Professional Boundaries in Corrections

Case Examples Sourced from the Media

The relationship between a corrections officer and an inmate exists with a clear power imbalance, and it often continues over a period of months to years. Corrections officers face some of the same vulnerabilities and power imbalances in their relationships with inmates that therapists do with their patients. Just as in therapy relationships, there is an important distinction between boundary crossings and boundary violations.^4,5 In therapy, boundary crossings are typically benign, may at times actually result in a helpful outcome, occur in isolation, and are usually minor in severity. Furthermore, crossings are typically done after deliberation and in consideration of the effect on the therapeutic goals and the alliance. By contrast, boundary violations are harmful, exploitive, repetitive, and often egregious. True boundary crossings, whether in a therapeutic or corrections environment, are often concealed and are rarely openly discussed. In therapy, boundary crossings may arise in various areas of the provider's role (e.g., engaging in dual relationships), time (e.g., duration and scheduling of appointments and other forms of contact), space (e.g., the location of session), money, gifts and services, language, self-disclosure, physical examination, and physical contact. Corrections employees may violate policies and procedures in a manner similar to these professional boundary crossings; exchanging gifts introduces contraband into the facility, and personal disclosures might allow an inmate to threaten the employee's family members (Table 1).

Recently, there have been several high-profile cases in the corrections setting in which prison staff appear to engage in inappropriate behavior in part due to transference and countertransference dynamics traditionally seen in psychotherapeutic relationships. Often the inmates engage in manipulation to exploit the transference. These behaviors potentially threaten the safety of those inside the corrections environment, as well as outside the facility, and may result in escape attempts. Some cases involving inappropriate relationships between correctional staff and inmates suggest the presence of boundary violations but are not fully described in the media.⁶ We caution against the temptation to draw conclusions from media sources alone for many reasons (e.g., limitation of information available to journalists, or potential agenda or biases of participants or journalists). Although the cases discussed below came to the authors' attention through news stories in the lay press, these cases were chosen because reports from official inquiries or court-filed documents were publicly available for review. Although readily available in the lay press, cases involving blatant sexual abuse and criminal acts that do not directly involve transference dynamics are beyond the scope of this article.⁷

Sex Between Inmates and Staff

In a study of offenders who had seduced multiple staff members, Salter¹⁶ found that these inmates had a common pattern that they followed. They used the same techniques of conning and manipulation inside prison as they did outside of prison. They began by obtaining information about staff to determine which staff to target and to obtain details to be used in that process. Being in a long-term facility allows time to determine vulnerabilities and build so-called relationships. To do so, the inmates talked with staff, but they also listened in on staff conversations while pretending not to be interested: “The point is to find out problems, interests, vulnerabilities, hopes, anything that will provide material …” (Ref. 16, p 146). The inmates also observed behavior (e.g., which officers appeared fearful, too comfortable, or too strict) that stood out as different from the norm of officer behavior. Then a vulnerable target would be selected for conning, grooming, and manipulation. Factors indicating vulnerability might include relationship problems, family problems, money problems, drug problems, or even aging. Then, tactics were used, such as giving the officer something first, so that they would feel an obligation to behave in kind (e.g., like the tactics used by Hare Krishnas). Offenders might offer protection and praise to the officer. Then, their demands started small, asking the officer to break a seemingly small rule, such as giving a cigarette or food, and then demands escalated.¹⁶ The inmate often does not care about being found out (unlike the officer), because being involved in a staff seduction would increase his social status. Such relationships are about control rather than about caring. “Staff seduction is a game. There is more joy in the winning than in the sex” (Ref. 16, p 144).

A similar pattern has been noted in reports of inmates who “down a duck.” In corrections, this refers to being corrupted by a special relationship with an inmate,¹⁷ the “duck” being a corrections employee who is able to be manipulated. In some settings, it has also been referred to “getting got.” In an article based on reports of several anonymous inmates, multiple steps in a common pathway were noted, beginning with observation of potential “ducks.” Observations include paying attention to their personality, attire, and movements. Then, in “developing the duck,” it was important for the officer to overlook minor rule violations; the officer may think he is being nice or may do so because of fears or because his ego is being stroked. However, these small violations can later be used as leverage against the officer when he is being asked for contraband. Small rule violations (such as asking for a pen and paper) may be requested of the officer. A (false) friendship with the officer is groomed by the inmate, who seeks his advice and acts impressed by his knowledge. There may be fights staged from which the officer needs protection, and the officer gets that protection from the inmate with whom he is friendly. The inmate makes gradually larger requests, and if the officer balks, he is reminded that his livelihood is at risk, should the inmate report his previous violations.¹⁷ This relationship often leads to blackmail of the staff and contraband introduction to the prison, as well as eventual increased criminal activity in the prison, including violent escapes.¹⁸

The relationship that develops between an inmate and officer may involve any combination of gender and roles. A 2009 U.S. DOJ study found female corrections staff had a higher percentage of engaging in sexual violations with prisoners than did male officers.² Female staff only made up about 27 percent of the Department of Prisons work force but accounted for 30–39 percent of the allegations of staff sexual abuse and sexual misconduct.

Corruption by the development of a special relationship with an inmate can also occur with other corrections employees, including correctional psychiatrists, health care workers, educational staff, volunteers, and chaplains. The same 2009 study² found that corrections employees who had the most contact with inmates had the greatest number of abuse allegations filed. The occupational categories that had the highest rates of allegations per capita were food services, recreation, and education or vocational training. Notably, employees in health, safety, and psychological services accounted for a small percentage of the total allegations (6.4% and 2.3%, respectively).² Although inmates manipulate some staff into having a relationship, staff still have a responsibility to avoid the inappropriate relationship. The significant power differential may lead to relationships that are inherently coercive, sometimes resulting in forcible sexual assaults; these have been documented in the corrections literature and addressed by the Prison Rape Elimination Act.^2,19

One study²⁰ demonstrated that among staff–inmate sexual relationships, 60 percent involved a female corrections worker. In a self-report study of male inmates, it was noted that among those inmates who had a relationship with staff, 29 percent reported kissing a female officer, and 26 percent reported having sex with a female officer.²¹ Higher rates were found among those incarcerated for more than six years.

Worley and colleagues²² have described three types of inmates who enter into sexual relationships with authority figures in corrections: Heartbreakers, Hell-raisers, and Exploiters.

The Heartbreakers engage in a courtship process, such as a touching “game” to determine the staff's boundaries and to minimize the power differential. The Hell-raiser's goal is to create difficulties for the correctional facility, enjoying the notoriety of the inappropriate relationship and enjoying the embarrassment of the corrections administration. Finally, the Exploiter is skilled at identifying vulnerable staff. He intimidates and uses the romance to improve his status in the prison economy. He does favors for staff or gives them presents to begin a relationship, and later blackmails them for breaching the policy of accepting gifts; this is one way for inmates to obtain contraband. Techniques used by inmates to start relationships may include isolating staff from their colleagues, testing boundaries, extortion, negotiation, and ingratiation.

Matching the aforementioned ways in which inmates choose officers to target with Gabbard's²³ categories of psychiatrists who violate boundaries may further our understanding of the sexual relationships in corrections. Gabbard's categories include psychopathy, psychosis, lovesick, and masochistic surrender.²³ The psychopathy and the psychotic categories are described in familiar diagnostic terms. The lovesick have limited lives outside of work and enter into the relationship to fill a void (e.g., from divorce or widowhood). Meanwhile, the masochistic feel that they are martyrs in their devotion to their work and are thus vulnerable. Officers are likely to be at risk when they fall into similar categories as psychiatrists. One study²⁰ categorized employees involved in boundary violations as rescue situations (e.g., an employee feels sorry for the inmate and breaks a rule to assist him), naiveté or accidents (e.g., the employee is unaware of the professional nature of the relationship), lovesickness (e.g., “romantic idealism”), or predators (e.g., the employee manipulates the inmate for personal gain).

Legislation and Training in Corrections

Legislation has been enacted to address this concerning pattern of behavior in corrections. The Prisoner Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 and follow-up legislation (e.g., Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005²⁴) require departments of corrections, especially those receiving federal money, to provide education, training, and information for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape and staff sexual misconduct.² A 2009 U.S. DOJ report notes the following: Implementing staff sexual abuse prevention programs since 2001 has been mixed … staff training on the prevention of sexual abuse was outdated and the [Bureau of Prisons (BOP)] has not established effective goals and oversight mechanisms for its sexual abuse prevention program …. We concluded that the BOP could increase the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention program by improving staff training and inmate education about sexual abuse prevention and reporting, and by providing better oversight of institutions' sexual abuse prevention programs (Ref. 2, pp iii, v). In 2012, the U.S. DOJ issued its National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, again noting the importance of training: Proper training is essential to combating sexual abuse in correctional facilities. The standards require staff training on key topics related to preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse …. The standard contained in the proposed rule required that all employees who have contact with inmates receive training concerning sexual abuse in facilities, including specified topics, with refresher training to be provided on an annual basis thereafter …. Most agency commenters responded positively to the staff training standards, with some stating that that they were already in compliance (Ref. 25, pp 37109, 37145, 37146). Federal code §115.31²⁵ details the scope of corrections employee training (Table 2). In response to many of these concerns and the requirements of the federal code, the DOJ has used pamphlets, training videos developed by the National Institute of Corrections, and online courses.^2,14,25

Incidents like the cases presented here raise questions about the adequacy of this training. The official Danemorra incident review noted that officers at the facility receive 320 hours of course work (e.g., instruction in supervision of general housing, gate security, tool control, legal principles, and defensive tactics), including an “Attitudes in Supervision” course that included only a 25-minute video, “Games Inmates Play,” which describes how inmates try to manipulate prison personnel.¹¹ Civilian employees receive 40 hours of training including “GOTCHA” training, which focuses on how inmates attempt to manipulate employees. However, this training was critiqued as not being in-depth, sophisticated, or thorough enough to address the maintenance of proper boundaries, as noted in the recommendation of the review: “[S]ecurity and civilian management must strengthen and uniformly enforce rules governing proper inmate conduct and interaction between employees and inmates. More frequent training on these policies must be conducted” (Ref. 11, p 147).