|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
ABSTRACT This paper examines the effects of staff victimization in a correctional environment and polices in place for dealing with these incidents. The victims’ rights movement has forced correctional facilities to reevaluate their policies on ensuring victims’ rights are met in the correctional environment. As polices were designed to insure victims in the community were afforded rights in the correctional process, the effects of staff victimization began to surface. A study conducted by the National Victim Center in 1990 and in 1996 revealed correctional agencies are still lacking in polices and programs dealing with staff victimization. The purpose of this study is to examine how prevalent existing policies are in dealing with workplace violence in corrections. This study will attempt to ascertain how thorough these polices are when compared to standards suggested by the National Victim Center and the Office for Victims of Crime and if there is a correlation between the development of polices and procedures and the rate of inmate-on-staff assaults. All 50 States’ Department of Correctional Services, the District of Columbia, Canada, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Illinois County Correctional Facilities, New York City Correctional Facilities, and the Philadephilia Prison System were faxed a questionnaire, and a 58 percent response rate was achieved. Highlights of the findings include (1) The rights afforded to employees in a criminal proceeding are more than those afforded in an administrative hearing; (2) While the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services has a thorough policy concerning inmate-on-staff assaults, improvement could be made in the amount of rights afforded to correctional employees assaulted in the line of duty; and (3) Even through State Correctional Agencies have polices in place to support victims, a majority of correctional agencies don’t incorporate victims’ rights into their mission statements. DEFINITION OF TERMS Correctional Staff Victim (from R. Johnson & T. Johnson, Correctional Staff Victims-Job Trauma, p. 1) A correctional staff victim is any employee who feels emotional and/or physical hardships based on events related to employment in a correctional facility. Corrections (U.S. Department of Justice) Corrections addressed in this paper include the adult agencies responsible for the incarceration, detention, supervision, and surveillance of those accused or convicted of committing crimes. Critical Incident (from NE Department of Correctional Services, Critical Incident Stress Management, p. 1) Any incident that causes people responding to an emergency to experience unusually strong emotional reactions which have the potential to interfere with their ability to function either at the scene or later. Nonverbal Intimidation (from Flannery, Violence in the Workplace, p.95) Acts of nonverbal intimidation or noninterpersonal behavior meant to frighten staff. Such acts might include pounding on the walls to indicate rage, or throwing a tool or other object near, but not directly at an employee. Physical Assaults (from Flannery, Violence in the Workplace, p95.) Physical assaults are violent acts of unwanted physical contact toward others with intent to harm. They include slapping, pushing, kicking, punching, biting, scratching, deliberately throwing an object at an employee, and drawing a lethal weapon on an employee. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (from DSM-IV, p. 424) Symptoms associated with PTSD can include: anxiety; increased arousal not present prior to event; sleep problems; nightmares; hyperviligance; exaggerated startle responses; irritability; outbursts of anger; and difficulty in completing tasks. Verbal Abuse (from Flannery, Violence in the Workplace, p. 95) Verbal abuse includes statement of intent to do harm to persons or property. Threats can have the same negative impact on an employee as an actual physical assault CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION Problem Statement Workplace violence is a growing concern across the United States. From the first widely televised accounts of postal workers being shot while on duty to the recent terrors of daycare and school deaths occurring during the course of the day, the topic of workplace violence has sparked public interest. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) from the U.S. Department of Justice for 1992-96 indicate that during each year U.S. residents experience more than 2 million violent victimizations while they are working or on duty. The most common type of workplace violent crime is simple assault with an estimated average of 1.5 million victimizations occurring each year. While at work U.S. residents also suffered 396,000 aggravated assaults, 51,000 rapes and sexual assaults, 84,000 robberies, and 1,000 homicides (Warchol 1998). Unfortunately, many crimes in the workplace are not reported. Some victims do not report the crime because they do not realize that they are victims. Others feel reporting the crime will be of little use in seeking redress. Some fear revenge from the assailants. Still others fear the cultural stigma of being known as a victim. The net result is that violence in general, and workplace violence in particular, is significantly underestimated and the costs associated with workplace violence in terms of human suffering, medical expense, and lost productivity are higher than is currently thought. One recent study placed the estimated cost of workplace violence at slightly over $4.2. billion annually (Flannery 1995). One workplace more prone to violence is the correctional environment. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, correctional employees rate number two in the probability of an assault occurring in this profession. It is estimated that 219 employees out of 1,000 will be physically assaulted over the course of one year. American data shows that between 1954 and 1989 there were 21 murders of correctional officers (Ouimet). The overall increase in workplace violence in America, coupled with the fact that corrections is a high-risk profession in itself, comprise a "double-edged" sword for agency administrators, as well as for employees. Staff safety issues – including planning, policy development, training, evaluation and research – must all take into consideration that violence in the workplace can occur at the hands of offenders under correctional supervision, as well as by critical incidents that are increasing in the general population of the United States (National Victim Center 1997). Purpose of the Study The first purpose of this research is to survey states correctional departments concerning the number of agencies that have adopted victims as part of their mission statement. The second purpose of the study is to see how many correctional departments have policies and programs for dealing with inmate-on-staff assaults and how thorough these polices and programs are when compared to some of the guidelines established by the National Victim Center for handling inmate-on-staff assaults. After the responses are calculated, an analysis can be ran on the Nebraska Department of Correctional Service’s polices and programs concerning inmate-on-staff assaults compared to other states. The final purpose of the research is to determine how many correctional departments conduct training on victim awareness issues for new and existing employees. CHAPTER TWO: LITERTATURE REVIEW The Corrections Culture Correctional workers are exposed to the risk of assaults due to their daily professional association with individuals who have already displayed violent or socially unacceptable behavior. In 1997, there were a total of 14,359 correctional employees assaulted by inmates in the United States alone. Of these employees, 2,884 required medical attention and 1,444 cases were referred for prosecution. This averaged out to 311 assaults against correctional employees per agency (C. G. Camp & G.M. Camp, 1998). Figure 2.1 Total Inmate-On-Staff Assaults for 1997 Source: C. G. Camp & G.M. Camp, 1998 As with all crime victims, victimized employees will suffer more if the environment they face in the aftermath of crisis is blaming, stigmatizing, isolating, mocking, or otherwise unsupportive. Unfortunately, the condition and the "second assaults" they produce seem to be the norm, not the exception-across all occupations and all kinds of personal trauma (National Victim Center 1998). Ecological Issues Associated with Corrections Few correctional staff members dwell on the specter of a riot. But most are vigilant of the dangers inherent in working with people who have already demonstrated their potential for violence. Individual employees can be traumatized by even "minor" incidents and sometimes a whole workforce can show the effects of these strains. Without a doubt, corrections is a community. Within an institution, relationships are created out of close physical proximity of personnel and inmates. Connections are built through roles and responsibilities that are designed to promote a safe, secure environment. A correctional institution is simply a microism of the community at large. People live together, work together and, similar to life outside the walls, they hurt each other. They also suffer the consequences of victimization together. They share the devastating impact of workplace violence, and feel the sense of a community shattered – and relationships ruptured every time a staff member is victimized (National Victim Center 1998). Prior to developing policies and programs for handling inmate-on-staff assaults, corrections administrators must understand the likelihood of the entire working environment being effected by a critical incident. As Figure 2.2 demonstrates, once the primary victim is assaulted, their family members may experience the trauma associated with the victimization, as may eyewitnesses and the responding employee of the critical incident, the coworkers and managers in the correctional facility, the whole corrections environment, and the community at large. When developing policies and programs to assist victimized employees, it’s important to remember the great number of employees that could potentially be affected by a violent incident. Figure 2. Source: National Victim Center 1998 Effects of Staff Victimization If a correctional employee is victimized, his or her job performance will also change. The changes take a number of forms, such as modified professional activities, different attitudes toward inmates and different expectations of support from the organization or from his or her peers (Lusignan). Individual staff response to the same traumas on the job in corrections may vary. One staff may not be as affected by a certain event as another. The victimization of correctional employees results in varying consequences depending on the time at which it occurs in a person’s career, the place where it occurs, the nature of the crime and the personality of the victim. Each employee has a different capacity for responding to pressures of the correctional environment, and these capacities are subject to changes (R. Johnson & T. Johnson). A survey completed in Canada by 52 correctional employees of national incidents where they were involved or witnessed a hostage taking incident or were unlawfully confined, expressed that their work life was affected by the critical incident (89 percent). Many felt that other correctional employees made judgmental comments. Lack of support from management, fear and avoidance of certain situations, and feelings of stress, fatigue or hypervigilance were also noted. Many (52 percent) found that their personal lives were negatively affected, especially their intimate relationships. Just over a fifth (21 percent) stated that their marriages ended as a result of the incident. Personal issues related to previous abuse tended to exacerbate the impact of the traumatic event, this occurred for 37 percent of the respondents (Seidman & Williams). Table 2.1 Source: Seidman & Williams Respondents of Seidman & Williams’ survey also described mixed experiences in returning to work. Those who described positive experiences tended to have close, supportive co-workers and a good relationship with their managers. Others, however, reported more difficulties in interpersonal relationships and in adjustment after the incident.
Approximate Word count = 7354
Approximate Pages = 29.4
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|