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.
