Sexual Boundary Violations Committed by Female Forensic Workers

Relationship Difficulties

As noted earlier, experiencing difficulty in personal romantic relationships is a particular risk factor for committing a boundary violation stemming from emotional needs. Female forensic workers in the lovesick category are more likely to have experienced recent domestic discord, divorce, or separation. In one study, letters from workers revealed domestic violence, sexual frustration, marital strife, or boredom.³¹ Not only might a female worker who is experiencing personal problems in a romantic relationship be at an increased risk of committing a sexual boundary violation to fulfill her needs, but it is also possible that she will be targeted by a prisoner who intends to exploit the relationship for personal gain. A prisoner in a study conducted by Worley and colleagues³⁹ reported that he targeted a female forensic worker who had been experiencing difficulties in personal relationships, to exploit her vulnerable state. Thus, forensic workers should be self-aware regarding emotional vulnerability and, when vulnerable, more cautious regarding the risk of committing a boundary violation.

Lack of Self-Awareness

As in all therapeutic encounters, forensic workers must assess the appropriateness of interventions and interactions from the perspective of the client. Instances of countertransference must be identified and dealt with through consultation and supervision, to assist workers to differentiate between their needs and those of the client.⁴⁸ In doing so, forensic workers are reminded not to lose sight of the reasons that patients and prisoners are in prison.³⁰ Not only prisoners, but also patients in a forensic unit of a psychiatric facility, often have personality disorders as the primary diagnosis and exhibit a high level of functioning. Gutheil³⁴ cautioned that a patient's high functioning can conceal primitive dynamics and lead a therapist to miss the pathologic explanation that underlies the patient's apparent desire to transcend the boundaries of the transference-bound relationship.

A frequently occurring example of lack of self-awareness is the misuse of self-disclosure. There has been considerable controversy regarding the circumstances under which self-disclosure in professional practice is appropriate.^49,50 Inappropriate self-disclosure by the therapist commonly occurs in the early stages of a relationship in which boundary violations occur^30,51,52 and is commonly used by the legal system to advance or support a claim of sexual misconduct.⁵⁰ When the relationship between the forensic worker and the prisoner involves the exchange of information regarding personal problems, it becomes less clear to both parties that the relationship is professional rather than social. Thus, the risk of sexual boundary violations increases, particularly when the client takes on the role of comforter or confidant for the therapist.⁵²

Inadequate Job Preparedness and Supervision

In one study, the forensic staff who became involved with prisoners were more likely to be English-speaking women with no prior military experience, to have lower pre-employment application scores, to have committed the infraction within their first year of employment, and to have an equivalency degree, rather than a high school diploma.³¹ These findings are consistent with previous ones that inadequate training, poorly defined job description, and inadequate supervision or failure to use supervision can play a role in the violation of therapist-client sexual boundaries.¹⁰ The lack of supervision, job preparedness, and clarity about one's duties may also explain the findings in another study that the staff who committed small breaches were more susceptible to committing serious breaches and that those who committed sexual boundary violations were more likely to have had previous disciplinary infractions.³⁹ Therefore, the slippery-slope effect may be diminished by increased job training, understanding of duties, and supervision, thus decreasing the risk for both the worker and the prisoner.

The Dynamic Between Staff and Prisoners

The power dynamics in a prison can influence the relationship between front-line staff and prisoners. Sykes⁵⁶ provided a detailed description of the dynamic between corrections officers and prisoners in his 1958 book, The Society of Captives. Sykes contends that because security staff have such frequent and prolonged contact with prisoners, they tend to view the prisoners as people who happen to be incarcerated, rather than as “criminals.” He argued that “even the most serious offenders lose their significance with the passage of time” (Ref. 56, p 55). It is noted that since the time Sykes' work was published, correctional facilities have taken measures to prevent boundary violations between staff and prisoners by rotating staff member's unit assignments and providing relevant training. However, Crawley and Crawley⁵⁷ suggested in 2008 that Sykes' contention may still hold true. They stated that, given corrections officers' proximity to prisoners over long periods and the intimacy of their work, it is not possible for them to hold an us-versus-them mentality for any significant length of time. This increasing accommodation may be especially true in cases in which staff members are from the same community as the prisoners with whom they work, which is often the case in smaller cities or rural areas.

There are several reasons why staff may not strictly adhere to or enforce the institutional rules and professional boundaries. Sykes contends that the degree to which staff can adequately perform their duties depends on the behavior of the prisoners. Staff will not be rated positively on their ability to manage those on their unit if it is noisy, dirty, and chaotic. While staff members have the option of sanctioning noncompliant prisoners, they often fail to do so consistently, as the formal documentation of such behavior does not reflect well on their superiors' ability to manage the institution. Given the lack of formal methods of control over the prisoners, staff members often discover that the best technique is to make deals or trades with the prisoners. Therefore, the staff members use these transactions to buy certain obedience at the cost of tolerating some disobedience. As indicated earlier, acts of negotiation can serve to create more intimate relationships between staff and prisoners, which can leave staff more vulnerable to manipulation and to commission of sexual boundary violations. Alternatively, these interactions also leave staff vulnerable to extortion which may involve coercing staff into engaging in sexual activities with a prisoner. While Sykes acknowledges that this dynamic between staff and prisoners leaves staff vulnerable to manipulation, he also notes the importance of cooperation as staff are acutely aware that those they are guarding are capable of overpowering them in the event of a riot. Therefore, maintaining a reciprocal relationship with the prisoners is beneficial for the staff, in that it reflects positively on their ability to maintain order and may serve to reduce the probability of an uprising.

Forensic staff can lose their ability to enforce the institutional rules by inadvertently handing power over to the prisoners. Some prisoners gain power through attaining coveted work positions that allow them to move throughout the institution,³⁹ and others do so by encroaching on the duties of staff.⁵⁶ The more minor chores such as locking and unlocking doors or checking cells during head counts may be slowly taken over by prisoners. Similarly, in a forensic mental health unit, nurses reported asking high-functioning and trusted patients to accompany them on night rounds when they were concerned about possible violent behavior of other patients, allowing those prisoners to assume the role of their protectors. By allowing prisoners to encroach on their duties, staff unintentionally hand some of their power over to the prisoners. Those who recognize that this power shift has occurred and attempt to regain the power that they have lost may be faced with extortion by the prisoners, who threaten to inform the staff's superiors anonymously of their previous indiscretions. Therefore, staff may become vulnerable to extortion because they have sought assistance from the prisoners or because the prisoners have intentionally offered their assistance for the purpose of future blackmail.

The Dynamic Among Staff in thePrison Environment

The dynamic among staff is a factor that may increase the female staff's vulnerability to crossing sexual boundaries. Recently it has been reported that male corrections officers commonly view traditional female qualities to be unnecessary and detrimental in prison work.⁵⁸ This outlook can have negative implications for how male officers treat their female colleagues. In the masculinized prison setting, female officers believe they are treated unfairly by their male counterparts. Participants in one study reported that they were less likely to be accepted by the male staff and had become easy targets for verbal and sexual harassment from male officers and management that was sometimes witnessed by prisoners. They also reported that it is common for male officers to take control away from female officers during incidents of prisoner aggression, and in doing so, to model gender-biased behavior.⁵⁹ This sexist behavior may reinforce a prisoner's perception that the female officer is incompetent and subordinate to men. In addition, prisoners or forensic patients may play the role of sympathizer, relating to the worker's perceived unjust treatment, yet readily engage in moral blackmail at the first sign that staff are wavering from the institutional rules or professional roles.

Hostility and bullying among staff are also significant problems in the prison workplace. Many officers report being bullied by their managers who are verbally abusive and pressure staff to make shift changes without notice and to work in unsafe conditions.⁶⁰ There are also circumstances in which bullying and hostility occur between workers. This behavior most frequently occurs when there are workers who are unwilling to subscribe to the most dominant customs, values, and norms of the profession, including workers who prefer roles that require more traditionally feminine skills, such as those needed in a therapeutic context.⁵⁷ Corrections officers who choose to work with subgroups such as sex offenders or the elderly may be at an increased risk of experiencing bullying from other officers. Forensic nurses also frequently experience professional isolation, as they must balance the need to protect society with the need to provide care for the client.³⁸ This experience is likely to befall other helping professionals in the prison, such as social workers, psychologists, and doctors.

Female forensic workers have limited opportunities to gain and demonstrate their work-related skills; have little recourse in instances of sexual harassment because management either cause or ignore complaints; and experience feelings of anxiety, depression, fear, and powerlessness.⁵⁹ These obstacles, in combination with the bullying that may occur between staff, place female corrections officers at risk of isolation, especially when they cannot rely on their superiors to provide guidance or impose sanctions when they are necessary. Consequently, the officers are at risk of being targeted by prisoners, such as exploiters, who are skilled at identifying vulnerable female staff.³⁹ There may be an increased vulnerability to seeking or accepting consolation from prisoners, who also are familiar with feelings of loneliness, depression, anxiety, fear, distress, and hopelessness.⁶¹ It is common for prisoners to use flattery to engage female staff,⁶² which may be greatly appreciated by female staff who are feeling isolated and lonely. Therefore, the negative dynamic between male and female corrections staff may cause female officers to feel rejected by their male colleagues and accepted by the male prisoners.

The Dynamic Between Forensic Workersand the Public

In addition to feeling isolated as a result of the masculinized prison environment, many forensic workers experience isolation outside their work environment. Prison workers and others working in the forensic environment often feel as though those in other professions and the general public view them with suspicion and wariness or see them as contaminated.⁵⁷ In one study of police officers, a participant reported “You spend your first 5 years telling everyone you're a cop, and the next 25 denying it.”⁶³ It is suggested that others are eager to avoid contact with anything associated with crime or the prison environment.⁶⁴ Fear of rejection can result in reluctance among forensic workers to share the details of their work with others. Further, working exclusively with a client group that may have perpetrated horrendous crimes against others can lead to a sense of distrust of others more generally or a splitting of the world between good and evil and a general suspicion toward others in society.⁶⁵ Thus, an us-versus-them mentality can develop along with a reliance on relationships with coworkers for social networking.⁶³ When these relationships are not strong and supportive, workers may turn to patients or inmates for support.

The Therapeutic Milieu

Forensic workers can experience a sense of conflict when the obligations of the role clash with professional values and ethics.^66,67 The level of care or quality of the therapeutic relationship can be minimized by the need to ensure the security of the institution and public safety. The balance is a delicate one that has to be maintained for many professionals working in the forensic setting, especially those who work within a therapeutic framework. The development of a therapeutic alliance with the prisoner, and the expression of care and concern for the prisoner and his needs, enhances the ability to improve emotional states and modify behavior. On the other hand, the therapeutic alliance can create risks to forensic patients and prisoners who lose sight of the nature of the relationship and the obligations of the worker to report imminent or future risks to the safety and security of others in the organization or members of the public.⁶⁷ Further, given the isolation that the prisoners experience and a likely history of poor interpersonal relationships, they may misconstrue the interaction necessary for a therapeutic relationship as sexual interest.³⁰ It may become particularly confusing in the therapeutic milieu where an element of the forensic worker's role is to provide the prisoner with the opportunity to practice social skills. The worker may have to engage in social activities with the prisoner, such as playing cards, which may lend support to the idea that the relationship is social, rather than professional. In cases in which practicing social skills is part of the forensic worker's role, it is important for her to identify the purpose of the activity clearly both to the prisoner and to herself.

Implications for the Prisoner

A prisoner who has entered into a sexual relationship with a forensic worker for the purpose of exploiting her will not experience the same negative outcome as one who has authentic romantic feelings. If the sexual relationship between a forensic worker and a prisoner who is considered to be an exploiter or hell-raiser is discovered, the prisoner will lose access to the privileges or products that he has been receiving through the relationship with the worker when the staff member leaves or loses her position or through the transfer to another institution. If the prisoner has been using the worker to gain access to goods that could be sold in the underground prison economy, the prisoner will lose his position in the inmates' social order. If this type of exploitation is considered to be a risk factor for recidivism or if it comes to light that the prisoner is involved in the prison black market, the prisoner is at significant risk of an increase in security classification. Subsequently, the prisoner's likelihood of early release in the near future would also be considerably jeopardized. This outcome may be viewed by others as positive or negative.

Prisoners who experience genuine feelings of love or emotional closeness to the female forensic worker are likely to be affected differently from those who were solely using the relationship for the purpose of manipulation. Several authors have outlined the wide-ranging consequences for clients who have engaged in sexual relationships with their therapists,^11–13,16 and these are likely to be applicable to prisoners who have engaged in sexual relationships with female staff. They may experience ambivalent feelings toward the therapist and about whether the relationship should be disclosed, along with feelings of guilt, emptiness, and isolation. The client may also experience feelings of sexual confusion, for example, if a therapist sexualizes the client's request for physical comfort. Clients also frequently experience a sense of betrayal by therapists and an impaired ability to trust. Once the relationship is discovered and the repercussions make it evident that the relationship was inappropriate, the client may come to resent and feel misled by the therapist. Clients may also experience ambivalence with regard to role identity and role reversal and may feel responsible for the therapist's feelings and actions, may have suppressed rage, and may display emotional lability. Finally, the client may experience cognitive dysfunction, including preoccupation with what has occurred, an inability to concentrate, and an increased risk of suicide resulting from the abusive experience.

Implications for the Forensic Worker

Sexual relationships between staff and prisoners are not permitted in any forensic setting and can result in the dismissal of the employee. A staff member found guilty of sexual boundary violations may lose her job and her good standing with her professional colleagues, and she may be subject to criminal charges³⁵ or civil litigation. Upon discovery, organizational and collegial support might quickly disappear, and the person might become isolated in the work environment.¹⁴ Thus, the potential occupational, financial, and reputational implications of sexual misconduct are substantial. Consequently, the worker must keep the nature of the relationship secret, increasing the risk of blackmail and coercion.

Emotional and relational risks are also present. If the indiscretion does not result in the loss of her job, she will be forced to end her relationship with the prisoner. Therefore, in addition to the other stresses associated with the discovery of her sexual boundary violation, the female forensic worker is likely to experience the emotions associated with the end of a romantic relationship. These often include depression, sadness, loss of self-esteem, confusion, and ruminating on the matter. In addition, family and other relationships become strained or disrupted as a result of the revelation. As noted by Worley et al.,³⁹ many of the female forensic workers who engaged in sexual boundary violations in their study were experiencing difficulties in their personal romantic relationships. Infidelity is the leading cause of divorce across 160 cultures⁶⁸; therefore, an extramarital affair can result in the loss of one's partner. Further, those who commit adulterous acts are more likely to experience heightened levels of guilt, anxiety, and shame.^45,69

Implications for the Organization

Sexual boundary violations committed by one member of an organization or profession, taints the reputation of the organization and profession as a whole.⁷⁰ The idea that females are ill equipped to work in a forensic environment is held by many male forensic workers and male prisoners.^39,59,71 Female forensic workers are sensitive to the fact that they need to convey and maintain an image of competency in their work. In a study conducted by Jurik, a female corrections officer stated “We need only the most qualified women. There are so few women that every incompetent one hurts all the others who come in after her” (Ref. 72, p 379).

If the sexual indiscretion becomes public, it may also cause damage to the reputation of the institution and the corresponding governmental agency.^70,73 The ability of the administration to manage a prison or forensic unit effectively rests on the employees' ability to manage the prisoners.⁵⁶ It is not likely that the public or relevant governmental agency would interpret sexual relationships between forensic staff and prisoners as an effective or appropriate management technique. Public knowledge of such indiscretions undermines confidence in the institution, its managers, and the correctional system as a whole.