COPD) Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/ar/0150_01_09012011.pdf
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21
Cornelius, G. F. (2001). The art of the con: Avoiding offender manipulation. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association
Crossmaker, M. (1991). Behind locked doors: Institutional sexual abuse. Sexuality and Disabiltiy, 9(3), 201-219.
Dirks, D. (2004). Sexual revictimization and retraumatization of women in prison. Women's Studies Quarterly, 32(3/4), 102-115. Dixson, A. D., Chapman, T. K., & Hill, D. A. (2005). Research as an aesthetic process: Extending the portraiture methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(1), 16-26. doi: 10.1177/1077800404270836
Dumond, R. (2003). Confronting America's most ignored crime problem: The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 31(3), 354-360.
Elliot, B., & Verdeyen, V. (2003). Game over: Strategies for redirecting inmate deception. Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.
Faith, K. (1993). Unruly women: The politics of confinement and resistance. Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers.
Faulkner, C., & Regehr, C. (2011). Sexual boundary violations committed by female forensic workers. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(2), 154-163.
Flaherty-Zonis, C. (2007). Building culture strategically: A team approach for corrections. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
French Jr, J. R. P. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63(3), 181-194. doi: 10.1037/h0046123
Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gilmartin, K., & Davis, R. M. (May, 1986). The correctional officer Stockholm syndrome: Management implications. Paper presented at the First Annual Symposium on New Generations Jails, Boulder, Colorado.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Guerino, P., & Beck, A. J. (2011, January). Sexual victimization reported by adult correctional authorities, 2007-2008 (Report no. NCJ 231172) Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2204.
Gutheil, T. G. (2005). Boundary issues and personality disorders. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 11(2), 88-96.
Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1998). Misuses and misunderstandings of boundary theory in clinical and regulatory settings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(3), 409-414.
Hamilton, L. (1995). The boundary seesaw model: Good fences make for good neighbours. In A. Tennant & K. Howells (Eds.), Using time, not doing time: Practitioner perspectives on personality disorder and risk (pp. 181-194). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Haney, C. (1993). Infamous punishment: The psychological consequences of isolation. National Prison Project Journal, 8(2), 3-7, 21.
Hepburn, J. R., & Knepper, P. E. (1993). Correctional officers as human service workers: The effect on job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10(2), 315-335.
Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Jones, S. (2015). Recommendations for correctional leaders to reduce boundary violations: Female correctional employees and male inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(5), 1-19. doi: 10.1080/08974454.2014.989301
Kadner, K. (1994). Therapeutic intimacy in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 215-218. doi: 10.1111/1365-2648.ep8534534
Kupers, T. A. (2012). The role of misogyny and homophobia in prison sexual abuse. UCLA Women's Law Journal, 18, 107-130.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1994). I've known rivers: Lives of loss and liberation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lempert, L. B., LaRose, C., Freeman, L., & Liss, L. (2012). “What is it that these people want? Are we part of some kind of experiment?” Mentoring in a women's prison. Humanity & Society, 36(1), 30-49. doi: 10.1177/0160597611433272
Maghan, J. (1994). The correction connection: Intelligence gathering approaches in prisons. Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement, 3(3), 548-577.
Marquart, J. W., Barnhill, M. B., & Balshaw-Biddle, K. (2001). Fatal attraction: An analysis of employee boundary violations in a southern prison system, 1995–1998. Justice Quarterly, 18(4), 877-910. doi: 10.1080/07418820100095121
Metzner, J. M., & Dvoskin, J. (2006). An overview of correctional psychiatry. Psychiatric Clincs, 29, 761-772.
Newton, R. M. (2005). Learning to teach in the shadows of 9/11: A portrait of two Arab American preservice teachers. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(1), 81-94. doi: 10.1177/1077800404270842
Pollock, J. M. (2004). Prisons and prison life: Costs and consequences. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.
Quinn, R. E. (1977). Coping with cupid: The formation, impact, and management of romantic relationships in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 30-45.
Regehr, C., & Glancy, G. (1995). Sexual exploitations of patients: Issues for colleagues. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(2), 194-202.
Regehr, C., Johanis, D., Dimitropoulos, G., Bartram, C., & Hope, G. (2003). The police officer and the public inquiry: A qualitative inquiry into the aftermath of workplace trauma. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 3(4), 383-396.
Schafer, P. (1997). When a client develops an attraction: Successful resolution versus boundary violation. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 4(3), 203-211. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2850.1997.00040.x
Sheets, V. R. (2001). Professional boundaries: Staying in the lines. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 20(5), 36-40.
Smith, B. (2003). Watching you, watching me. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 15, 225-303.
Smith, B. (2012). Uncomfortable places, close spaces: Female correctional workers' sexual interactions with men and boys in custody. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1692-1745.
Spinaris, C. (2008). Staying well: Strategies for corrections staff. Wheaton, IL: EMIS.
Spinaris, C. G., Denhof, M. D., & Kellaway, J. A. (2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder in United States corrections professionals: Prevalence and impact on health and functioning. Florence, CO: Desert Waters Correctional Outreach.
Strasburger, L. H., Jorgenson, L., & Randles, R. (1991). Criminalization of psychotherapist-patient sex. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(7), 859-863.
Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tschan, W. (2007). Towards a safe institution: How to prevent sexual abuse in the institutional setting. Paper presented at the XIth ISPCAN European Regional Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Lisbon, Spain.
Weber, H. (2003). Breaking the rules: Personal and social responses to coping norm‐violations. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 16(2), 133-153. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2003.10382969
White, W. L. (1993). A systems perspective on sexual exploitation of clients by professional helpers. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3/4, 176-192.
Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2000). Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 539-565. doi: 10.1177/109019810002700502
Wolff, N., Blitz, C. L., Shi, J., Bachman, R., & Siegel, J. A. (2006). Sexual violence inside prisons: Rates of victimization. Journal of Urban Health, 83(5), 835-848.
Worley, R. (2006). Correctional employee deviance within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice: A quantitative analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3233264)
Worley, R. and K. Cheeseman (2005, September/October). "Correctional employees, inmates and marriage in a southern penitentiary system." Crime and Justice International 19-22.
Worley, R., & Cheeseman, K. A. (2006). Guards as embezzlers: The consequences of “nonshareable problems” in prison settings. Deviant Behavior, 27(2), 203-222. doi: 10.1080/01639620500468592
Worley, R. and G. Guerrero (2010, October). "Another one rides the bus: An exploratory analysis of recently released offenders' perceptions of inappropriate relationships." ACJS Today XXXV(3): 1-19.
Worley, R., Marquart, J. W., & Mullings, J. L. (2003). Prison guard predators: An analysis of inmates who established inappropriate relationships with prison staff, 1995-1998. Deviant Behavior, 24(2), 175-194. doi: 10.1080/01639620390117237
Worley, R. M. (2006). Correctional employee deviance within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice: A quantitative analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3233264)
Worley, R. M., Tewksbury, R., & Frantzen, D. (2010). Preventing fatal attractions: Lessons learned from inmate boundary violators in a southern penitentiary system. Criminal Justice Studies, 23(4), 347-360. doi: 10.1080/1478601x.2010.516532
Young, I. M. (1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250-274.
Zerubavel, E. (1991). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. New York, NY: Free Press.
To view Figure 5.1: Boundary Violation Model click here.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT