New book available now online see link

Book Sale link

A visual summary of all my Amazon books on line

Visit my Kindle book site for all my books

A Culture of Harm

Carl ToersBijns September 24, 2014

Much has been said, written and testified on the conditions of solitary confinement on prisoners held at these isolation units commonly referred to as Special Management Units (SMU), Special Housing Units (SHU), SuperMax or Maximum Security. The main emphasis of such testimony, articles and growing literature of the practice has overshadowed another meaningful human impact of those who work there.

Correctional officers, whether their assignment is short term or long term, working inside these special unit can be adversely affected by their own overall mental health wellness as well as changing lifestyles, behaviors and other essentials that go along with them working inside these unit. There are associated risks assigned to these work assignments we rarely talk about and its time we do so in order to attain a balance in this environment as well as identify the administrative, educational and social implications that seem to be undermined in a subtle yet destructive manner.

Officers assigned to the SMU or SHU are exposed to the same harsh conditions as prisoners but from the other side of the spectrum. The only major difference is the fact officer may go home after their shift is completed but some work 16 days inside these units.

Some are able to withstand the rigors of the job without any problems while others handle it poorly or not at all. There are special physical and psychological factors required to withstand the negative impacts of this kind of environment. An element that is often ignored when screening or assigning staff to such units.

This makes officers working in these isolation units vulnerable to many risks. The continuum of risks may range from verbal or physical assaults to weapons assaults or exposures to biohazards conditions up to hostage taking or homicide. There is another continuum rarely discussed and that is the behavioral continuum impacted by their role inside these units.

Their role is primarily postured or understood to be in a reactionary mode therefore the crime or assault has already been committed before the officer can react. There are preventive tools put in place but because human nature and behavioral triggers occur without prior warning, they do not adjust quickly enough for the time and place such violence takes place. Thus prevention is impossible. Hence the psychological factors are often ignored and focus is mainly stressed on the physical impact if made the primary objective of such triggers.

Ignored are situational awareness tools and other vigilance factors that make it safer and gives the environment elements to diffuse rather than escalate. Agencies have been widely criticized for the use of a SuperMax and there are calls for the practice to end. Their main premise is such concept violates human rights and are described as being disproportionate to the legitimate use of security and inmate management objectives.  

Although this is the viewpoint of some mental health experts and progressive correctional experts, the fact remains there are similar and proportionate impacts on employees engaged in the application of such security and management policies and are doing this with total disregard to their own safety and wellness. Impacts that have not yet been studied or researched at this time.

Working inside a SHU destroys or mutates spirits, as well as hearts, minds and bodies. Each employee is afflicted or infected via the very same contaminants which have been identified to impact the prisoners housed there. The rate of becoming victimized is based on their own abilities to provide an immune system that is designed to be resilient, perseverant, endurance, their own psychological strengths, and their abilities to adapt and overcome the negative forces at work inside these unit.

There are natural consequences of being exposed to these harmful features inside the SHU. This may be simplified by stating their mere social contact with these prisoners alters their own social behaviors and requires them to adapt or use their survival skills as much as the prisoner does when incarcerated and housed in such environments. It is a natural world of competition and an unnatural world of conflict. Regardless, the employees feels he or she must win. The administration expects them to win and the prisoner must submit. This is the reality when it comes to the environmental control mechanisms.

Notably, how a specific unit is managed determines the level of impact on the employees. The more extreme the enforcement policies are, the more extreme the pressures are to maintain compliance of such policies. This runs analogous with their ideology of behavioral expectations and imposed modifications. There are peer pressures for excellence and there are social cultural pressures to be faithful and loyal unconditionally when adversity stares them in their faces.

Based on these two elements; policies and ideologies, this establishes the culture that may exist inside that isolation unit. The more extreme the expectations, the more extreme the pressures by the culture to comply. Security and control can and has been implemented with inconsistencies caused by cultural indifferences. On the other hand, the more isolated the unit is from administrative oversight, the more the dominant established sub-culture rules these daily events as necessary to maintain control.

This is the focus of this paper. The culture of harm imposed on officers working inside these units have not been recognized and addressed by penal experts or policymakers. There is a dire need to update the needs to assess and evaluation the physical and mental aspects of this job inside a SHU or maximum custody unit. The cost is too high to ignore such necessities.

Historically these units cultivate constant anxiety, resistance, conflict and various extremely violent damaging behaviors that require human adjustments as well as specialized training for job proficiency and mental wellness. This is created merely by mission and design coupled with the policies, ideology and sub-culture created.

Based on identified specific risks of this environment on prisoners we must balance the harm and address the risks to officers. This is not implying the officers suffer equal of more harm than prisoners but rather face the fact that officers are at risk of those same dynamics that impact prisoners housed there.

We must acknowledge after a long term assignment inside a SHU or maximum security unit the:

·         Prisoners deteriorate rapidly increasing the difficulty of communicating effectively and reasonably with the officer in areas of compliance of rules and living standards.

o   This results in misunderstandings and conflicts. It also impacts compliance and non-compliance issues delivered by the officer. Disorientation is a major factor impairing effective communication skills.

·         Prisoners give up hope of being release or living thus created hostile or more difficult situations between them and the officer resulting in a high rate of non-compliance, self-harm mutilations, suicide attempts and successful suicides.

o   This impacts the officer’s well-being and primary and secondary vicariously created trauma. It may also lead to impairments of their own sensory systems.

o   Sadly, this makes them targets of harm for those with malice and violent dispositions.

·         Prisoners may feel more vulnerable and experience a mental impairment which may result in them taking up violent offensive or defensive postures which may include barricading self or inflict unprovoked attacks on officers. Occasionally by delusion; other times by aggression.

o   The preparation to extract a hostile inmate creates hormonal responses that need to be controlled and treated.

o    Restoring order becomes a priority and other priorities are deferred impacting the entire environment in delivery of services, food, movement, showers and other critical appointments in medical and mental health services.

o   This is a major stressor. Duties and tasks to be completed are based on time-lines.

·         Prisoners experience the impact of alleged draconian custodial guidelines imposed with a cultural ideology of control and safety that often raises the level of punishment intentionally or unintentionally.  

o   The perception is validated when other prisoners act out in such a manner, officers respond with force that is often deem inappropriate by the other inmates.

o   Zero tolerance policies encourage punishment rather than treatment.

o   Excessive force is the number one complaint inside a SMU.

o   Approach determines response and the margin of error is life or death.

·         Prisoners alleged torture as a result of being housed in these SHU units or maximum custody.

o   This is based on their perception of the very restrictive nature of their housing, programs, movement, activities and privileges.

o   The officer must deal with such reactions to torturous by ensuring some balance between reality and prisoner frustrations.

o   It also creates high levels of defiance and disorder that must be addressed immediately.

·         Prisoners feel that due to their isolation status they should be closely monitored and very closely regulated to be treated fair and consistent with the other prisoners.

o   Officers are often short-staffed and on tight deadlines to deliver mandated programs and services.

o   This creates a compression of time and personal interaction needed to effectively communicate and handle business at the cell front on a regular basis.

o   This compression of time also impacts disciplinary practices and can be ignored or passed over to the next shift or supervisor causing more inconsistencies or confusion.

·         Prisoners allege material deprivation, the lack of activity and other forms of sensory stimulation, and, especially, the absence of normal or meaningful social contact that prisoners experience in these type of settings.

o    Officers often engage in brief conversations but are taught not to touch or handle prisoners other than restraints.

o   Lengthy conversations are prohibited and infringe on other services.

o   Manipulation is a factor to reduce social contacts and other types of interactions.

·         Prisoners allege that long-term exposure to these powerful and painful stressors is not neutral or benign and does carry a significant risk of harm.

o   The same can be said for officers exposed to these environmental stressors and the linked blowback situations in dealing with them effectively.

o   Other factors of significant harm are communicable diseases, infections etc. that can affect the officer or their families.

This exercise of maintaining control is highly taxing and causes chronic fatigue, stress, anxiety and other related psychological impacts not yet revealed through evidence based studies. This in turn makes these officers susceptible to create a culture of harm that raises their probability of taking matters in their own hands and inflict mistreatment, ranging from deviated practice per policy up to outright brutality. The probability is based on the existing ideology and culture present.

Culture not only offers solutions to these listed allegations or conditions but lend a helping hand in creating the diverse and contaminating environment that is pervasive and perverse in nature. This is the impact of the ecological statement of cruelty based on cultural practices aside from policies and procedures established. 

No culture should design the encouragement of punishment. No culture should embrace a prison system that uses force, oppression and other behavioral modification tools to change a prisoner’s behavior or conduct. Yet this culture is created as the oppositional force of the culture of prisoners. They are reacting to prisoners in essentially the same ways.

Instead of focusing on institutional control and perceived threats and remain on a foundation of following policies and procedures, their ideology gives tacit approval to vary their means to punish or correct behaviors which may result in brutal force or death.

This culture’s permissiveness is not monitored closely enough to assure compliance of the mission set by the agency thus creating a mission creep that is harmful to all who live and work there.  The culture allows these employees to become more autonomous in their actions despite the fact they may be disproportionate to alternatives available.

Seeing the prisoners inflict pain and suffering on themselves or others brings about a culture that tolerates violence and essentially sets the temp for the retaliatory process imposed. Employees seek to fight pain with pain and force with more force. There is no neutrality in such incidents and the control spirals quickly out of control.

There is only an “us versus them” adversarial role to be fulfilled. Peer pressure demands you participate in such roles to resolve the matter any way necessary no matter how cruel it may be. There is no room for second guessing of loyalties, dedication and teamwork duties.

What is not captured here is the rationale or ideology that justifies such actions taken elevating and escalating the nature of solitary confinement to another level. Whether there is a lack or intentions to inflict cruel and unusual punishment via force such as chemical agents, dogs, electronic stun guns or Tasers and pepper ball guns, is where the ideology justifies the means to use force according to the culture rather than the continuum of force and policies in place.

I suggest this is because of the constant tension and conflict between prisoner and officer it is reasonable to grasp the concept they are adversaries in roles designed. There is a secondary psychological process at work. The mere environment of isolation and being out of sight out of produces a dynamic of control mind in many different ways, which is obsessive and produces interpersonal tension that actually serves as a precursor to set the stage for more conflict and elevated problems.

Prison administrators need to concede this culture of harm exists and that it has negative effects on prisoners as well as employees or officers working under such stress. Some of these administrators are denying the real physical and psychological costs to their employees working in such a place. They are ignoring the fact how well their officers work impacts how well the prisoners are supervised and managed. When it is all said and done, the two are directly related to the control expectation.

To allow this condition to exist brings unwarranted painful and provocative suffering to staff as well as the prisoners and needs to be evaluated immediately so there is sufficient evidence available to reconstruct the cultures within such places called the SMU or maximum security. The lack of a comprehensive assessment of the risks for staff assigned to a SMU or supermax confinement can continue to overlook these issues, and no approach to reforming or meaningfully modifying these units is likely to succeed without taking them into account.

Correctional officers have a very stressful and high demanding job. They are expected by law and moral obligations to do their jobs the best they can and deliver what the employer they work for is a judicious performance of their assigned duties and responsibilities. There are diminutive misunderstandings in this occupation what the role is and how it fits into any organization. Their role is defined.

Anyone who puts on the uniform and badge knows this role is the ultimate expectation when they hire on. So how well are these officers able to perform their duties in order to meet their distinct employer’s expectations? To what degree do they satisfy them or the public? When do they fail in this challenge of managing and supervising the most difficult offenders, convicted felons of every law on the books?

Let us look at their expectation first. Detrimental reliance is a term commonly used to make another person or group of persons perform under a contract or statement of understanding.  The contract is the controlled statement of understanding when hired and the officer agrees to perform these duties under his or her oath under law and moral expectations.

First off, no employee is forced to perform this job. They hire on voluntarily and learn about their expectations and role during orientation and training. There are clear guidelines of the role to be performed as well as the necessary tools to get them done. Thus the word “make” implies their duty call and perform the job as intended.

This is commonly referred to as conditions of employment which entails various policies and procedures, human resource rules, operational and logistical goals and objectives and the overall mission statements. There are other elements of this concept but basically the spheres of control lies on the employer.

One would agree, in a perfect world, the officer would have no problem delivering the conditions of employment if all elements of this spheres of control and responsibilities are balanced, intact and available to the officers. Hence there is a tacit promise made by the agency to provide such conditions to facilitate the successful delivery of services rendered or promised. Every employee expects this from their bosses.

However, corrections officers don’t work in a perfect world. Every day they are assaulted, short staffed, fatigued, and exposed to some of the most toxic human behaviors of this part of the detention or prison world. Prisons are taxing budgets and cuts are common making this world more and more volatile for the officers and the jails and prisons they work in.

There are factors that require adjustments and none are coming any time soon. They are in fact, working in a flawed and poisoned environment filled with biohazards and contaminated elements which are distributed by closed air delivery systems incubating exposures to cancer causing / respiratory risks while enduring the assignment of working with limited equipment in good working order or availability. The list is long and the officers endure such adversity voluntarily.

This is basically the world they work in which includes random or sporadic situations of poor communications, first and mid-level supervisory staff or inadequate management practices. When the agency fails to keep the promise made at a point conditions of employment are so deteriorated they cause failure, whose fault is it when the officers fall short of their performance expectations and goals?

If the officer relies on these promises which were reasonable and foreseeable in an industry such as this whose responsibility is it when these officers don’t meet the agency’s mission statement or operational goals? We know that the usual manner of examining failures are handled from the top to the bottom and the blame or point of failure is usually found at the bottom. This is how the prison culture works.

The fact is, agency leaders have a legal and moral responsibility to provide officers hired under these conditions of employment the necessary tools, training and supervision to do the job according to their own expectations. Anything less is a broken promise. They need to be held to the same level of responsibility and control as the officers. This is not happening and demoralizing staff.

This reflexive and perpetual reliance on this promise to keep the public safe, to protect staff from unnecessary harms and to provide a safe and secure work environment is a reasonable and mandatory condition of their promise to deliver the agency’s mission statement. It should be honored and kept intact so the officers are given the tools and support they need to do their jobs.

Taking all factors into consideration, the corrections officer may suffer harm or find severe life-threatening inadequacies in their duty to deliver their end of the promise to do the job according to hiring conditions implied or written when hired. There should be nothing more binding that the mutual promise between employer and employee to keep that promise.

There is nothing more important than the officers’ reliance on the agency’s spirit of cooperation, understanding, provision and implementation to assure the promise they made to the public, to the communities and to their employees are kept.

It is reasonable for officers to take whole responsibility for doing their assigned jobs with the known the stipulation their employers take the same level of responsibility to provide them with the administrative support, operational and logistic commitment and the clear and concise communication to ensure the job as described gets done.

Reducing the Cost of Incarceration in Arizona

This paper is written to simplify the current prison crisis which has been draining the state budget for the last ten years. It is not a politically correct nor a politically accepted concept as it offers alternatives to incarceration via traditional and evidence based programs but since the culture in Arizona is “tough on crime” the feasibility of making changes depends on the leadership of the state.

It is a common fact that prisons have grown exponentially in the United States and Arizona. There were major contributors to this growth including the war of drugs, veterans being discharged after serving in war, homeless populations roaming the streets, mentally ill persons incarcerated because of the lack of state hospitals or treatment facilities and many more. This has been accepted as fact and is not challenged.

What should be challenged is the fact that penal policies have shifted focusing on sentencing and doubling their sentence of confinement. As a natural consequence of such actions, the prison population exploded and has been growing ever since the implementation of such policies. The reality posing the state today is the fact this current policy is no longer affordable or sustainable with budgets facing decreased revenues and higher expenditures not just in prison costs but in education, healthcare, children protection needs, public safety etc.

Prosecutors are concerned about crime rates as this is a legitimate concern for public safety. The public is concerned about the cost of public safety and growing prison spending and this is also a legitimate concern today. A silent and hidden factor is the social and racial inequalities involved in the process of incarceration leaving families, children and communities damaged and dependent on public aid funding. However, we must focus on the social justice of incarceration and address the alternatives to reduce costs and populations.

The reality is that this paper only reflects the work that has already been done to reduce the incarceration rates. It merely mimics those recommendations and provides the reader with thought provoking ideas that break the bias of being “tough on crime” and offer a strategic viewpoint to reduce incarceration without impacting the crime rate and work on reducing imprisonment costs.

It is believed the point is not “something needs to be done” but rather we need to develop a strategy to seek reduction in prison costs through sound means and courses designed to reflect best practices. This paper is for the policymakers who appear to be restricted or hampered by political influences and a misunderstanding between incarceration rates and crime rates.

Thus they are taking the cautious approach about reducing incarceration for the fear of meddling or contributing to an increase in the crime rate. Making assumptions the connection between incarceration rates and the crime rates is flawed based on a constant factor that plays into these dynamics of what is called the “iron law of prison populations.” This principle applies two factors: the number of people put in prison and the length of time they stay incarcerated.

Obviously there is a link between the incarceration rate and the crime rate but it is misunderstood and has created a “fear” level of being too soft on crime. It has been determined you can reduce captivity rates or populations without a “substantial” negative impact on public safety. Thus this paper proposes a set of penal changes that would cut the population and costs respectively. If used accordingly and abiding by the previous sets of rules before the prison population boom, we could return the prison management element to a restored status and focus on alternatives to prison time given by judges and recommended by county prosecutors.

FACT: It takes a crime to convict someone to serve time in prison. If crime rates rise so does the imprisonment rate. We expect the crime rate to fall but we see it occurs on a very small scale thus we have a mild correlation that can be addressed and politically tolerated if the mindset changes to accepting alternatives to longer sentencing.

Therefore a consensus is built that the impact is modest compared to other factors on crime.

FACT: When one person is locked up another person comes along and replaces him or her maintaining the crime rate. This is especially true for drug related crimes. This represents the fact that a prison conviction will increase the prison population but it does not decrease the crime rate. Another fact gathered over the years is that the length of time does not change the risk of recidivism thus sending to people for shorter periods would not impact their propensity to commit crimes upon release from prison. The exception to this rule would be in prisons were to release a disproportional number of persons from prison as it would have an impact on crime rates.

FACT: People released from prison are still high risk of committing new crimes however, they commit only a small fraction of all crimes reported. Taken into consideration prisoners are not less likely to commit crimes upon release after serving more time in prison and given the fact the contribution is small the risk is relatively small. Hence increasing the prison release rate would serve no advantage to this process since it has already been determined some prisoners will commit crimes upon release. However we can assume these prisoners would commit a crime anyway.

FACT: When the number of persons going to prison drops, the number of inmates released from prison will also drop. Hence the corresponding “new” crime committed rate would drop as well. Based on the research that the length of stay in prison has no relationship to rate of recidivism and going to prison in the first place it does not reduce the likelihood that the criminal offender will be a repeat offender and make it marginally higher.

FACT: This analysis shows that the size of the prison population and the amount of crimes committed are related but not as strong as assumed. Since the duration of time prisoners are released from prison is not related to their likelihood to remain crime free it suggests prisoners can serve shorter sentences without triggering an increase in the crime rate.

FACT: Policymakers misunderstand how prisons grow and confuse rehabilitation with punishment. The same goes for judges who think they are sending people for rehabilitation. Remember the “iron law” which states two factors: how many people go to prison and how long they stay. If either of these factors changes, the size of the prison population will also change. The corollary to this iron law is equally important: There is no way to change the prison population without changing either the number of people who go to prison or how long they stay there.

FACT: There were three deciding factors in prison growth – sentencing policies restricted the use of probation as a sentence for felons causing an increase in the number of people going to prison; enhanced penalties for felonies committed increased the length of time to serve; a backlog of people serving time (overcrowding) serving longer sentences. The result is today’s dilemma to reduce prison growth and costs.

Despite efforts to address alternative sentencing laws, the idea of sentencing reforms did not impact the length of sentence but rather focused on the probation periods and conditions. These reforms were basically sabotaged by technical violations that resulted in persons going to prison anyway. These revocations impacted the population and created a failed system to reform the problem. Hence the intention to provide non-incarceration alternatives turned into incarceration due to a lack of incentives on the community corrections side of the justice system.

Thus the laws changed for an alternative to serve but due to revocations it was not effective and there was not a single new law designed to address the change of length of time or reduce restrictions on probation sentences. Far more important are the emphases on reentry, alternatives to incarceration, and the philosophy of rehabilitation, a problem that can be addressed only with a focus on the iron law's two elements.

Political obstacles are in place to resist rehabilitation programs in Arizona. Because there are misunderstandings between punishment and treatment, the debate has caused a standstill in the process to address this issue. The focus on either penal strategy is understood but one serves an entire different purpose than the other.

FACT: Some judges will say that they send people to prison for rehabilitation purposes. This is not the accurate purpose of such sentencing. They are being sent to prison for punishment since treatment programs are severely limited inside prisons. Best case scenario are alcohol abuse, substance abuse and anger management programs available at a limited scale to the population and only as mandatory conditions of incarceration but this is not rehabilitate in nature since the prison environment is more dominantly counter-treatment than successful treatment outside of prisons.

FACT: To achieve a true rehabilitation prison program for treatment the system would have to be increased to scale of the population for everyone to attend. This is unrealistic and very costly done. In the end, rehabilitation is the right thing to do but it does not impact mass incarceration.

To reduce mass incarceration we must entice the criminal justice system e.g. prosecutors, judges to place offenders into community programs rather than incarceration including the intensive probation programs for drug treatment diversion programs. The same can be said for the mentally ill and other special needs however, in todays’ political world, these programs rarely replace incarceration thus doing nothing to drive down mass incarceration rates.

There are two main reasons for this. First it is not politically feasible to offer alternatives in Arizona as the politicians run on and are elected by the people for being “tough on criminals.” this results in having higher rates of incarceration and more  “technical” revocation failure rates.  Second, this strategy promises not to impact public safety or risk thus the system forgoes dealing with the serious violators and deal with those lawbreakers who would not have gone to prison anyways thus doing nothing for the incarnation rates.

In order to reduce incarceration and prison costs we should look at evidence based:

Re-entry programs

Sentencing reforms

The number of persons going into prison (including violators)

Mandatory sentencing

Technical violations of probation and parole

Length of incarceration

Impact of mass incarceration rates

Impact of the crime rates

References:

Harvard Law & Policy Review Summer, 2009 -Confronting the Costs on Incarceration Todd R. Clear James Austin Copyright © 2009 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College; Todd R. Clear, James Austin