|Model to Increase Understanding of Boundary Violations: Female Correctional Employees with Male Inmates - Part 3|
|By Dr. Susan Jones|
The following is the conclusion of a three part series.
Power theory has provided definitions of many different types of power. Power is considered a natural component of correctional facilities, but it is usually assumed that the power is in the hands of the employees. The power of inmates, either individually or as a group, is not so readily acknowledged. At first glance, it would seem that these correctional employees possess legitimate power and can maintain control with the full force of the department to back them up. But it is not that simple.
The participants in this study described different types of power that the inmates with whom they developed relationships possessed. One participant described a powerful inmate that was able to control the behavior of other inmates by stopping them from verbally abusing her. Not only was he powerful enough to make other inmates change their behavior, he was successful where correctional staff failed. Two participants described attributes of referent power when they described the male inmates with whom they became involved. These two men had engendered admiration and respect from other inmates and from employees and the fourth participant described an inmate that was so powerful that he convinced her that administration liked her so much that she would not be held to the same standard as others even though the law had just criminalized their behavior. This speaks volumes to his powerful influence and charisma. The power of this inmate was so convincing that she did not feel she could file a report, even when he raped her. She did not think that she would be believed, and she was afraid that the inmate would report her for bringing cigarettes into the facility for him. His power was so complete that she admits that she did not even “go there” in her head. She clarified: “I was just way too far into it but I never dreamed he could have raped me, ever.” She did not think through her choices and come to the decision not to report; she did not think she had choices. This lack of choice goes back to the corrections culture. She believed that her mistakes would be unforgivable, because she had developed an emotional relationship with an inmate that led to smuggling in contraband.
Legitimate power forms the basis for policy and law that labels correctional employees as the perpetrator in any boundary violation that is a criminal act. However, Worley et al. (2003) referred to the inmates involved in boundary violations with employees as predators or manipulators. This idea that the inmate is responsible, to some degree is found in the inmate rules in some jurisdictions. The Colorado Department of Corrections Code of Penal Discipline includes a description of a rule violation titled: Solicitation of a DOC employee, contract worker, or volunteer misconduct (Colorado Department of Corrections, 2011). This charge is used when an inmate is discovered to be involved in a boundary violation with an employee. Punishing the inmate for his involvement in a boundary violation sends a conflicting message about just who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. The existence of this rule implies that the employee is not the lone perpetrator and that the inmate may possess more or different power than the legitimate power of the officer.
Personal Relationship Vulnerability
People in all work settings, including correctional facilities, may experience periods in their lives of personal relationship vulnerability. The vulnerability that often accompanies a personal relationship crisis has been acknowledged in a variety of settings, and this vulnerability can play a significant part in the boundary violation process (Faulkner & Regehr, 2011). In non-correctional work settings, coworkers are often aware when someone in the group is in the process of divorce or is having trouble in a relationship, and, yes, sometimes coworkers will take advantage of that situation. In a correctional setting, inmates often try to capitalize on this type of vulnerability, and the consequences can be more severe. Two participants in this study described personal relationships that were not stable and eventually ended in divorce; the remaining two participants were not in a personal relationship at the time of the boundary violation.
The Bad Apple Theory is often used to explain these violations by declaring that the wrong person was hired (Tschan, 2007). This theory allows the correctional culture to place all responsibility upon the individual employees that choose to leave the correctional team. However, the participants in this study did not move away from the identity of a correctional employee because they were bad people. They did not enter the Department of Corrections so that they would be able to break a law or a rule; instead, they entered the department with the intent of being the best correctional employees they could be. Their move away from the identity of their coworkers, across the boundary into a relationship with a powerful inmate, was the result of moving toward something.
One participant described a relationship that gave her something that she had never before found: “I really felt loved and cherished.” Another participant added:
"Just the way he looked at me. I felt like he saw right through me. I don’t know. I just felt like we had this connection that I haven’t had very often. His expressions and the way he would look at me. I don’t know how else to explain it. I literally felt it through my whole body; it was instant excitement when he would call."
Each participant described feelings of attraction, friendship, or companionship towards someone that was available. The physical proximity of these inmates may have influenced the relationship (Quinn, 1977) and these relationships provided a connection that they didn’t have in other aspects of their lives. This type of connection was not found with coworkers or in their personal lives. They moved into these relationships, even though this move was a dramatic step over the cultural boundary and this was a one-way move because there was no returning to the correctional team. One participant explained: “I was thinking about giving into this [relationship with an inmate] and I knew it meant my career, either way.” The need to find a connection was more powerful than the need to belong to the correctional team.
Areas for Further Research
This boundary violation model is presented as a starting point towards a more complete understanding of the process that moves a female correctional employee into a relationship with an inmate. While this model may offer important information in this area, the complexity of this issue requires additional study if these boundary violations are to be fully understood. This study is limited to the examination of this process between female correctional employees and male inmates. The study of relationships between male officers and female inmates and the relationships between officers and inmates of the same sex need to be examined.
Even though policies and laws have declared that the correctional employee possesses legitimate power and is therefore, the perpetrator in any boundary violation, this is an area of continued debate (Worley et al., 2003). Further research in this area is needed to more fully understand the dynamics of the power relationship that may occur between an employee and an inmate. Incidents have occurred where the correctional employee has been described as using positional power to force compliance by inmates in a variety of illegal and unprofessional acts (Calhoun & Coleman, 2002). However, inmates have also been identified as preying upon employees and manipulating them for a variety of illegal actions (Allen & Bosta, 1981; Worley et al., 2003). What is clear is that the perpetrator in these actions is not always easy to identify. Research that focuses on the entire continuum of boundary violating behavior is needed to examine the different types of power that may influence these violations.
The effect these kinds of violations have upon coworkers and an understanding of any actions that they took to prevent the boundary violations is an additional area of study that needs to be more fully understood. The physical structures of correctional facilities are necessary, but the towers, fences, and cameras are not enough to prevent boundary violations. Examination of why coworkers act or fail to act and the process of how certain employees are excluded from the correctional team is needed. The connections between people within the correctional facility may provide the key to prevention.
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