Corrections_Today_July-August_2022_Vol.84_No.4

Similar But Not Identical p. 14

Today Corrections July/August 2022

HowVisitation Keeps Families Connected p. 20

News&Views AND more

Better the public good TM

We are solution makers. We take pride in solving the tough challenges facing government at all levels. We are reentry professionals. We help individuals gain the skills needed to successfully reenter the community. We are civic partners. Driven by a deep sense of service, we help government better the public good.

A national leader providing high-quality corrections and detention services.

Delivering a wide range of innovative, cost-saving real estate solutions.

An expanding network of residential and non residential alternatives to incarceration that address America’s recidivism crisis.

www.CoreCivic.com

EXCITING NEWS! ACA Certification Program Presents:

CERTIFIED CORRECTIONS EXECUTIVE Study Guide | 1 st Edition

CERTIFIED CORRECTIONS EXECUTIVE

Certified Corrections Executive • First Edition American Correctional Association C O M M I S S I O N O N C O R S E A L O

Study Guide First Edition

C

E

T

R

I

O

N

A

L

C

E

R

T I

F I C

A

T

T

N

E

I O

M

F

E

A

V

C

E

I

H

N

American Correctional Association 206 N. Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 www.aca.org

54500> ISBN 979-8-9850365-1-0 $45.00

American Correctional Association

9 798985 036510

• Convenient all-in-one study guide • Well organized for easy study • Excellent resource after certification

GO TO OUR WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION: WWW.ACA.ORG or Contact our Professional Development team: acaprodev@aca.org

1

American Correctional Association Corrections Today July/August 2022 Vol. 84, No. 4

Features 14

Similar, but not identical Prison myths about men and women relationships By Daniela Barberi, Megan Stoltz, Shannon Magnuson and Danielle S. Rudes, Ph.D.

20 A warmer welcome

How visitation keeps families connected By India Duke

26

38

BE STRONG, STAY PROUD, KEEP MOTIVATED

A glimpse into the Secure Diversionary Treatment

A Tribute to Professionalism, Dedication and Courage Highlights from National Corrections Officers and Employees Week 2022

National Correctional Officers and EmployeesWeek May 1–7, 2022 Thank you …this week and always!

Program By Allie Lovell

32

North Carolina Prisons Innovation Institute Affecting change from the inside out By Charles Mautz

Scan here to register for a candid conversation webinar with your

correctional peers on May 4, 2022 or visit https://tinyurl.com/2022COWeekRegister

Scan here after May 4, 2022 to view the webinar replay or visit https://tinyurl.com/2022COWeekReplay This project was supported by Grant No. 2019-RY-BX-K003 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Cover photos: Abstract yellow background: istock/enjoynz; Playground photo courtesy Eric Lyle; Family photo: istock/Prostock-Studio

2 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

Chapters and affiliates

Alabama Council on Crime and Delinquency—Albany Criminal Justice Association—Alston Wilkes Society—American Catholic Correctional Ministries—American Correctional Health Services Association—American Institute of Architects—American Jail Association—American Probation and Parole Association—Appalachian State University Student Chapter— Arizona Probation, Parole and Corrections Association—Arizona State University ACA Student Chapter—Association for Correctional Research and Information Management—Association of Correctional Food Service Affiliates—Association of Paroling Authorities International—Association of State Correctional Administrators—Association of Programs for Female Offenders—Association of Women Executives in Corrections—Bellmont High School Student Chapter—Brown Mackie College ACA Student Chapter— California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association—Caribbean Correctional Association—Champlain Valley Educational Services— Clayton State University Justice Society—Colorado Criminal Justice Association—Columbia-Greene Community College—Criminal Justice Club Student Chapter—Concordia University Sociology of Law & Justice Club—Connecticut Criminal Justice Association—Correctional Accreditation Managers Association—Correctional Association of Massachusetts— Correctional Education Association—Correctional Healthcare Providers of the United States—Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators—District of Columbia Criminal Justice Association—Eastern Kentucky University Corrections and Juvenile Justice Student Association—Family and Corrections Network—Florida Council on Crime and Delinquency—Harrison College Criminal Justice Association Student Chapter—Hawaii Criminal Justice Association—Historical Association for Corrections—Illinois Correctional Association—Indiana Criminal Justice Association—Integrated Correctional Association of the Philippines (ICAP) Inc.—International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology—International Association of Correctional Training Personnel—International Correctional Arts Network—International Corrections and Prisons Association— International Community Corrections Association—Iowa Corrections Association—Jamaica Federation of Corrections—ITT-Technical Institute ACA Student Chapter—Ivy Tech Community College Terre Haute Branch ACA Student Chapter—Juvenile Justice Trainers Association—Kansas Correctional Association—Kentucky Council on Crime and Delinquency

Inc.—Louisiana Correctional Association—Martin University Student Chapter—Maryland Criminal Justice Association—Michigan Corrections Association—Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association—Minnesota Corrections Association—Missouri Corrections Association—Missouri Western University Student Chapter—Moraine Park Technical College Corrections Club—National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice— National Association of Correctional Record Administrators and Supervisors—National Association of Juvenile Correctional Agencies— National Association of Probation Executives—National Association of Adult and Juvenile State Corrections Mental Health Directors—National Correctional Industries Association Inc.—National Council on Crime and Delinquency—National Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators— National Juvenile Detention Association—National Major Gang Task Force— National Organization of Hispanics in Criminal Justice—National Partnership for Juvenile Services—Nebraska Correctional Association—Nevada Corrections Association—New Jersey Chapter Association—New Mexico Criminal Justice Association—New York Corrections and Youth Services Association—North American Association of Wardens and Superintendents— North Carolina Correctional Association—Northern Illinois University Academic Justice Association—Ohio Correctional and Court Services Association—Oklahoma Correctional Association—Oregon Criminal Justice Association—Parole and Probation Compact Administrators Association— Pennsylvania Association of Probation, Parole and Corrections—Pierce College Criminal Justice Club—Prison Fellowship—Puerto Rico Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Association—Richmond Community College Student Chapter—St. Augustine’s College ACA Student Chapter— Salvation Army—South Carolina Correctional Association—Southern States Correctional Association—State University of New York–Albany—Tennessee Corrections Association—Texas Corrections Association—University of Central Missouri Student Chapter—University of Illinois/Chicago Criminal Justice Society—Utah Correctional Association—Virginia Correctional Association—Volunteers of America Inc.—Washburn University ACA Student Chapter—Washington Correctional Association—Western Illinois University Corrections Club—Western Correctional Association—Westwood College Angels—Wisconsin Correctional Association—WITC New Richmond Criminal Justice Club—Wyoming Correctional Association

OFFICERS President Tony C. Parker, Tennessee Immediate Past President

Gary C. Mohr, Ohio Vice President Tony M. Wilkes, Tennessee President-Elect Denise M. Robinson, Ohio Treasurer Harbans S. Deol, Ph.D., Nebraska Board of Governors Representatives Elizabeth F. “Beth” Arthur Derrick D. Schofield, Ph.D. Secretary James A. Gondles Jr., CAE, Virginia EDITORIAL STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF James A. Gondles Jr., CAE Managing Editor Kirk Raymond GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION STAFF Graphic Designer Carla DeCarlo Communications Specialist Mary Seidel ADVERTISING AND MARKETING STAFF Director, Conventions, Advertising and Corporate Relations Kelli McAfee Production Coordinator Mary Misisco ACA Executive Office and Directors Executive Director James A. Gondles Jr., CAE Deputy Executive Director Jeffrey Washington senior executive Assistant India Vargas

Article and photo submissions: Managing Editor, 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314; email submissions@aca.org. Articles must be in Microsoft Word. Please include all contact information. Unless expressly requested in writing, all photos and artwork submitted become the property of ACA and may be used in future ACA publications. Articles and photos will not be returned unless expressly requested by author.

Connect with us online

www.facebook.com/​ AmericanCorrectional​ Association

Advertising inquiries: Production coordinator, 800-222-5646 ext. 0019. Written inquiries should be mailed to 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Statements contained in Corrections Today are the personal views of the authors and do not constitute ACA policy unless so indicated. ACA does not assume responsibility for the content of Corrections Today as submitted by contributors, reserves the right to edit all articles and, if necessary, condense them. The publication of any advertisement by ACA is neither an endorsement of the advertiser nor of the products or services advertised. ACA is not responsible for any claims made in advertisements. Mission statement: The American Correctional Association provides a professional organization for all individuals and groups, both public and private, that share a common goal of improving the justice system. Corrections Today ( ISSN 0190-2563, USPS 019-640) is published six times a year in January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, September/October, November/ December by the American Correctional Association, 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-224-0000. Send any changes to Corrections Today, Attn: Membership Department, 206 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314. Subscriptions are included in annual membership dues. Nonmember subscription rates are $25 per year for Corrections Today ($36 value) or $6 per issue. Printed in USA. Vol. 84, No. 4. Copyright 2022 by the American Correctional Association.

www.twitter.com/​ ACAinfo

Communications and Publications Director Kirk Raymond

Conventions, Advertising and Corporate Relations Director Kelli McAfee Financial Services and Human Resources Director William Lake Membership and Customer Service Director Roberta Gibson International Initiatives Director Elizabeth Gondles, Ph.D. — Director Office of Correctional Health Director Elizabeth Gondles, Ph.D. — Senior Director Mike Miskell, MPH, CHES ® — Director Standards and Accreditation Director David Haasenritter

www.instagram.com/ amercorrectionalassoc

www.linkedin.com/​ company/american- correctional-association

Professional Development Director Elizabeth Gondles, Ph.D. — Senior Director Denaye Prigmore — Director Information Technology Acting Director Jeffrey Washington

www.youtube.com/user/​ AmericanCorrectional/​ featured

Corrections Today July/August 2022— 3

6 News&Views From Jim’s Desk 8 Correctional Chaplain Perspectives 49 ACA Featured Departments 6

6

50 Welcome New Members 52 Certification List 54 Corrections Calendar 56 Index to Advertisers/ Product Index

8

4 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

Correctional Behavioral Health Training and Certification Program

COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE BECOME CERTIFIED!!!!

OVERVIEW: This program ensures a candidate’s

CBHC 3 RD EDITION STUDY GUIDE IS NOW AVAILABLE!!! knowledge of national expected practices and guidelines, legal and ethical principles and relevant security regulations.

“The CBHC training has reducedofficer assaults

fromthementally ill population andgivenofficers other avenues to reduce instances of physical response

todisruptive incidents.” —Telisa White, Chief of Detention, Mecklenburg County Sheriff ’s Office

n Adult Correctional Officers n Juvenile Justice Professionals n Allied Behavioral Health Staff n Community Corrections Officers

“The CBHCTraining programhas beenan important tool tohelpour correctional officers get the training and subsequent certification they need toproperly care

for this complex population.” —Mark Inch, MA, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections

For more information, email healthcare@aca.org

5

From Jim’s Desk nEWS&vIEWS

Getting along through our divisions

Court, Congress, the President, fos sil fuel, greenhouse gases, the death penalty and so on are natural topics of two (or more) sides. And nearly all Americans have strong beliefs on these and other issues (even if they say they do not). So why do we worry so much about our divisions? Maybe it’s because we see or hear of those divisions causing more violence than in past years, maybe it’s because of emails, social media, texts, talking heads on radio and television, and a new openness of expressing one’s self. Yes, the USA summer is upon us, and fireworks in the sky on Indepen dence Day 2022 may lead to even more fireworks among all of us after the fourth. I believe it was Rodney King who once said “why can’t we all get along?” Those were the days my friend.

istock/alexsl

T he 152 nd Congress of Cor rection is upon us and we are well into celebration of summer across the country. And, as usual, the USA is deep in division on issues, opinions, candidates and our future. To many of us, it seems like the country is splitting further apart on nearly every, and all, subjects. The war in the Ukraine has even caused Americans to divide. You would think virtually every Ameri can would line up solidly against Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, but such is not the case. A large

segment of Congress refused to side with Ukraine in a vote on assisting that country, and many in our coun try continually speak about Ukraine’s “corruption” thereby implying Ukraine somehow deserves what they’re getting. So on it goes. Seems to me that no matter what the issue, we just naturally divide. But in a way that’s what democracy is all about. It’s unreasonable and unrealistic to think 325 million people are going to think alike on most issues. Abortion, guns, immigration, taxes, the Supreme

James A. Gondles Jr., CAE ACA Executive Director

6 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

See You In New Orleans!

AUG. 4–7, 2022 152ND CONGRESS OF CORRECTION

Questions? Please contact Kelli McAfee, Director of Conventions, Advertising and Corporate Relations, at 800-222-5646, ext 0011 or via email at kellim@aca.org

7

nEWS&vIEWS

Correctional Chaplain Perspectives

Angel Tree evolves Engaging incarcerated parents and their children By Jennifer Lowrey

Introduction T he impact of correctional chaplains on individuals and prison culture extends far beyond the fostering of spiritual growth and positive life change. As correctional chaplains help parents behind bars stay connected with their children, their influence becomes greater. An estimated 1.5 million minor children currently have an incarcerated parent, and more than five million children in the U.S. have experienced the incarceration of a parent. 1,2 Maintaining parental contact is difficult because most in carcerated parents are held more than 100 miles from where their children live. 3 With exceptions for those who are incarcerated because of crimes against the child or caregiver, it is overwhelmingly positive for both the parent and the child to be in contact. There are many reasons to nurture the parent-child relationship within a corrections context. Separation from children compounds the trauma of incarceration, particularly when the parent was in the home with their children at the time of their arrest. This can be especially true

important in their children’s lives. Others have very real concerns they will lose their parental rights. These fears are worsened by lack of contact with their children and can hamper successful reentry. According to author Nell Bernstein, “Prison visits matter. Children and parents will tell you again and again how important it is that they see each other, and research backs them up. Consistent, ongoing contact reduces the strain of

for mothers behind bars. More than 80% of the two million women booked into jails in the U.S. each year are mothers. In 2022, nearly 150,000 women spent Mother’s Day separated from their children. 4 The heightened anxiety from this separation can result in depression, acting out or aggression within the prison setting. Many incarcerated parents fear losing their identity as parents or believe they are no longer

Photo courtesy Prison Fellowship

8 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

Correctional Chaplain Perspectives

separation, lowers recidivism, and is the single most important factor in determining whether a family will reunify after a prison term.” 5 Supporting family connections Programs like Angel Tree™ can be vehicles for correctional chaplains to proactively support the family connections of those they serve. Angel Tree ® has been partnering with chaplains since 1982 to help incarcerated parents send Christ mas gifts to their children on their behalf, by way of local churches and volunteers. During Christmas 2021, more than 236,000 children were signed up to receive gifts. Angel Tree goes beyond Christmas as it offers additional opportunities like camping scholarships and encour ages year-round church support of families with an incarcerated loved one. Recently, Angel Tree has been adding to its impact through new initiatives and by expanding the longer-standing components. At the front lines of this expan sion is the newly created chaplain liaison role. There are six dedicated Prison Fellowship staff serving as resources to chaplains in state and local departments of corrections. In addition, there is one staff member — a former Federal Correctional Officer — whose role is to work with Federal Bureau of Prisons chaplains. Patti Hammonds, director of Angel Tree chaplain relations, states, “The goal of the new Angel Tree chaplain liaison team is to come alongside the chaplains in the prisons and help them in their role of ‘shep herd of their flock’ in prison. To make their job easier.”

to affirm the important role of incarcerated parents, give them an opportunity to sign up their children for Angel Tree and let them know about the opportunities available to their children throughout the year. A calendar containing key dates for Angel Tree is available at many in prison events. Calendars also include a verse of the month and questions to encourage the parent’s spiritual growth. As COVID-19 restrictions on visitations are lifted, hopefully 100–150 Parent Day events can be held nationwide in 2022. The ongoing evolution of the An gel Tree program is prompted in part by the recognition parental incar ceration is considered a particularly stigmatizing “adverse childhood experience.” Often, children of prisoners have additional ACEs that affect not only their relation ships with the absent parent but can have negative impacts on academic performance, educational outcomes and future physical, emotional and mental health. Programs that seek to have a positive impact on such chil dren should be trauma-informed and holistic. 6 This is the main impetus of two new initiatives, the Opportunity Kids Collaborative and Angel Tree Every Day. In its pilot phase, Opportunity Kids Collaborative is “connecting families in need to those who can help, thanks to corporations who care.” Seed funding has been pro vided by Walmart, allowing launches in the following five cities in 2022: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston and Baltimore. In the first phase of the pilot, families are introduced to churches and organizations that can meet real needs, supporting and

“The goal of the new Angel Tree chaplain liaison team is to come alongside the

Over the phone and through email, chaplain liaisons help correc tional chaplains access and deploy the Angel Tree program in their prisons. Chaplain liaisons also point chaplains and correctional staff to other resources that can benefit the population they serve. Two examples are (a) Floodlight™, which offers in spirational original and partner video content geared toward an incarcerat ed audience, and (b) The Storehouse, where chaplains can request Bibles, educational materials and books at no charge. Chaplains can also receive a monthly e-newsletter, The Frontliner, with links to additional key resources. Expansion and outreach Angel Tree program expansion includes Angel Tree Parent Days. These in-prison events are designed chaplains in the prisons and help them in their role of ‘shepherd of their flock’ in prison. To make their job easier.”

Corrections Today July/August 2022 — 9

nEWS&vIEWS

strengthening families in a trauma informed way. Each community partner is carefully vetted. As part of this initial relationship building, Opportunity Kids hosted a music production workshop in Atlanta designed to introduce kids to dif ferent means of creative expression and career opportunities. Opportu nity Kids also recently hosted a free dental clinic for Angel Tree families in Virginia. Future developments Every year, Prison Fellowship serves hundreds of thousands of chil dren with an incarcerated parent and connects with 5,000–7,000 churches. Angel Tree Every Day, currently in its formative stages, seeks to equip such churches to extend their care of families with an incarcerated loved one. Both programs are being devel oped with a foundation of current research and best practices in trau ma-informed care. Led by Director Richelle Bryan, the Opportunity Kids/Angel Tree Every Day team includes Youth Development Re searcher Dr. Chelsea Hunsucker. Hunsucker underscores the impor tance of fostering the parent-child relationship while a parent is behind bars and describes the way sup porting these relationships builds resilience and can circumvent unde sired outcomes: “Parental rejection is one of the strongest corelates to juvenile delin quency, and it’s a causative one, not just associated. I come from sociol ogy, so we’re looking at things that are associated but maybe don’t cause each other. But this one is cause. We are starting to see a lot of research in

Photo courtesy Prison Fellowship

10 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

Correctional Chaplain Perspectives

the last couple of years that says if you can have a relationship between incarcerated parent and child, that’s great. It’s actually going to reduce that chance. And it goes back into the larger research that says that parental rejection [is harmful to the child]. It may not be the will of the parent to reject that child, but that relationship is gone. That’s another ACE. In this context, with this population, it’s im portant to build that relationship and be aware of its need and its causative factor with bad outcomes. It leads to negative school outcomes, mental health outcomes, incarcerative out comes. All of it’s connected.” Angel Tree camping and Angel Tree sports camps are also develop ing more ways to support ministry partners and provide more effective experiences and connections for Angel Tree families. This includes deepening training resources for partner camps, especially those designated “focus camps,” in which most campers are children with unique struggles, including children of incarcerated parents. In addition to providing up to $600 in scholar ship support for each Angel Tree camper, training resources based on TBRI ® , or Trust-Based Relational Intervention, are being developed at the Karyn Purvis Institute of Child Development at Texas Christian University. 7 Conclusion All these program develop ments are designed to impact not just children and caregivers outside of correctional institutions, but to provide ways for meaningful relationship-building throughout the loved one’s incarceration. Building

Photo courtesy Prison Fellowship

up families of those behind bars indi rectly—but powerfully—strengthens individuals who are incarcerated. Angel Tree resources, both historic and new, exist to support the impor tant work of correctional chaplaincy that ultimately can result in real life transformation. Endnotes 1 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2021. Parents in prison and their minor children. Survey of Prison Inmates. Retrieved from: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ pptmcspi16st.pdf 2 Bryant, E. 2021. More than 5 million children have had an incarcerated parent. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved from: https://www.vera.org/ news/more-than-5-million-children-have-had-an incarcerated-parent 3 La Vigne, N. 2014. The cost of keeping prisoners hundreds of miles from home. Urban Institute . Retrieved from: https://www.urban.org/ urban-wire/cost-keeping-prisoners-hundreds- miles-home 4 Sawyer, W. & Berton, W. 2022. Prisons and jails will separate millions of mothers from their children in 2022. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/ blog/2022/05/04/mothers_day/ 5 Bernstein, N. 2005. All Alone in the World: Children of the Incarcerated. New York: The New Press. Retrieved from: https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781565849525

6 Harris, N. B... 2019. The deepest well: healing the long-term effects of childhood adversity. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Retrieved from: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-deepest well-nadine-burke-harris/1140825353 7 Purvis, K. 2013. Trust-Based Relational Intervention ® : Principles and Practices. Retrieved from: https://child.tcu.edu/about-us/tbri/#sthash. PYjuBWMX.dpbs

For more information about Angel Tree, go to: prisonfellowship.org/angeltree For more information about Floodlight, go to: prisonfellowship.org/floodlight For more information about The Storehouse, go to: prisonfellowship.org/storehouse

Jennifer Lowrey has been with Prison Fellowship for 15 years. Currently she serves as national director of the newly developed Floodlight ® program and The Storehouse ® .

Corrections Today July/August 2022 — 11

Correctional Nurse Manager Training and Certification Program

The CCN/M First Edition Study Guide NOW AVAILABLE!

• The CCN/M certification cate gory includes individuals who work as nurse managers in a correctional environment. • They are management staff who may contribute to the development of policy and procedures, are responsible for their implementation and have authority over staff nurses.

C

E

T

R

I

O

R

N

O

A

C

L

N

C

E

O

R

N

T I

I S S I O

F I C

S

A

E

T

A

T

N

L

M

E

O

I O

M

F

E

A

V

M

C

E

I

H

N

O

C

For more information, please email healthcare@aca.org or call 703-224-0049

12

Correctional Nurse Manager Training and Certification Curriculum

Module 1 — Health Care in Corrections Section 1A – Appropriate and Necessary Health Care Section 1B – Access to Care Section 1C – Total Quality Management Section 1D – Prevention of Contagion Module 2 — Legal Issues in Corrections Section 2A – History of Correctional Law Section 2B – Inmate Rights v. Inmate Privileges Section 2C – Landmark Court Cases Section 2D – Inmate Grievances Section 2E – Confidentiality Module 3 — Behavioral Health Section 3A – Basics of Mental Illness Section 3B – Mental Health Assessments Section 3C – Crisis Intervention Section 3D – Suicide Prevention Section 3E – Trauma Informed Care Section 3F – The Multidisciplinary Service Team and Multidisciplinary Treatment Team Section 3G – Managing Disruptive Inmates Section 4A – Scope and Nature of Correctional Nursing Section 4B – Understanding the Standards of Correctional Nurse Practice Section 4C – Understanding the Standards of Professional Performance Section 4D – Ethics Section 4E – Accreditation Module 4 — Nursing Practice and Accreditation

Module 5 — Security Section 5A – Equipment/Supplies Accountability Section 5B – Inspections and Investigations Section 5C – Problem Inmates Section 5D – Emergencies Module 6 — General and Inmate Management Section 6A – Special Needs Inmates Section 6B – Policy and Procedures Section 6C – Communication Section 6D – Classification Section 6E – Health Education Programs Module 7 — Conflict Management Section 7A – Staff Conflict Management Section 7B – Inmate Conflict Management Section 7C – Mediation Section 7D – Staff Grievances Module 8 — Human Resource Management Section 8A – Staff Management Section 8B – Recruitment and Retention Section 8C – Staff Development

Eligibility Requirements: Certified Correctional Nurse Manager (CCN/M)

• RN license in good standing with corresponding state nursing board

• 2 years of correctional nurse management experience; supervises other medical personnel and administrative staff

• Associate, Bachelor of Science (B.S.), Master of Science (M.S.) in Nursing or completion of an accredited nursing program

13

n Relationships

Similar, but not identical Prison myths about men and women relationships

14 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

By Daniela Barberi, Megan Stoltz, Shannon Magnuson and Danielle S. Rudes, Ph.D.

R elationships provide social integration, despair and misery (Kraus et al., 1993; Veroff, 1995; Weiss, 1974). While most understand the value of relationships generally, current research provides little to no certainties regarding if/how relationships differ in form or function for men and women. reassurance of worth, attachment and guidance that help individuals avoid feelings of loneliness,

staff cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to man aging these carceral relationships. This carceral myth grows legs when you consider prisons as insular com munities with their own social customs and norms, and where those who live inside self-govern by an informal set of rules commonly labeled as the “inmate code.” These rules guide the behavior of residents with officers, staff and other residents and establish which

Some research regarding how gendered relationships broadly work suggests: (1) women have fewer friends but stronger relationships while men have more friends but with shallow connections; (2) women are more likely to seek out and benefit from their friends than are men; (3) women’s relationships are more heavily based on emotion and self disclosure than are men’s; (4) women have higher expectations of friendship than men do; (5) men’s relationships are based on shared interests or activities more so

actions are acceptable and which behav iors warrant consequences (Ahlin et al., 2017; Copes et al., 2013) Past research in men’s and women’s prisons indicate the “inmate

“I feel like it’s [a] good idea to have some friends with power and I say the word ‘friends’ not meaning good friends, just

code” guides basic elements of relationships such as respect, trust, communication and how individuals react to one another when someone breaks

meaning people that I have a relationship with and you might be able to get something done.” — Male Resident

the code. However, beyond research about the existence of the inmate code, existing prison research does not neces sarily confirm code differences among men and women residents

than women’s friendships are, and; some research even shows (6) there are few to no differences in friendships amongst men and women (Ashton, 1980; Hays, 1984, 1985; Stokes & Wilson, 1984; Wright, 1982). Despite these mixed messages regarding how relationships differ for men and women, even less is known about how relationships differ, if at all, for men and women residents in carceral settings. 1 In our research across several men’s and women’s prisons, there is an anecdotal sense among prison staff that men and women’s relationships are different, and

and how these differences matter when someone breaks the code . There is some evidence there are slight, but important, ways in which relationships differ in these gendered groups and how each group navigates and manages these relation ships (Aranda-Hughes et al., 2021; Giallombardo, 1966; Trammell, 2009; Williams & Green, 2017). This paper discusses four myths we heard from prison staff about men and women’s relationships in prison. Using interview data with men and women residents living across six prisons, we unpack these myths. We

Graphic opposite page: istock/Atlas Studio; Diversity illustration: istock/Dusan Stankovic

Corrections Today July/August 2022— 15

n Relationships

believe understanding the nuance of resident relation ships, and perceptions of code violations, will help prison administrators and their staff more aptly manage these relationships and the trigger points which lead to larger concerns of institutional safety, while reducing the gender disparities that exist in the correctional system. Study and data This study compares how male and female carceral residents perceive violations of the inmate code. This study uses data from a larger, mixed-methods research study about prison culture and climate. Specifi cally, this paper explores the similarities

residents seeking peer support create pseudo-families in prison, but they emphasized these arrangements often form because female residents are “looking for something” or after personal gain, rather than forming real interpersonal relationships. Moreover, female residents described these close-knit groups as a “grooming” process whereby a resident assumes the role of confidant to another in distress only to garner information they can use against the dis tressed individual later. Our data suggest for this first myth that while both men and women report the presence of transactional relationships, female residents describe more of their carceral relationships as transactional. MYTH #2: Male and female residents perceive violations of the inmate code differently. What our data says about

and differences in male/female resident relationships as informed by several myths our research team heard over the course of the larger project. We present data from 130 resi dent interviews (99 men and 31 women) from six Pennsylvania prisons (four institutions for men and two for women). 2 Each interview lasted roughly one hour and was then transcribed into word documents and linked to Atlas.ti (a software for coding/

“I know women … they’re

able to guide these younger inmates right into their bed.

this myth: Not really . Men and women, although at different rates, both perceived violations of the inmate code as a break in the relationship features of (1) respect and (2) trust. Both groups defined these features as the core of their relationships - even transactional relation ships - and felt violations directly

Put them right under their wing and right into their bed. It’s like an adult parent relationship that’s kind of incestuous. It’s not normal and it’s not good.”

analyzing/managing qualitative data) using the grounded theory approach — a methodology that builds hypotheses and theories through the analysis of data, in this case, interviews (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). MYTH #1: Male and female resident relationships in prison are different. What our data says about this myth: Mostly, yes . Both male and female residents reported a set of strong relationships with a small group of peers. Interestingly, both groups reported the heightened presence of transac tional relationships in the carceral space where the core of the relationship is far more self-serving. Both men and women mentioned this type of relationship as the primary prison relationship. For men, this was a temporary and situ ational relationship to help survive their time and, at times, “to get things done.” However, women described this sort of dynamic twice as often as men did. Women shared that

affected both features. Men and women both discussed respect as more important than trust, but the groups diverged slightly when discussing the form

— Female Resident

of violations of respect. Although we might see it as a violation of trust, for the men in our study they reported “snitching” as a direct and frequent form of violating re spect. Somewhat similarly, women described violations of respect as crossing private boundaries such as gossiping residents or inventing stories to hurt each other. Although male and female residents detailed various ways they respond to disrespect (described below), both men and women report interpreting violations similarly. MYTH #3: Female residents are more passive- aggressive than male residents when handling interpersonal disputes and violations to the code. What our data says about this myth: Mostly, yes . Prior research suggests women are prone to use

16 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

psychological aggressions, such as gossip or sharp commentary, to hurt others. In our data, more than two thirds of the women (68%) self-reported using this tactic or it being used against them compared to one-third of the men (38%) who mentioned settling disputes in this way. Specifically, women described using this type of relational violence by falsely accusing one-another, gossiping about personal information, lobbing “below the belt” or triggering commentary. Further, female residents report other women in positions of “power,” such as leading mentoring or counseling programs, us ing this position to attract and manipulate younger and more naïve residents. In this way, our data supports the third myth, but it extends it to show female residents use several types of relational aggression beyond passive aggressive commentary to settle disputes. It is important for correctional staff and management to understand it is essential to approach male and female residents reflective of their unique dynamics and how they interact with other residents. MYTH #4: Men rely on physical violence more than women to settle disputes and violations to the code. What our data says about this myth: Not really . Men and women described relying on physical vio lence in prison at similar rates. What our data suggest is nuanced differences about why each group resorts to violence. In our data, men described violence as an eventual way to solve interpersonal disputes when “sort ing it out” verbally (either calmly or shouting) was not enough. Men describe violence as appealing mostly for self-protection and describe relying on violence when it

istock/champja

was only absolutely necessary and in a way that was so aggressive, they would not need to use it again. Women also describe using violence against their peers. For example, women described relying on violence towards other residents when they wanted nearby prison staff to intervene and effectively settle the dispute for them, thereby avoiding an ‘obvious winner.’ In this way, women reported using violence for instrumental and manipulative ways beyond self-protection. Taken with Myth 3, women appear to respond more intentionally to peer violations. What does this mean for corrections? Relationships influence behavior both outside and in side prisons. Examining the dynamics of relationships and how they vary (or not) by group is especially applicable to correctional institutions separated by sex. Most correc tional institutions were designed with men in mind, and this design was simply recreated for women’s institutions (Covington & Bloom, 2000). However, what works best in a male prison may or may not work as effectively for a women’s prison. Ignoring nuances in male and female relationships may leave one or the other (and their needs) forgotten and unaddressed. For this reason, it is important for correctional staff and management to understand it is essential to approach male and female residents reflective of their unique dy namics and how they interact with other residents. From our data we summarize key recommendations to respon sively manage each group’s relationships:

→

Corrections Today July/August 2022— 17

n Relationships

–– Men use physical violence as a source of last resort, but when they do, they use it to an extreme to make a point to their peers. From this phenomenon, cor rections could advance in two fronts. First, provide/ expand programming for anger management that considers and unpacks “statement violence.” Sec ond, provide additional training for staff to identify and respond to the circumstances where men most engage in violence. –– If women regularly use relational violence (gossiping and psychological violence), program ming should focus on helping women manage their emotions and responses through a trauma-informed approach which

Shi, 2012). 3 Managing these populations requires an interdisciplinary approach which acknowledges and validates their past, begins to unpack staff’s current behavioral response patterns and helps develop new relationship management strategies among staff and residents. This must expand beyond current trainings such as the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Mental Health First Aid (MHFA). This holistic and responsive approach will help correctional admin istrators manage their resident relationships while providing the opportunity to show residents how and why relationships matter and prepare them for manag ing their outside relationships with increased maturity and emotional intelligence.

acknowledges how previous experiences may be triggering current responses.

REFERENCES Ahlin, E. M., Donald Charles Hummer, I. I., & Barberi, D. (2017). Inmate Code and Prison Culture. In Handbook of Corrections in the United States (pp. 346–356). Routledge. https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/ publications/inmate-code-and-prison culture

–– Our data shows that both men and women use isolation or retreat as a

“I don’t feel respected by the inmates because they are all about their egos and everyone is trying to be alpha” — Male Resident

strategy to avoid their own violations or violations by others of the inmate code. This is an urgent aspect to address given that isolation impacts resident’s mental and physical health (Coppola, 2019; Haney, 2018a, 2018b; Wildeman & Andersen, 2020). Prison management must develop policies and procedures which identify

Aranda-Hughes, V., Turanovic, J. J., Mears, D. P., & Pesta, G. B. (2021).

Women in Solitary Confinement: Relationships, Pseudofamilies, and the Limits of Control. Feminist Criminology, 16 (1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120961441 Ashton, N. L. (1980). Exploratory Investigation of Perceptions of Influences on Best-Friend Relationships. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50 (2), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/003151258005000206 Baena Garcia, F. (2017). La Criminalizacion de la Pobreza . 1–66.

residents who are self-isolating and provide as sessments and additional supports as needed to the resident. Even if these currently exist, some reform and expansion may be necessary. –– Managing human relationships is not easy, and espe cially among a correctional population with varied life experiences, background, and traumas (Baena Garcia, 2017; Covington & Bloom, 2000; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019; Pérez Goldberg, 2018; Sambor, 2016; Wacquant, 2009; Western & Pettit, 2010). For this reason, de-escalation training and continuing edu cation credits should expand its trauma-informed lens — not only for women, but for men, too. Over half of male residents report childhood physical trauma and nearly 10% report sexual childhood trauma (Wolff &

Copes, H., Brookman, F., & Brown, A. (2013). Accounting for Violations of the Convict Code. Deviant Behavior, 34 (10), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/016 39625.2013.781444 Coppola, F. (2019). The brain in solitude: An (other) eighth amendment challenge to solitary confinement. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 6 (1), 184–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz014 Covington, S. S., & Bloom, B. E. (2000). Gendered Justice: Programming for Women in Correctional Settings. 52 nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology , 20. Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a women’s prison . Wiley. Haney, C. (2018a). Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (1), 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- criminol-032317-092326 Haney, C. (2018b). The Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement: A

18 — July/August 2022 Corrections Today

Problems and Treatment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9 (5), 1908–1926. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9051908 Wright, P. H. (1982). Men’s friendships, women’s friendships and the alleged inferiority of the latter. Sex Roles, 8 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287670 Endnotes 1 In this paper, we use the term “resident” instead of other terms like “prisoner”, “inmate” or “convict.” This is in keeping with the person-first language becoming more common in corrections today which humanizes (rather than dehumanizes) individuals living under correctional supervision. We do maintain the use of “inmate code” in direct quotes from residents and because it is the common vernacular. 2 The authors acknowledge individuals in prison may or may not fall into the gender binary of ‘male’ or ‘female’ or that their biological sex may not equate to their gender identity. However, the terms relating to sex and gender (male/man, female/woman) are used interchangeably in this paper because the individuals interviewed were housed in male or female institutions as assigned by the Pennsylvania State Department of Corrections. When referencing gender, the authors are referring to the type of prison in which an individual is housed and make no statements or assumptions about the individuals’ gender identities. 3 Readers should interpret this number with caution. It is possible the stigma around childhood sexual trauma and its interplay with perceptions of masculinity incentivize under reporting of this type of trauma.

Systematic Critique. Crime and Justice, 47 (1), 365–416. https://doi.org/10.1086/696041 Hays, R. B. (1984). The Development and Maintenance of Friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1 (1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407584011005 Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (4), 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.909 Kraus, L. A., Davis, M. H., Bazzini, D., Church, M., & Kirchman, C. M. (1993). Personal and Social Influences on Loneliness: The Mediating Effect of Social Provisions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56 (1), 37–53. JSTOR. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2786644 Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2019). Cumulative Disadvantage in the American Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Criminology, 2 (1), 291–319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024815 Pérez Goldberg, P. (2018). Mujer, cárcel y desigualdad: El caso chileno1. Trayectorias Humanas Trascontinentales, 3 , Article 3. https://doi.org/10.25965/ trahs.788 Sambor, G. (2016). Criminalización de la pobreza. Jornadas Nacionales de Investigacion en Ciencias Sociales de la UNCuyo , 1–23. Stokes, J. P., & Wilson, D. G. (1984). The inventory of socially supportive behaviors: Dimensionality, prediction, and gender differences. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12 (1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00896928 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 17). http://www.depts.ttu.edu/education/ our-people/Faculty/additional_pages/duemer/epsy_5382_class_materials/ Grounded-theory-methodology.pdf Trammell, R. (2009). Relational Violence in Women’s Prison: How Women Describe Interpersonal Violence and Gender. Women & Criminal Justice, 19 (4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974450903224246 Veroff, V. (1995). An Integration of Friendship and Social Support: Relationships with Adjustment in College Students [Doctor of Philosophy, Concordia University]. https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/ 136/1/NN10915.pdf Wacquant, L. (2009). Prisons of Poverty (Expanded edition). Univ Of Minnesota Press. Weiss, R. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Doing unto others (pp. 17–26). Prentice-Hall. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10007751769/ Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139 (3), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00019 Wildeman, C., & Andersen, L. (2020). Solitary confinement placement and post-release mortality risk among formerly incarcerated individuals: A popula tion-based study. 5 , 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30271-3 Williams, L. S., & Green, E. L. (2017). When women are Captive: Women’s prisons and Culture Within. In O. H. G. III & V. H. Woodward, Routledge Handbook of Corrections in the United States (Routledge, pp. 346–356). Routledge. Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2012). Childhood and Adult Trauma Experiences of Incarcerated Persons and Their Relationship to Adult Behavioral Health

Daniela Barberi is a doctoral candidate in the Criminology, Law & Society program at George Mason University and is currently the director of the only governmental reentry program for people who have been previously incarcerated in Bogotá, Colombia (South America). Megan A. Stoltz earned her Ph.D. in Criminology, Law & Society from George Mason University and she is currently a Program Manager overseeing research and policy efforts at the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Shannon Magnuson earned her Ph.D. in Criminology, Law & Society from George Mason University and is currently a senior associate at Justice System Partners working with agencies to implement evidence-based practices. Danielle S. Rudes, Ph.D., is a professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University and Deputy Director of the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence at George Mason University.

Corrections Today July/August 2022— 19