Foundations

One bit of wisdom that seasoned veterans pass on to neophytes involves predictability. Experience tells us to change up our routines from time to time. As we are continuously monitored and observed by offenders, it pays to camouflage our patterns when we can. When we use the same route at the same time each day and commit identical movements, we can become targets.

Walking in a different direction than is normal while you perform rounds may afford you another view of the same location. An offender who is not expecting you to break your pattern may inadvertently reveal a weapon or other contraband. All of this leads, of course, to a safer facility for all.

Variety, on the other hand, is often a detriment when we speak of our work personas. This is not to say that a conversation between colleagues has to remain in the tight parameters of weather, sports, and what is for chow. What I mean is that a stable personality helps foster safety.

Take the test. Which of these two scenarios do you prefer?

1. Your colleague greets you at the time clock one day. He is literally bouncing, full of energy, and extremely happy. In fact, you are a bit puzzled, as there is no apparent reason for his elation. Two days later, the same person is withdrawn. His posture suggests defeat. The next week, he exudes angry, sarcastic energy. The next day, he is jubilant. You can never predict this person’s mood.
or
2. Your colleague greets you at the time clock and makes a remark about the weather. He then issues an observation about some prisoner activities and then bids you a good day. This persona is one that he has had for as long as you can remember. This person is always pretty much the same every day.

The question posed prior to the scenario was, “Which of these two scenarios do you prefer?” I believe that most people would rather face scenario number two than number one. There is a comfort in stability. This, I think, is also true for offenders. Almost all of us want to know what sort of person we will deal with on a continuing basis.

Some would point out that routine in a facility can be mind-numbing. Others would ask, would it not be better if there were a smattering of volatile characters? I believe that volatility militates against security. Those with a mercurial temperament can be off-putting. And when enterprising offenders see staff keeping distance from a changeable colleague, the recipe for a set-up is evident.

Here are some thoughts about stability:

• Some people are naturally moody. As long as no one is hurt and operations are not impacted, we should accept people as they are;
• Volatile colleagues can be entertaining in an otherwise routine vocation. However, disruptions and staff division spawned by this personality type open the door for danger;
• A less-than-perfect personality that is constant is at least predictable. For example, some people are naturally sullen or grumpy. When we know that someone is likely to be crabby by nature, we are not surprised;
• Just because a person is mercurial does not necessarily mean that there is an issue of mental health. However, we should be sensitive to our colleagues’ needs and offer help;
• If you openly distance yourself from a colleague with a varying personality, you are ringing the dinner bell for the ravenous beast called staff division;
• No matter the behavior, we must remember that a colleague is a colleague. If sudden, strange behavior manifests, one could tactfully ask if something is wrong;
• Many agencies offer employee services to cope with problems in life;
• Aim for stability, but be true to yourself if doing so does not harm the facility or anyone inside.
Maintaining a stable personality, just like consciously varying routine, is conditional. Each corrections professional must make a choice on how to act and react every day. In the end, the safety of others may depend on what you choose.

joebouchard Self Scrutiny, Staff relations

Here is a question for you: Could something as seemingly harmless as a feather disrupt the operations of a prison? The bird probably would not give the loss of a feather it a second thought. But, it is a simple scenario that staff should ponder.

I saw it a few yards from the dining hall, on the grass next to the walk. It was a perfectly formed, seven inch long feather. The feather seemed out of place to me. It was just like seeing an archaic telephone booth in a desolate desert setting.

As I picked it up, I wondered what it could be made into. In other words, how could the feather be used against staff or prisoners? Could something as innocuous as this be transformed into an implement of danger?

A shank? – Admittedly, the feather’s quill could be easily sharpened. However, the hollow, stem-like shaft would not necessarily make a good shank. The material is simply too flexible to damage flesh. Of course with the right thrust, precision sharpening, and with a bit of surprise, a sharpened quill could pierce an eye.

A tool of self mutilation? – We know that some offenders will hurt themselves. Whatever the particular reason, it is a common enough occurrence. Almost all veteran corrections staff have heard a story of some offender who inserts some sharpened object into an uncomfortable part of themselves. Just as an inmate could obtain a wire or sharpened plastic and cut or insert into their flesh, a sharpened quill could be employed for this purpose.

A blow gun? – With patience and a paper clip, a quill could be completely hollowed to resemble a straw. A hollowed quill could be used as a blow gun. However, unless it is an ostrich or peacock feather the shaft opening would be too small to pose much of a danger. Though possible, it is not very probable.

A squirt gun? – Everyone had made a makeshift squirt gun in elementary school. Rather than open the small carton of milk, students simply pierce the top of the unopened container with a pencil and insert a straw. Inevitably, the student discovers that by squeezing a full container, a squirt gun is born.

In most institutions, containers are forbidden in certain areas, as they can be used to hurl noxious liquids at staff and other prisoners. This rule will not thwart a prisoner with a mission. Where there is a will, there is a way.

It does not take too much imagination to pair the straw-like remains of a feather shaft with squeezable plastic or even a paper sack. With the right material, patience, and a sealant, the feather can be adapted into a liquid gun.

The feather squirt gun needs not be completely leak proof in order to work. Still, with purloined plastic wrap, it would be reinforced and have a longer life. A seal between the feather shaft/straw and the container is easily contrived. Items that prisoners are permitted to possess can serve this function. Sealing agents include peanut butter or petroleum jelly. Less useful but still possible, fluids that humans naturally produce can seal, after a fashion.

So, what of the single plume? Why ponder unlikely uses? Is this an exercise in over-worry? Is this over-thinking the very simple? To answer these questions, I thought of the possibilities rather than the improbabilities. I admit that a single feather will not likely become a dangerous weapon. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Because of this, I retrieved the feather and discarded it. This feather would not reach inmate hands. The chief rationale for this lies in thwarting an opportunity. Why tempt fate? Why should I doubt the potency of inmate ingenuity? Why not remove a possible threat or item of trade? That action could have saved a colleague’s eye – or even my own.

Others may say, “Big deal! Who cares if a prisoner gets a hold of a feather?” My answer to that it probably does not make a difference. But, it certainly would not hurt anything to remove something that is not commonly permitted per the policy directive that governs personal property.

In any event, it is a fun exercise to ponder alternative uses for common items. This is how we stay vested in the job. New riddles stretch our brains a bit and keep us mentally flexible. Riddles like this can pull us out of thinking ruts. Even if the riddle has no answer, it is worthwhile to think outside of conventional areas.

Though I am no ornithologist, I am fairly certain that a bird would never consider how the loss of a feather may impact the thoughts of one corrections professional. In the end, something seemingly innocuous – like an errant feather may – may have more sinister uses than one initially supposes.

joebouchard Contraband Control, What the...?!?

The brainstorming process can be intellectually stimulating and professionally satisfying. Building from the ideas of colleagues provides us with solutions for many vexing problems. Whoever said that two (or more) are heads better than one understood the importance of the successful brainstorming session.

More than ever, corrections needs productive brainstorming. Tight budgets, changing policies, and shifting priorities demand dynamic problem-solving. What better way to tear down and impeding wall than with collective brainpower?

Of course, as with any endeavor that involves human interaction, personalities can get in the way of the goal. If the brainstorming process is coin, consider that there are two sides to it. Optimistically, I believe that brainstorming coin lands as heads much more often than tails. However we find ourselves faced with the other side of the coin more often than we would like. It is true that “heads we win in tails we lose”.

Corrections staff can help a committee’s progress by recognizing common pit falls of brainstorming. Here are six of them:

Theft – Granted, good ideas developed by group should be credited as from the group. Sometimes shared ideas do not always mean shared credit. It is not uncommon for someone to offer key suggestions towards a solution and have the credit pirated away. Those who purloin ideas and wrongfully take credit contribute to feelings of mistrust between colleagues. In corrections, this is difficult to rectify.

Paralysis – When committee members treat each other as adversaries, paralysis is not far away. When this occurs, the committee hits a wall and cannot proceed. This is because members take their own ideas too seriously and fail to acknowledge the thoughts of others. This lack of compromise halts progress for necessary ideas.

Committee kidnapping – Some staff are valued members to brainstorming sessions because they deliver a wide variety of solutions. As a reputation for creativity spreads, their demand rises. In short, some people are naturals at creative thinking.
When we introduce unwieldy egos to this, a Prima Donna is born. When an ego-driven ideas person does not get his or her way, there may a withholding of further help until certain concessions are met. The demand may be for an addition of their choosing to the committee. The Prima Donna may also insist on greater recognition and wider autonomy in exchange for ideas. If the committee depends too much on one person, a figurative hostage situation may arise. In terms of playground behavior, this is like the child who threatens to take the ball home so others can no longer play.

Personalities over ideas– Clearly, good ideas should be developed and not-so-good ideas tabled. However, the cult of personality is sometimes a factor. If the committee is swayed by charisma or moved by bullying, mediocre ideas are likely to flourish. The idea is not judged by its merit in this process, but by its origin.

The conventional wisdom that begs us to consider the source should not apply to brainstorming. Ego driven committees suppress new thoughts from original any contributor who just might not happen to be a popular figure.

Lies – Some ideas are openly supported in the official meeting. Later, however, the same idea can often be sacrificed in the unofficial meeting after the meeting. Like idea theft, false promises breed mistrust.

Stagnation – When the same people meet to solve problems, the dynamics might be too stable to be effective. Safe and comfortable do not necessarily make a creative environment. An introduction of new brainstormers should make members sufficiently uncomfortable enough to inspire creativity. Someone with a new perspective can wield the figurative power of removing a keystone from seemingly immovable wall.

Here are a few things to remember when battling the six pitfalls of brainstorming:

• Share your ideas. Don’t hoard them.
• Support ideas over egos.
• Concentrate on solving the problem rather than lining one’s nest with credit.
• Share responsibility so one person does not hijack the brainstorming process.
• Be honest and forthright with all committee members.
• Let your guard down a bit and don’t be afraid to brainstorm wild ideas. These may become the foundation for something new and important.
• Mix it up. Introduce new people and ideas when stagnation sets in.

Brainstorming is not always neat or kind. The tails side of the committee coin lands upward on occasion. Good leadership, good followership, and professional maturity are factors necessary to flip over the coin. Brainstorming should be about solving the problem at hand. Too often becomes an exercise in wading through the quagmire of interpersonal relations. With the many problems that corrections has to face, brainstorming sessions are more important now than ever.

joebouchard Assessing the organization, Staff relations

Like nails on a chalkboard, the sound of the word pulled me out of relaxation and cast me into instant discomfort. While outlining Casey Anthony’s incarceration, one of the newscasters on a cable TV news show used the word “guards” to describe corrections officers. The world itself is not necessarily offensive until one considers the many responsibilities and dangers that corrections staff deal with on a daily basis. It is scarcely better than the outmoded and inaccurate term turnkey.

The word guard is offensive to the corrections profession. I do not pretend that this is a new topic. But the utterance of the G word to such a large audience irritated me, thus the article.

Before I go further, my colleague, allow me to point out that I am not a corrections officer. I’m not trying to portray myself as one. However, I believe I know a bit more about corrections than the general public. You see, I’m a security-oriented corrections librarian who has worked in the maximum-security setting for nearly 20 years. I readily admit that I do not directly know what it is to work as a corrections officer. However, my experience entitles me, I believe, to feel vexed when those outside the profession spewed word guard as readily as a pseudo intellectual misuses a thesaurus.

I think that the term is typically bandied about for one of two reasons – malice or ignorance.

It is safe to say that small but significant percentage of people who misuse the word guard do so to knock one off of one’s professional square. This is similar to someone who addresses correspondence to you as defendants rather than by your last name and or title. Quite simply, it is derision towards the corrections profession.

Perhaps many more misuse the G word out of honest ignorance. They simply do not know any better. They are unaware that the word hurls a lack of respect at our profession.

Here are a few reasons that the G word should not apply to anyone in the corrections profession:

It is outdated and clichéd – The word smacks of the 1930s gangster move. Behind the anachronistic word is an anachronistic thought.

It implies a passive watcher with little responsibility – Granted, the dictionary definition of guard describes a tiny fraction of what corrections officers perform – to watch over, to prevent escape, violence, or indecretion. However, the definition does not penetrate the whole nature of the profession. Quite simply, guard sounds like disinterested babysitter.

But, corrections is so much more than a watchful capacity. Everything we say or do (and that which we do not say or do) can be used against us. The great responsibility of knowing and correctly applying policy speaks to that point.

Also, corrections staff not just idly watch others. There is analysis, constant puzzle building, and interacting with so many different work niches. All of that is done with the commonly held mission statement – keeping safe staff, prisoners, and the public. That simply is not the description of a passive observer.

The shorthand, colloquial phrase for the vocation may miss the mark. For example, metallurgists often work in a factory setting that specializes in the complex process of heat treatment steel. The term factory rat is pejorative, especially when applied to metallurgists. Yet, this is something that goes on. Another example is when a head start teacher is labeled as a babysitter. Of course, both jobs are very important. However the former has to earn a degree in early childhood education and must understand curriculum. That is not necessarily true of the latter.

The term guard belittles the profession – Part of what makes any vocation a profession is the professional literature that surrounds it. Another component is the training program, including both initial and continuing training. Thirdly, one of the reasons that corrections is a profession is that most agencies require educational credentials within the field in order to enter. Guard does not capture the scope of the job.

Some may say, “Don’t be so sensitive.” They may contend that this is taking PC too far. I think not. The danger and responsibility of the profession are not really recognized by those outside the profession.

So, what is in a name? I imagine that the late George Carlin, comedian and verbivore, would have had a field day with the officer – guard discussion. However, this is not a matter of amusement. Perhaps this will not move those who use pejorative term for malicious reasons. Still, as we weigh our feelings about this particular invective, there are some who simply don’t know that corrections officer is proper – guard is inappropriate. How we educate people should be a matter professionalism, no matter how difficult this may be.

joebouchard Dear Reader, Inside Out

It has been about a dozen years since I picked up a pen and jotted my thoughts on the nature of corrections. In that time, I have visited many topics in various publications. In over a decade’s passing, much has changed in the world of publishing. One can scarcely believe the rapid shift from print to digital.
This article is an excellent example of this shift. Print on paper, while not dead, is not the only way for words to be regarded and exchanged. The rise of the internet has seen to this. In fact, books themselves may be written as e books and never with any form of stylus.
Despite those changes, corrections fundamentals are the same. And though fiscal uncertainties currently dot our vocational landscape, we are basically charged with the same task – keep offenders, staff, and the public safe.
Because of our important mission, we need to occasionally assess our foundation of knowledge. Consider our vocational foundation as a four-sided entity that supports all of our actions in the pursuit of our mission of safety. Our mission is compromised if we are not on a solid foundation.
And if we have no regard for the environment which supports our foundation, we are setting ourselves up for failure. In other words, we need also to look at the outside. Nothing is self contained. Nothing exists in a bubble. And corrections is no exception to this.
In consideration of our continued good work and operational integrity, I have designed the L.O.T.I.S. concept. L.O.T.I.S. allows us to assess the following:
Limitations consist of all external forces imposed upon our operations. Local politics, state and federal mandates, expectations of accrediting entities and economic factors all are examples of these. “Limitations” is the platform that the four following elements are placed.
Offender economies. It is no secret that prohibited exchange of goods and services in our jails and prisons is a vexing and persistent problem. Staff who understand how and why offenders trade contraband have a better chance of mitigating danger inside. The ultimate goal in contraband control is to enhance safety for all.
Teamwork is an important foundation element in corrections. Staff cooperation benefits all stakeholders and is the glue that holds together operations. Joint efforts enhance individual talents and help achieve a facility and agency’s goals.
Instruction that we receive through official channels forms our actions in our first days on the job. Continued training keeps us focused and professional. Good instruction is like regular oil changes that keep a vehicle operating dependably.
Self-knowledge is crucial for continued professionalism. All of us need to take a look at ourselves and see how we fit into operations. Without self-knowledge, we are like the hiker in a wilderness without a GPS. We simply meander with no purpose of direction and no perspective.
As you proceed through corrections, you can take a journey of discovery by exploring the outside and inside of your operations. With the concept of L.O.T.I.S., you can transform corrections concepts into prudent practice.

joebouchard Assessing the organization, Security, Self Scrutiny, Staff relations, Training

What could be more evocative than thoughts of an infestation? Imagine that you are battling vermin, determined to rid the area of unwanted pests. In this sense, it’s easy claim victory if you catch the mouse or other pests. But does that go to the heart of the problem? Is that true elimination or merely short-term management?

When we eliminate the nest or the avenues and inside, we have found a more thorough solution to the problem. Likewise, every bit of contraband that we remove from the system represents a win against the collective of dangerous elements that we face on the job every day. For example, discovering a cache of tobacco in a smoke free and chew free institution eliminates some illegal trade in possible violence. But we must wonder how the tobacco got inside the facility in the first place.

No matter the custody level, age, or physical layout of your facility, it is safe to say that some contraband filters in undetected. In a way contraband management is like pulling weeds. One can temporarily halt the weed (or contraband problem) with one quick yank. It is as simple as pulling the item out of circulation and ensuring proper disposition. However, we can further delay the return of contraband by digging deep at the root. Really, there are four basic ways that contraband enters our jails and prisons. It is something I call E.V.I.L. origins – a mnemonic that means Employee, Visitor, Inside, and Let in.

Employee – As corrections professionals, we wish that staff corruption did not exist. Unfortunately, a small percentage of our colleagues dabble in the illegal trade. Whether bought, maneuvered, or coerced, employee mules in the service of offenders deal a grievous blow to the structure of security.

Visitor – Most people who have do not quite grasp the reason for so many rules in the operation of a correctional facility. Despite this, many visitors each day comply with instruction from staff. However, as with employees, there are a small number of visitors who circumvent the rules and introduce contraband into the facility.

Inside – The origin of some contraband items is completely within the fences. Some things are created with ordinary, on-hand items. They include papier-mâché clubs, plans on the yard with medicinal qualities, or even spud juice. Something of value need not necessarily have come from outside the walls.

Let in – This is a large category. Contraband that is let in is hidden from detection as it enters the facility from the outside. This can be as nefariously clever as small bits of narcotic laced crayons used to create a drawing that is sent through the mail. The hollowed legal brief is a popular vessel as well. Camouflage arrows filled with drugs and shot into the yard is a strange but documented occurrence. Let us not forget the cell phone that escapes detection in a new commitment’s anatomy.

What does all this mean? With the knowledge of contraband sources we can better predict where the next nest of bootleg may lie. However this should be tempered with patience and realism. In other words, it takes time and will not always uncover all dangerous and tradable goods.
Concept of evil origins helps us consider sources bootleg. Realistically we cannot stop all sources of contraband. But every bit removed from the system means a win for security.

joebouchard Contraband Control

Talk about hard lessons learned early! I know of a young driver who was almost done with the first portion of her drivers’ education course. She passed a written test and was just a few miles shy of completing her supervised time behind the wheel.

Little did she know that a deer, oblivious to the laws of physics and the weight of a mid-sized sedan, would try to dodge the vehicle she was driving. Try is the operative word. Put else wise, in the closing moments of her education, she got into a car/deer accident.

With the many hazards in the strange world corrections, it pays to be cautious. Season corrections veterans are not exempted from making errors. Still, it behooves us to watch the progress of junior staff and to help them as we can. Part of that is recognizing their missteps. Informing rookies of their mistakes may help our new colleagues avoid future occurrences. Here are five classic examples:

Over friendly –people can overdo it on being jovial in the corrections setting. Whether this behavior is because of upbringing or is a coping mechanism for stress, it is dangerous. Friendliness can be mistaken for a counter–corrections persona, forcing staff away when the rookie is most in need of support. In addition, this can be misconstrued by offenders. Over friendly is under cautious.

Overbearing – wielding the new authority like the lock in a sock is threatening. Quite simply, it puts veteran staff and offenders on edge. There is a difference between being assertive and being an aggressively loose cannon. Overbearing is under cautious

Having favorites – uniformity of action is like oil in corrections’ engine. When taken away, the engine seizes up. Favoritism builds resentment and revenge. It fosters distrust. In addition, favoritism gives the offender/recipient leverage for future manipulation schemes.

Failure to ask questions – those too timid to inquire about proper procedure may put a foot in the legal or ethical quagmire. There many operating procedures and practices in place that may seem counterintuitive to new corrections staff. Still, they are developed for a reason. Still, new staff fail to ask crucial questions because they do not wish to appear naïve or inept. During training, questions are expected. Performing the wrong action, or even in action, may land and the neophyte into deep trouble.

Overt fear – it can be granted that corrections is not a perfect fit for many. And being afraid on the first day inside is natural. In moderation, a little nervous tension is safer than the mindless chest thumping bravado. However, uncontrollable and noticeable fear sends the wrong signals. Other staff may label the newbies as cowardly and create distance. Prisoners will notice of fear and some will try to capitalize on it.

These and other road bumps make corrections one of the most challenging vocations there is. How do we ease transition for new staff? Training programs are of great assistance. Communicating that questions will be answered is also beneficial. A well-trained and mentor staff person adds to our overall safety. Veteran staff have a duty to help newbies through the hazards. Perhaps patience is the best philosophy for veterans to adopt when training new staff. It is also useful for the veteran to look back on their first days inside the walls.

Now we go back to our heroine. She was shaken, but not hurt. All others in the car were also well. The deer, of course, was killed. It is difficult to react to the unpredictable elements of wildlife, other drivers, and driving conditions while learning how to operate a motor vehicle. Corrections neophytes learning to operate in a jail or prison have a similar difficulty. Just like those of the young driver, rookie mistakes in our profession can cast a long shadow and can be dangerous.

joebouchard Assessing the organization, Security, Self Scrutiny, Staff relations, Training

Do you remember when you were a fish? Can you recall the discomfort, trepidation, and uncertainty of your first days in the corrections profession? For most of us, it was like carrying the weight of the world.

Although it about 18 years ago for me, I remember my first days in corrections in the same detail as though it were my latest meal. I felt as encumbered as Atlas bearing the weight of the world on his mythical shoulders. First impressions are lasting, after all.

Working in a prison is something one has to experience to fully appreciate. Certainly, training and research help new professionals adjust. But no amount of training, reading, and reflection can match the value of actual time on the job. I believe that I learned many lessons in my first days of employment. Here are a just few of them:

 Every second is a test. Prisoners constantly tested me from all angles to see my vocational worth and general malleability. The range was from subtle ruse to blatant aggression.
 All staff eyes are watching. I knew that many colleagues were scrutinizing me very closely. They wanted to also test my mettle and reliability.
 There were so many policies to learn. I could not believe the voluminous literature that I had to become accustomed with in order to become effective at my job.
 Keep things in perspective. Initially, I failed to keep things in perspective. I was frozen in fear of litigation and physical attack. My personal worries hindered my view of the greater, interconnected picture. Gaining perspective tempered my trepidation.
 Balance is key. Obsessive fear of attack can paralyze. Complacency can make one a target. Cool vigilance is the best moderation.
 Things will improve if you keep working at it. In the early stages of my career, the stress and anxiety from each day led me to want to quit my job daily. I dreaded going into work each day.

Eventually, I discovered that, as a staff member, I could exercise considerable control of my area and of my career. I could be the architect of my own vocational fate. I merely had to apply those lessons.

For example, I realized that it is no big deal that I am tested from all sides. I simply had to pass the tests with the plain application of policy and procedure in a firm but fair manner. Also, moderation helped temper the fear and change it to respect for my environment. I learned to think ahead, yet not tire myself out on contingency plans. With all of this, the stress declined. I actually grew to like my job very much. Balance, balance, and balance.

I learned that those and other lessons are fundamental for success in corrections. I was not the only one who has ever felt “the six month jitters”. It was a common occurrence. So, in sum, Newbies are not alone. All of your colleagues have gone through the same as you.

joebouchard Assessing the organization, Self Scrutiny, Staff relations, Training

Often, when we unravel a complex issue and place all the parts in order, it is gratifying. Imagine the relief that you get as a professional when an offender finally seems to understand your explanation about policy. Later, the issue comes alive again. The offender rehashes the issue as though you had never explained it.

There are few things more frustrating than someone resurrecting complains that you thought you clearly outlined and resolved earlier. One such manipulator does this. It is a sort of passive aggressive bullying. This tactic is called the retreat and rehash bully. (R & R bully). When you explain, they retreat. Later, they rehash.

The R&R bully presents his case in a generally complex way. For example, suppose that this is a offender who’s not eligible for a certain service. The R&R will bring up every exception that he can conceive of. Often, they repeat the case over and over.

Only when the staff member closes the argument will be R&R bully seemed to retreat. However, correspondence or verbal requests come very soon after. Thus, the issues were never resolved, they were merely forestalled.

In the most excessive case, the R&R bully is never stated. If, for example, discretionary power allows for you to make an exception, the R&R bully records this event as the norm. If similar circumstance is denied, the R&R bully will rehash as though the non-mandated service is now and forever a right not to be denied.

Perhaps the R&R bully is not as obvious a danger to corrections professionals as it seems. Still, one can seem diminished and flustered by the unwavering insistence contrary to the facts of policy. In another sense, the R&R bully can be a pawn in the form of a diversion in a larger plan.

So, how does one derail the R&R bully? Here are a few tips:

• Know policy.
• Photocopy policy and highlight the part that best explains to the denial. Present it to the R&R bully when the need arises. As keen observers of detail and those able to ascertain patterns, we can generally tell when a person is likely to bring up an issue again.
• Forestall a bit. Tell the aggrieved party to sit and take up the issue when there’s a better time. You decide the time.
• Have person write down exactly what the problem is. Instruct that the issue should be written in a clear, succinct manner. Tell the person to focus on the issue not on tangential matters.
• Don’t get knocked off your square when you hear the same issue over and over again. Arguers gain strength when you lose your composure.
• Do not let the argument against your policy driven denial become a shouting match.
• Recognize patterns and have your denial points ready in advance.
• Always be prepared for new rehashings.
• Remind the R&R bully that the issue is closed. Record the event in your log book. If and when they rehash, refer to your log book or your sharp memory to tell the arguer on which date the denial was initially issued.

No one really likes to be told “no”. Yet, that is a big part of corrections. Simply, many things are restricted for a good reason. Despite that, the retreat and rehash bully will return again and again. The million-dollar question in all of this is: will you be prepared to professionally deal with the retreat and rehash bully?

joebouchard Security, Training

One of my colleagues once said, “You do not have to believe everything that a prisoner says to you. Just because someone says something with unshakable certainty does not mean that it will come to pass. But, you should continue to listen.”

As staff, we should continue to develop filters, learn to share intelligence, and assess sources. That is how we remain safe.

A recent news story brings this maxim to mind. Just when you thought it was safe to sit back and ponder the end of the world according to the Mayan calendar, someone slipped in another end of times date. Now, according to some, the new date that the rapture was to have occurred was on May 21, 2011. Please note, Dear Reader, I’m writing this on May 22, 2011, one day after that proposed end of times.

Perhaps one the striking features of this assertion is that it was made with such certainty. There are lessons from this beyond dubious timing and group psychology. Corrections staff can learn plenty while assessing absolute statements. When someone says something will absolutely happen a certain time, it could mean one of a few things:

1. The person has inside information. For example, an offender declares that there will be a hit on staff and it occurs on an appointed time. From that time forward, the offender should not be discounted as a poor source of information. Of course, some prophets have a track record of only one right prediction in a body of numerous incorrect forecasts. As we consider the source, we need to weigh the record with facts and circumstances.
2. The person will be wrong but they really believes it to be true. Some offenders may indicate that there will be violence in the summer. Many of us have heard the phrase “It is going to be a hot summer”. As staff, we consider the source and watch the signs. If a dire, though vague, prophecy is proven wrong through time, it is all the better for staff.
3. The person believes it without question. Unshakable beliefs range from everyday scenarios to what many would consider absurd. A belief that a certain team will win the final four could be a common belief. A less likely belief is that aliens will land and imposing order. In all of this, we need to consider the rigidity of broadcaster. Self-fulfilling prophecies can manifest if the person pushes hard enough. For example, suppose that a prisoner makes it clear that he will be placed in segregation in the near future. We notice that the prisoner has neatly packed his belongings and has them waiting for staff to cart away. It’s important to note these signs, as the fulfillment of the prophecy could contain violence.
4. The broadcasts are tests. If an offender is testing the gullibility of staff, he simply can drop a far-fetched fact while wearing a straight face. The offender can learn a lot from staff by declaring that the world will end a certain time. Staff who seriously engage in conversations about end times may wear their beliefs and fears to prominently on their sleeve. This is dangerous if the prisoner is an adept handler.

So, whether it is a forecast of the apocalypse or who will fight with whom, we need to be on our vocational toes. Whenever rumors circulate – up to and including the end of the world – our profession teaches us to investigate and prepare. Above all, we don’t have to believe what is said to us – but we need to continue to listen.

joebouchard Assessing the organization