when boundaries are broken: inmate perceptions of correctional staff boundary violations

Ashley G. Blackburn University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Shannon K. Fowler University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA

Janet L. Mullings Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA

James W. Marquart University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA

Boundary violations via inappropriate behaviors committed by correctional staff can cause many problems for prison administrators. This study examines gender differences in inmate perceptions of staff boundary violations. Findings revealed male inmates were significantly more supportive of officers’ boundary violations. Younger inmates, Hispanic inmates, and those

Received 20 April 2008; accepted 14 October 2009. Address correspondence to Ashley G. Blackburn, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department

of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305130, Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA. E-mail: ashley.blackburn@unt.edu

Deviant Behavior, 32: 351–378, 2011

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0163-9625 print=1521-0456 online

DOI: 10.1080/01639621003748837

351

that had completed high school were also more supportive of staff inappropriate behavior. It is recommended that officers adopt a ‘‘firm but fair’’ orientation to deal with inmates and, within that framework, use gendered strategies to better interact with and empower women inmates. It is also suggested that agencies adopt effective measures to train staff and educate inmates regarding boundary violations.

INTRODUCTION

Boundary violations, or ‘‘those actions which blur, mini- mize, or disrupt the professional distance between’’ a pro- fessional and persons within the population they serve (Marquart et al. 2001:878), are seemingly on an increase in American society (see Strom-Gottfried 1999). Whether it is a teacher engaging in sexual intercourse with a student (Zernike 2005) or a priest accused of engaging in sexual contact with a young parishioner (Newman 2006), the pub- lic is inundated with stories of sexual boundary violations. Boundaries in prison can be blurred due to the proximity in which officers and inmates interact and by the staff’s need to control inmates. Sykes (1958) introduced the norm of reciprocity where officers reward inmates with privileges, assignments, or with unnoticed minor violations in exchange for good behavior. In turn, the inmate will not cause trouble and may even assist in keeping other inmates in line. While reciprocity certainly assists officers in keeping order, it serves to further blur the professional boundary set by prison policy.

Officers also cross professional boundaries in instances of personal gain. For example, cell phones have become the ‘‘new prison cash’’ (Associated Press 2006:1) not only because they can be used to keep in contact with the outside world but also because officers and inmates alike can generate revenue by ‘‘selling’’ minutes. Staff sexual boundary violations have also received increased attention in the past five years in light of the Prison Rape Elimination

352 A. G. Blackburn et al.

Act1 (PREA) (2003). Early research on prison sexual viol- ence focused on inmate–inmate rape in male institutions (Bowker 1980; Lockwood 1980; Toch 1977; Wooden and Parker 1982); however, the body of research since the 1990s has also drawn attention to staff-perpetrated sexual boundary violations (Baro 1997; Dumond 1992, 2000; Dumond and Dumond 2002a, 2002b; Marquart et al. 2001; Struckman-Johnson et al. 1996). More recent research collects data specifically on staff as perpetrators (Beck and Harrison 2007; Beck et al. 2007).

Calhoun and Coleman (2002) examined the dynamics of power within female correctional institutions and how this power is perceived by inmates. Inmates noted that the power wielded by correctional officers was threatening, especially as their prisoner status inherently denotes powerlessness, leading to discouragement in standing up for one’s self in staff–inmate disputes and boundary violations. This sense of powerlessness impacts the way in which individuals per- ceive their environment and those around them, particularly in a correctional context. Brownmiller (1975) discussed the patriarchal culture within correctional institutions in her groundbreaking work on sexual victimization. It is argued that patriarchy creates conditions where boundary viola- tions, such as the sexual abuse of inmates, occur. The subor- dination of women in a patriarchal hierarchy is thought to further exacerbate the powerlessness felt by incarcerated females perhaps leading to greater feelings of disdain for correctional staff that cross professional boundaries.

With approximately 1.6 million prisoners living in correc- tional facilities nationwide (West and Sabol 2008), and close to 300,000 correctional officers to supervise, correctional

1After the release of publications such as No Escape by Human Rights Watch, Congress enacted PREA to respond to the issue of rape among incarcerated persons. PREA established a zero-tolerance standard and made the elimination of prison rape a top priority. PREA also called for increased research and the development of national standards on the prevention of prison rape as well as increased accountability of prison administrators who fail to effec- tively respond to prison rape in their respective institutions. PREA was unanimously passed by the House and the Senate and was signed into law by President G.W. Bush in 2003. As part of PREA, Congress created the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, an organization tasked with researching and developing national standards for the elimination of prison rape.

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 353

administrators are tasked with upholding safety, for inmates and staff alike. Boundary violations only serve to disrupt the administration of a prison facility potentially leading to unsafe environments. The present study utilizes survey responses from a large sample of over 800 inmates to exam- ine whether gender differences exist in how professional boundary violations are perceived among inmates. Before discussing the present study, however, it is important to review the existing literature on this topic.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Correctional Officer Deviance

Correctional institutions represent a unique environment unlike any other in American society. Prison is the only place where convicted felons must live together in one facility under the rules and regulations enforced by correctional staff. Marquart and colleagues developed a custodial frame that governs on the expectation that prison employees be ‘‘firm but fair, nonabusive, impersonal, dispassionate, and nonconfrontational’’ when encountering inmates (Marquart et al. 2001:881). These expectations reinforce the boundary between inmates and staff; however, officers may violate these expectations when inmates do not comply with their orders (Sykes 1958). Boundary violations undermine the legitimacy of the officers’ professional expectations and include the physical or sexual abuse of inmates, bringing contraband into the prison, ignoring minor inmate violations, or ignoring inmates altogether (Crouch and Marquart 1980, 1989; Marquart 1986). The following sections will describe what is known concerning the frequency of these violations both from official statistics and self-report data.

Previous Research

There has been little academic research or officially released data examining correctional staff boundary violations. When such research has been conducted, however, it has generally involved sexual misconduct. Within the past 15 years there has been an increase of research in the area of sexual violence among prison inmates, and with the initiation of PREA, the Bureau of Justice Statistics began collecting

354 A. G. Blackburn et al.

official statistics related to prison sexual victimization including victimization perpetrated by staff members.2

According to official records, during the year 2006 there were 282 substantiated incidents of staff sexual violations and harassment in prisons nationwide (Beck et al. 2007). While in the majority of these incidents (62%) the relation- ship appeared to be willing, 36% involved unwanted sexual contact between a staff member and an inmate. There were more female staff perpetrators (58%) than male perpetrators (42%), and over half of these incidents (54%) were perpe- trated by a correctional officer as opposed to administrators, treatment staff, or other service providers.

While official statistics do point to incidents of boundary violations, it is recognized that official reports may underesti- mate the magnitude of these violations perhaps due to the lack of official reporting by inmates and=or to the lack of evi- dence in cases that are reported. Based on findings from a recent survey of over 20,000 inmates, Beck and Harrison (2007) estimate that nationwide there were 38,600 incidents of staff sexual boundary violations during 2007, a higher number than the 282 substantiated incidents reported by cor- rectional authorities the year prior. In their initial survey of inmates, Struckman-Johnson and colleagues (1996) found that 18% of the self-reported victims (n¼101) noted that they were victimized by a prison staff member with the most common scenario involving a staff member intimidating an inmate into sexual contact (Struckman-Johnson et al. 1996). In this initial study, there was only one female inmate who reported a completed act of forced sexual touch per- petrated by multiple male staff members. In their second survey of ten facilities, however, Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (2000, 2002, 2006) found that approxi- mately 20% of male inmate victims and 38.2% of female inmate victims reported correctional staff as perpetrators.

Lastly, in their review of over 500 correctional employee personnel files in Texas over a three-year period, Marquart

2The use of the word victimization is relevant in that when an officer abuses his or her power to engage in sexual activity with an inmate, the inmate is considered to be a victim. Whether consensual or otherwise, sexual boundary violations between staff and inmates are a crime in the state under study.

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 355

and colleagues (2001) found that the majority (80%) of boundary violators had engaged in dual relationships in which they had established romantic relationships with inmates. Boundary violators were more likely to be female staff working in male institutions and violations were most likely to occur within the first few years of employment. While research such as the studies just discussed focus on the staff’s role as perpetrator, there has been other research which examines these boundary violations from the opposite perspective, exploring what role the inmate plays in the initiation of these sexual boundary violations.

The Inmate’s Role

Past research on the inmate’s role has found that inmates are complicit participants as ‘‘turners,’’ or the ones who, through manipulative means, initiate the boundary violations with staff members (Allen and Bosta 1981; Cheeseman-Dial and Worley 2008; Worley et al. 2003). Worley and colleagues (2003) developed inmate turner typologies (i.e., heart- breaker, exploiter, and hell-raiser) based on interviews with 32 male inmate turners. These interviews revealed that correctional officers who engaged in these inappropriate relationships were more likely to have non-shareable pro- blems as originally described by Cressey (1973). These non-shareable problems included social isolation, relation- ship failures, wild social lives, financial problems, and job-related problems (Worley and Cheeseman, 2006:211). Inmates were more likely to target and initiate inappropriate relationships with correctional staff members who exuded these characteristics.

Using self-report surveys of male inmates across four facili- ties, Cheeseman-Dial and Worley (2008) found that 36.5% (n¼ 134) of the sampled inmates reported being involved in a relationship with a female staff member. Of the bound- ary violations revealed, 37.3% involved a physical relation- ship with a female staff member and 62.7% involved a friendship only. According to the inmates in this study, 14% of the female staff members involved in these boundary violations were terminated because of the relationship. While inmates in these studies were less likely to view their sexual encounter with staff as problematic, inmate respon- dents from Calhoun and Coleman’s (2002) focus groups

356 A. G. Blackburn et al.

stated that no matter what form it takes ‘‘any sexual contact between inmates and correctional staff was unacceptable’’ and ultimately the responsibility of the officer (111).

Patriarchy: A Theoretical Framework

Patriarchy, as a cultural force, determines gender role socia- lization for men and women. Generally, patriarchy leads to the conception that the male gender role is superior to that of a woman’s gender role, which then leads to the perceived belief that control of women by men is acceptable. A patri- archal system justifies violence against women (Brownmiller 1975).

Institutionalized patriarchy combines with masculine gen- der socialization to control women inside prison (Lutze 2003). Policies used to control men in prison work to attack and strip male inmates of their manhood by creating depen- dence, domination, deprivation of heterosexuality, and abil- ity to compete. The same policies used to govern men’s prisons also govern women’s prisons; so, women inmates are subjected to a similar system of control designed by men for men.

Lutze (2003) likens the social control of women inmates to a male batterer’s social control of female victims because bat- terers use intimidation, isolation from others, male privilege, exploitation of children, economic control, threats of viol- ence, and physical violence, making it a challenge for women to control their bodies and sexuality. Like victims of domestic violence (which many women inmates are), female offenders are subjected to a general climate of control, isolated from external support networks and children, and subjected to discipline and violence. Institutionalized patriarchy demands that women conform to their subservient gender roles and be subjected to controlling behavior by those officers with power. Officers exert their control tactics in several ways. For one, officers use their discretion and authority to force women to comply with rules sometimes in a strict and capricious manner. McClellan (1994) found that womenwere subjected to more punitive treatment by correctional officers, with increased chances for being cited for offenses and receiving more severe punishments for the same offenses as men. She also found that certain rules were enforced against women that were not used against male inmates.

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 357

Second, like outside the prison, these powerless women inmates are subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by those with power. Calhoun and Coleman (2002) offer three types of officer sexual misconduct with inmates—sex trading, love relationship, and sexual contact in the line of duty. With sex trading, a common practice between officers and inmates, is the exchange of sex for goods, services, privilege, or contraband (Baro 1997; Calhoun and Coleman 2002; Fleisher and Krienert 2006; Watterson 1996). This practice is especially troublesome when officers trade items used for basic human needs in which inmates have restricted access, like toilet paper or sanitary napkins (Maeve 1999). Some inmates engage in this form of sex with officers with the intention of leaving prison sooner by way of creating a scan- dal or by receiving preferential treatment and recommenda- tions by officers. In this type of boundary violation officers have the power to create a debt in which repayment is a sex- ual favor, which makes this form of sexual relationship between officer and inmate exploitive. This commoditization of sex can lead to the worldview that the free exchange of sex for everyday things becomes an accepted practice (Lutze 2003; Belknap 2007; Henriques and Gilbert 2000). With the love relationship, love or lust is the reason for the sexual relationship between officers and inmates (Calhoun and Coleman 2002). Not perceived to occur as frequently as sex trading, a love relationship was not necessarily mutu- ally exclusive of sexual trading as inmates may well receive gifts and privileges in exchange for their love.

Sexual contact in the line of duty occurs when officers abuse their powers or overstep their professional bounds. Strip and pat searches are routine practices in prison, and both have the potential to be major sources of degradation for inmates. Women inmates in particular report experienc- ing powerlessness and humiliation, even when the searches did not have sexual overtones. Officers, even officers of the same sex, can sexualize women and use pat and strip searches as a method of control through degradation (Calhoun and Coleman 2002; Henriques and Gilbert 2000; Watterson 1996). Each search involves the potential for inap- propriate officer–inmate contact, and contributes to an environment where the women inmates feel sexualized and powerless. Also in line with a patriarchal explanation,

358 A. G. Blackburn et al.

at a co-ed facility officers forcibly prostituted female inmates to the male prisoners held in the same facility (Lucas v. White in Pollock 2004).

Histories of Sexual Abuse

A pathways perspective to explaining women’s presence in prison suggests that certain factors affect women differently than men (Belknap 2007). This perspective suggests common themes that impact their trajectories toward prison: family issues and conflict, physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse, presence of children and marital status, and socioeco- nomic marginality (Belknap 2007; Bloom et al. 2003; Owen 1998). Research on women in prison demonstrates a highly disproportionate concentration of women who experience physical and sexual abuse compared to women on the out- side and men in prison (Belknap 2007; Bloom et al. 2003; Harlow 1999). Of particular interest are those that have been sexually victimized. Studies demonstrate that roughly two- thirds of sexually victimized individuals will be revictimized at a later time (Classen et al. 2005), with those experiencing multiple abuses, like those women in prison (Owen 1998), having even greater chances of being revictimized (Classen et al. 2005).

Women with abuse histories may be more vulnerable to sexual exploitation (Baro 1997; Girshick 2003). This prison milieu mimics the barriers imposed by patriarchy and the pathways to prison, reducing their agency and increasing negative consequences in completing their sentence (Girshick 2003). Certain acts trigger memories of previous abuse—pat and strip searches, being restrained or locked in isolation, and persistent surveillance—and are examples of how institutionalized power reinforces gender-specific victimization. Additionally, when experiencing harassment and abuse from officers these victims may be less willing to stand up for themselves and therefore go along with the abuse for fear of trouble or further postponing their release date. This was the perception voiced by other women inmates, as they have little faith in the grievance process remedying their problem (Calhoun and Coleman 2002; Girshick 2003; Human Rights Watch 1996).

Also, officers represent access to many goods and privileges—supplying information, passes, access to telephones,

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 359

and other items. A good relationship with an officer can rep- resent access to these goods and services (Girshick 2003; Owen 1998). When certain goods or services are deemed as needed or necessary by inmates and they cross paths with an officer that is willing to trade prison supplies or other services for sex, this can cause an increasing sense of power- lessness among women offenders. In describing how pre- vious victimization influences future sexual victimizations, Finkelhor and Browne (1985) write that traumatic sexualiza- tion leads to a sexual development whereby an individual confuses sexual behavior and sexual morality and uses sex as a tool to manipulate to receive gifts, attention, or privilege. Women entering prison with traumatic sexualization may be more likely to engage in sexual trading with officers. How- ever, these women with past sexual victimizations may also be coerced to continue the relationship they initially wel- comed but no longer wanted (Calhoun and Coleman 2002; Girshick 2003).

Summary

Correctional officers violate prison policy when engaging in friendships and=or sexual relationships with inmates, potentially disrupting the mission of providing safety and security. The purpose of the present study is to further examine gender differences in inmates’ perceptions of staff boundary violations. Men experience an environment of sub- ordination and control like women inmates. However, the system of control that women experience seeks to control them in ‘‘ultramasculine’’ ways (Lutze 2003), making their experience more difficult. As Lutze (2003) wrote, ‘‘Although ultramasculine prison environments may also be harmful to men, at least men are socialized to defend against such attacks on their person and position within society’’ (p. 201). The continued subordination of women in a patriar- chal institution and sexual objectification is believed to exacerbate the experienced powerlessnesss felt by incarcer- ated females, perhaps leading to greater feelings of disdain for correctional staff that violate professional boundaries, especially because some officers use their positions of dominance to sexually exploit these women. Women inmates as a group may be more likely to disapprove of offi- cers’ boundary violations, because on the whole they are a

360 A. G. Blackburn et al.

group disproportionately composed of survivors of past sexual abuse. This past abuse may interact with an inmate’s position of powerlessness in the prison environment. As such, it is believed that women and inmates who have experienced previous sexual abuse would be more likely to disapprove of officer boundary violations. Our hypotheses stem from past research on the vulnerability of women, specifically the pathways perspective of women in prison, and the impact of power differentials in a patriarchal culture.

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

Data were collected for the present study through question- naires about prison culture and sexual violence administered to male (n¼ 499) and female (n¼ 436) inmates in a large Southern state prison system.3 Sampling from the total inmate population was a two-stage process; first units were chosen and second inmates from those units were selected. Only institutional prisons were sampled and unit selection was based on two criteria, proximity and number of cases of sexual assault reported between the years 2003 and 2004. Once units were selected, simple random and system- atic sampling techniques were utilized to select female inmates across minimum, medium, and maximum security levels, although the majority of female inmates surveyed were from the general population (i.e., not from maximum security or administrative segregation). Males in the general population were also randomly sampled by corrections offi- cials in accordance with the agreement made between the researchers and the prison system’s research office for access to the inmate population. As the majority of female inmates and all male inmates from several types of units were

3Before beginning the survey administration, a research team was formed consisting of two principal investigators (supervising professors) and three doctoral students. As national interest peaked concerning sexual victimization among prisoners following PREA’s incep- tion, the research team and state prison system became interested in examining this issue. A collaborative agreement between the research team and the research office of the state prison system in 2005 determined the conditions of the data collection and random sample selection in conjunction with corrections officials. The university institutional review board granted permission later that same year.

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 361

sampled from the general population within one state prison system, the impact of prison setting (e.g., facility design, administrative procedures, correctional staff training) should be equal across the sample.4

Selected inmates received a voluntary pass from the prison system to attend the survey administration. Once inmates arrived, the research team (usually between one and three researchers) explained the purpose of the research to the inmates and asked for their voluntary, confidential, and anony- mous participation, stating the inmate would receive no incen- tives for participating or no negative consequences for deciding to not participate. Inmates were offered verbal and written informed consent. Inmates interested in participating signed the informed consent document, which were collected only by the researchers, and then completed the questionnaire.

For the women, each administration group from the general population included approximately 30 women, and surveys were administered in classrooms, libraries, and cha- pel day rooms. Women in close-custody cellblocks, in groups of five or less, completed the survey in the cellblock dayroom and five female respondents in administrative segregation were allowed to complete the survey in their cell. For the men, survey administrations occurred in libraries, dining halls, and gymnasiums, depending on the size of the admin- istration group, which ranged from 30 to 101 inmates. Researchers remained in the room during the course of each administration to assist and respond to questions or concerns raised by the participants. Researchers were also able to assist those inmates with literacy issues to complete the survey. Although there existed no identifiers that could be traced back to the participant, all questionnaires were handled only by the research team. Correctional officers were only present outside of the survey administration area.

Researchers administered the paper and pencil question- naires, available in both English and Spanish. Although the research team did not include a bilingual member, no language barrier issues were encountered even though a

4According to a recent (2008) report (which will not be cited in order to maintain anon- ymity), there are 17,135 (61.8%) male correctional staff and 10,602 (38.2%) female correc- tional staff working within the prison system under study.

362 A. G. Blackburn et al.

few participants did opt to complete the forward-translated Spanish questionnaire. The question order in the Spanish questionnaire was the same order as the English question- naire. Most respondents completed the survey in about 45 minutes. The entire data collection process took place between January and September 2006 and a response rate of 58.5% was reached. No information was collected from the inmates that were sampled who decided not to partici- pate; therefore comparisons are unable to be made between participants and nonrespondents. A listwise deletion of cases with missing data resulted in a final sample of 806 cases.

Measures

Perceptions of Staff and Boundary Violations

Seventeen original questionnaire items were written attempt- ing to reflect respondents’ perceptions of the frequency of boundary violations, their acceptance of boundary viola- tions, and their attitudes about staff. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the items listed in Table 1. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO¼ .872, suggesting the sam- ple adequacy is ‘‘great’’ (Field 2009:647), and all individual items were above .65 (above the acceptable limit of .5 [Field 2009]). Barlett’s test of sphericity v2 (136)¼6949.36, p< .001, indicated that intercorrelations among the items were sufficiently large enough for a PCA. A parallel analysis was performed and found that three eigenvalues were signifi- cantly larger than the estimated mean of the corresponding eigenvalues from 1,000 randomly generated samples. This resulted in the extraction of three components that accounted for 58.94% of the variance. Table 1 also shows the factor loadings. Factor loadings above .4 were con- sidered as appropriate for interpretive purposes for factors (Field 2009). The items loading onto the first component were those that asked how often inmates believed certain acts occurred, gauging their perceived knowledge or fre- quency of these occurrences. This factor is referred to as knowledge. The seven items that loaded highly onto the second component were interpreted to be items that reflected the acceptability of boundary violations and how supportive inmates seemed of these professional violations.

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 363

TABLE 1 Boundary Violations and Staff Perceptions with PCA Factor Loadings

Item

Component

Knowledge Support Attitude

Inmates receive confidential or romantic letters from staff members.

.817 –.062 .137

Inmates receive money from staff members. .831 –.115 .138 Inmates receive contraband from staff members. .886 –.131 .085 Staff members do personal favors for inmates. .881 –.155 .054 Staff members help inmates break the rules. .868 –.146 .030 Staff members develop friendships (close or personal) with inmates.

.833 –.141 .077

Staff members engage in sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral) with inmates.

.816 –.105 .075

It is okay for a staff member to have a friendship (close or personal) with an inmate.

.230 .711 –.151

It is okay for a staff member to have sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral) with an inmate.

.232 .629 –.164

Having a friendship (close or personal) with a staff member helps bring up the morale of the prison.

.189 .701 –.093

Having a friendship (close or personal) with a staff member will help you stay out of trouble with other staff members.

.330 .442 –.068

Having sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral) with a staff member will help you get respect from other inmates.

.242 .433 .019

All friendships (close or personal) that develop between staff and inmates are genuine (real or true friendships).

.044 .586 .174

I would encourage a new inmate to develop a friendship (close or personal) with a staff member.

.099 .677 .038

Staff members treat inmates fairly. –.183 .109 .693 Staff members care about the inmates. –.170 .104 .784 Staff members can be trusted. –.187 .105 .768 Obtained eigenvalue 5.45 2.72 1.84 Mean of generated eigenvalues 1.26 1.21 1.17 p¼ .05 critical value of generated eigenvalue mean

1.31 1.24 1.20

% of variance explained 32.06 16.01 10.82 a .94 .75 .69

364 A. G. Blackburn et al.

This factor is referred to as support and represents our depen- dent variable. The last factor contains three items that reflect inmates’ general attitude toward staff; as such, this factor was labeled attitude. Composite measures for each of the three components were calculated using regression based factor scores. The Cronbach’s a and other descriptive measures for the scales are listed at the end of Table 1.

Independent and Control Variables

Demographics measured include age (in years), gender (0¼ female; 1¼male), high school (0¼ did not complete high school; 1¼ completed high school) and race. Race was dummy coded into the following variables, white (0¼ not white; 1¼white), black (0¼ not black; 1¼black), Hispanic (0¼not Hispanic; 1¼Hispanic), and other (0¼not Other Race; 1¼Other Race). Due to the prison specific nature of these boundary violations, several measures consist- ent with prisonization were included: the amount of time served on their current sentence (timeserved in years), the amount of time remaining on their current sentence (senleft in months), and whether the inmate had been previously incarcerated prior to their current sentence (previncar: 0¼ not previously incarcerated; 1¼previously incarcerated). Finally, the variable measuring lifetime sexual victimization (lifevictim: 0¼ no; 1¼ yes) was gauged by the question ‘‘Have you ever been sexually abused or assaulted in your lifetime?’’ The lifetime sexual victimization measure is inclus- ive of any in-prison sexual victimization the respondent may have experienced while incarcerated. In the survey, sexual assault was defined as, ‘‘nonconsensual contact between the penis and vulva, penis and anus, the mouth and penis, mouth and vulva, or mouth and anus,’’ and abusive sexual contact was defined as, ‘‘intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person without his or her consent.’’

FINDINGS

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. Themean age for the inmates is 40.5. Inmates had served an averageof a little over eight years with almost 14 years (167 months) still remaining. The majority had been incarcerated in the state prison system

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 365

prior to their current sentence.Over half of the respondentswere men (55%) with the majority of respondents having obtained at least a high school diploma (almost 70%). Over 40% of the respondents reported they were black, 36% reported being white, about 15% Hispanic, and 7% reported some other race or ethnicity. Almost 44% of the sample reported that they were victims of sexual assault or abuse at some point in their lives. There was a significant gender difference between men and women inmates (not shown), with 68.6% of women and 22.6% of men reporting being sexually abused at some point in their lives, v2 (1,N¼ 806)¼ 170.25, p< .001.5 This supports findings of the pathways perspective that women’s trajectories to crime and prison are shaped by their previous abuse. Also,

TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics of the Sample (N¼ 806)

General characteristic

Total sample

M SD

Age 40.5 10.6 Time Served (years) 8.1 6.8 Time Remaining (months) 167.1 148.1

n % Gender Male 443 55.0 Female 363 45.0 Race White 295 36.6 Black 325 40.3 Hispanic 126 15.6 Other 60 7.4 Education High school graduate 282 65.0 Non-high school graduate 524 35.0 Lifetime victim Yes 349 43.3 No 457 56.7 Previous incarceration Yes 350 43.7 No 451 56.3

5Continuity correction reported.

366 A. G. Blackburn et al.

the three regression-based composite measures were standardized—knowledge, attitude, and support—with their means equal to 0 and their standard deviations equaling 1 (not shown). Two variables were transformed to address skewed dis- tributions. Senleft was square root transformed and timeserved was log transformed.

There is a significant difference between men (M¼ .227, SD¼ 104, n¼443) and women (M¼�.277, SD¼ .873, n¼ 363) on their support of professional boundary violations in the expected direction, t(803.514)¼7.471, p< .001, d¼ .52.6 Men’s mean level of support is above the scale midpoint and women’s mean level of support is below the scale midpoint. Also, there exists a significant difference between victims of sexual abuse and nonvictims in support of officer boundary violations in the expected direction, with victims’ mean (M¼�.183, SD¼ .925, n¼349) below the scale midpoint and nonvictims’ mean (M¼ .140, SD¼ 1.033, n¼ 457) above the scale midpoint t(783.903)¼ 4.663, p< .001, d¼ .33. An inspection of the Pearson and point bi-serial correlation coefficients in Table 3 reveals a similar pattern with gender and lifevictim both correlating with support in the expected direction.7

In order to tease out the effects of gender and sexual victimization on support for officer boundary violations a series of multiple regressions were performed (Table 4).8

Model 1 represents a baseline model; all variables but

6The Levene’s test of equal variance yielded a significant value in both this and lifetime victim comparisons using independent measures t tests. Thus, equal variances were not assumed, and the df reported is derived from the separate variances t test.

7A reviewer suggested that the modest correlations of the two independent variables of interest—gender and lifetime sexual victimization—with support for boundary violations may be due to the large sample size. A random selection of 201 cases yielded the same direction and similar magnitudes for coefficients and statistics found in the full sample cor- relations, t tests, and regression models presented here.

8An inspection of the correlation matrix indicated that no r coefficient exceeded .8. Also, none of the variance inflation factors exceeded 1.55 in any of the models suggesting multicollinearity was not a concern. No influential cases were detected as there were no Cook’s distance values greater than 1, no Mahalanobis distance value exceeded the critical value, and no individual hat values were twice the average leverage (Field 2009). Also, the error terms were normally distributed. Inspection of the plots of the standardized residuals against the standardized predicted value demonstrated an even dispersion of points above and below the residuals’ zero line leading to the conclusion that heteroskedasticity and non-linearity were not problems.

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 367

T A B LE

3 C o rr el at io n m at ri x o f al l va ri ab

le s

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 . A ge

1 .1 8 3 ��

.3 7 0 ��

.2 1 6 ��

–. 1 1 3 ��

.1 1 1 ��

.0 0 0

–. 1 1 8 ��

–. 0 4 2

–. 1 0 6 ��

.2 7 4 ��

–. 0 8 5 �

.1 3 4 ��

–. 1 1 4 ��

2 . Se

n le ft a

1 .3 4 2 ��

.3 5 4 ��

–. 1 6 2 ��

.0 2 3

.0 1 9

–. 0 6 5

.0 1 2

.1 1 0 ��

.0 6 2

.0 3 4

–. 0 2 1

.0 5 6

3 . T im

es er ve

d b

1 .3 3 9 ��

–. 1 6 3 ��

–. 0 4 1

.1 0 7 ��

–. 0 8 3 �

–. 0 1 1

.0 5 4

.1 8 8 ��

.1 1 4 ��

.0 7 1 �

–. 0 2 1

4 . G en

d er

1 –. 4 6 2 ��

.0 1 5

–. 0 1 3

.0 1 9

–. 0 2 8

.0 3 4

.1 9 4 ��

.0 8 1 �

–. 0 2 9

.2 5 1 ��

5 . Li fe vi ct im

1 .0 9 0 �

–. 0 6 5

–. 0 8 7 �

.0 7 7 �

.0 2 4

–. 1 1 5 ��

.0 3 8

.0 4 4

–. 1 6 0 ��

6 . W

h it e

1 –. 6 2 5 ��

–. 3 2 7 ��

–. 2 1 5 ��

.2 4 4 ��

–. 1 3 8 ��

.0 5 2

–. 0 6 6

–. 0 5 1

7 . B la ck

1 –. 3 5 4 ��

–. 2 3 3 ��

–. 1 4 8 ��

.2 3 3 ��

–. 0 0 6

.1 0 2 ��

–. 0 3 1

8 . H is p an

ic 1

–. 1 2 2 ��

–. 1 4 2 ��

–. 0 6 7

–. 0 7 9 �

–. 0 5 3

.1 0 0 ��

9 . O th er

1 .0 2 5

–. 0 9 1 �

.0 2 5

.0 0 4

.0 1 3

1 0 . H ig h sc h o o l

1 –. 0 2 0

.1 1 1 ��

.0 2 3

.1 0 9 ��

1 1 . P re vi n ca

r 1

.0 4 4

.0 8 8 �

–. 0 3 8

1 2 . K n o w le d ge

1 .0 0 0

.0 0 0

1 3 . A tt it u d e

1 .0 0 0

1 4 . Su

p p o rt

1

a Sq

u ar e ro o t tr an

sf o rm

ed .

b Lo

g tr an

sf o rm

ed .

� p < .0 5 , �� p < .0 1 .

368

T A B LE

4 R eg re ss io n M o d el s P re d ic ti n g Su

p p o rt fo r B o u n d ar y V io la ti o n s

M o d el

1 M o d el

2 M o d el

3 M o d el

4

B SE

B B et a

B SE

B B et a

B SE

B B et a

B SE

B B et a

C o n st an

t .0 5 8

.1 6 8

.1 2 4

.1 6 2

.3 4 2

.1 7 7

.2 1 2

.1 7 3

G en

d er

— —

— .6 3 2

.0 7 6

.3 1 4 ��

� —

— —

.5 8 2

.0 8 3

.2 8 9 ��

�

Li fe vi ct im

— —

— —

— —

� .3 3 7

.0 7 2

–. 1 6 7 ��

� –. 1 1 1

.0 7 7

–. 0 5 5

A ge

� .0 1 2

.0 0 4

–. 1 3 1 ��

–. 0 1 5

.0 0 4

–. 1 5 4 ��

� � .0 1 3

.0 0 4

–. 1 4 0 ��

� –. 0 1 5

.0 0 4

–. 1 5 5 ��

�

Se n le ft a

.0 1 2

.0 0 6

.0 7 2

–. 0 0 2

.0 0 6

–. 0 1 2

.0 0 9

.0 0 6

.0 5 2

–. 0 0 2

.0 0 6

.0 1 2

T im

es er ve

d b

.0 0 8

.1 1 3

.0 0 3

–. 1 7 0

.1 1 0

–. 0 6 1

–. 0 3 8

.1 1 2

–. 0 1 3

–. 1 7 1

.1 1 0

–. 0 6 1

R ac

e (w

h it e is re fe re n ce

) B la ck

.0 7 7

.0 8 4

.0 3 8

.1 1 4

.0 8 1

.0 5 6

.0 5 1

.0 8 4

.0 2 5

.1 0 2

.0 8 1

.0 5 0

H is p an

ic .3 4 4

.1 0 9

.1 2 5 ��

.3 0 6

.1 0 5

.1 1 1 ��

.2 8 6

.1 0 8

.1 0 4 ��

.2 9 0

.1 0 5

.1 0 5 ��

O th er

.1 0 1

.1 4 2

.0 2 6

.1 3 0

.1 3 7

.0 3 4

.1 2 4

.1 4 1

.0 3 2

.1 3 5

.1 3 6

.0 3 5

H ig h sc h o o l

.3 0 2

.0 7 9

.1 3 9 ��

� .3 1 3

.0 7 6

.1 4 4 ��

� .3 0 6

.0 7 8

.1 4 1 ��

� .3 1 3

.0 7 6

.1 4 5 ��

�

P re vi n ca

r –. 0 0 7

.0 7 6

–. 0 0 3

–. 0 9 2

.0 7 3

–. 0 4 6

–. 0 3 0

.0 7 5

–. 0 1 5

–. 0 9 3

.0 7 3

–. 0 4 6

K n o w le d ge

–. 0 1 6

.0 3 6

–. 0 1 6

–. 0 3 5

.0 3 4

–. 0 3 5

–. 0 1 0

.0 3 5

–. 0 1 0

–. 0 3 2

.0 3 5

–. 0 3 2

A tt it u d e

.0 2 1

.0 3 6

.0 2 0

.0 3 5

.0 3 4

.0 3 5

.0 3 1

.0 3 5

.0 3 1

.0 3 7

.0 3 4

.0 3 7

R 2

.0 4 6

.1 2 3

.0 7 2

.1 2 6

a Sq

u ar e ro o t tr an

sf o rm

ed .

b Lo

g tr an

sf o rm

ed .

�� p < .0 1 ,� �� p < .0 0 1 .

369

gender and lifevictim were regressed over support. Younger inmates seem more supportive of officer boundary violations as well as those with high school educations. When com- pared to white inmates, Hispanic inmates were significantly more supportive of officer boundary violations. These three variables also had significant relationships with the depen- dent variable in the correlation matrix. The three significant variables appear nearly equal in importance in their expla- nation of the dependent variable as their standardized regression coefficients are close in magnitude to one another.

In the second model of Table 4, gender was added to the baseline model. All three significant variables from the previous model continued to significantly contribute to the explanation of support for boundary violations with the addition of gender. Gender itself emerged as a significant predictor in the hypothesized direction, women being less supportive of officers’ boundary violations. Additionally, its associated standardized regression coefficient was nearly twice as large as the next largest coefficient at .314 indicat- ing its importance in explaining support for officers’ bound- ary violations. The addition of an inmate’s gender also accounts for a significant change in the R2 value, F(11, 794)¼ 69.27, p< .001, from .04 in the baseline model to .12 in this model.

The third model of Table 4 evaluates the impact of the addition of lifevictim to the baseline model. Like the pre- vious model, all three significant predictors from Model 1 remain significant here. Also, being a victim of lifetime sex- ual abuse significantly contributes to the explanation of sup- port for officer boundary violations, in the expected direction with victims offering less support. The standardized regression coefficient is the largest in the model, but does not have the much larger contribution that gender possessed when it was entered into the baseline regression model. Nevertheless, the small change in the R2 value from .046 to .072 with the addition of lifevictim was significant, F(11, 794)¼ 22.11, p< .001.

Up to this point both gender and lifetime sexual victimiza- tion seem to play a significant role in their support of officer’s boundary violations; however, a large percentage of sexual victims also happen to be women. In Model 4 of Table 4,

370 A. G. Blackburn et al.

both gender and lifevictim were added to the baseline model simultaneously. In this model only gender exerts a significant relationship with the dependent variable while lifevictim fails to influence support for officer boundary violations. This could suggest that gender may be the overarching reason that victims are less supportive of boundary violations, and not because of the sensitivity to or increased chances of revicti- mization and power differentials victims experience. Also, the three previous significant predictors from the baseline model continue to exert influence on the dependent vari- able. As with the second model, gender remains the most important predictor of support for boundary violations according to the standardized regression coefficient. There is a small and nonsignificant change in the R2 value [F(12, 794)¼ 2.70, p> .05] over that of Model 2 lending support to the idea that lifetime sexual abuse many not contribute to support of boundary violations beyond the fact that most victims are also women.

Limitations

The findings presented here are based on inmate self-reports. One limitation faced is the accuracy of respondent’s answers. Participants may have been untruthful in hopes of tarnishing the image of correctional officers working in the units in which the surveys took place. These data are also cross-sectional; thus, the results of our analyses only reveal associations among the variables in this study. Finally, the sampling strategies from which these data were collected were not the same, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Although these limitations exist, our findings do give insight into the differences in perceptions of male and female inmates as to staff boundary violations in a large Southern prison system.

DISCUSSION

Gender emerged as the salient predictor of support for officers’ boundary violations in the hypothesized direction with women being significantly less supportive of such behavior. The patriarchal environment of prison for women (Brownmiller 1975; Lutze 2003) may lead to a situation where female inmates are likely dominated by officers and

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 371

treated in a more strict and punitive manner (McClellan 1994). A gendered perspective of the prison environment suggests that the treatment of women by officers likely reflects not only prison policies written for male inmates, but also the oppressive treatment of women by those with authority that is seen outside prison walls. A rational perspective suggests that inmates may welcome officer boundary violations at times because they gain from these relationships—privileges, favors, goods, sex—like the inmate turner (Allen and Bosta 1981; Worley et al. 2003). On the other hand, there may be unwelcomed consequences associated with these types of relationships that may affect different segments of the prison population differentially. In this case, women may be subjected to more sexually harass- ing behavior (or see it exacted on others) or unwanted coercion when initially willingly engaging in boundary crossing behavior.

The second hypothesis was ultimately not supported; victims of sexual abuse=assault had no predictive power in support for officer boundary violations in the final regression model. While there were significant bivariate relationships, the effect of gender on support seems to overshadow any influence that prior victimization possessed. What this ulti- mately suggests is that since most victims of past sexual abuse were women, a compositional affect of gender exists in inmates’ support of boundary violations. Like past research, women inmates were much more likely to be victims of sexual assault (Bloom et al. 2003; Harlow 1999), supporting a pathways perspective of how women arrive in prison. The disproportionate concentration of sexually abused women did not seem to influence the outcome. From a pathways perspective, one possible explanation is that women inmates represent a class of individuals that experi- ence multiple types of abuses prior to imprisonment (Owen 1998); this would lead gender to be a proxy for the multi- plicity of abuses and experience of restricted and harassing behavior that men do not seem to experience to the degree that women do.

Overall, according to the literature the differential treatment of women by officers seems more punitive and capricious, cit- ing them for minor violations compared to men (McClellan 1994). The gender differences found here alone warrant

372 A. G. Blackburn et al.

further exploration into not only the gendered nature of officers’ legitimate treatment of inmates but also the explo- ration of the illegitimate and deviant treatment the women inmates receive compared to men inmates.

Professional boundary violations by even a few correctional staff can cause many problems for prison administrators by reducing the legitimacy of officers’ orders and the prison administration. Reciprocity is a reality for correctional staff who find themselves vastly outnumbered. One recommen- dation to reduce the use of reciprocity and resulting boundary violations is to bolster staffing and to ensure that staff who are hired will not violate the inmate–staff boundary.

It is recognized that there are differences between the social environments existing in male and female facilities. Female inmates often require more emotional support and guidance and rely on both fellow inmates and staff to provide this support. So as not to create any notion of impropriety, we support the custodial frame described by Marquart and colleagues in which officers are ‘‘firm but fair, nonabusive, impersonal, dispassionate, and nonconfrontational’’ when encountering inmates (Marquart et al. 2001:881) as friend- ships may be a gateway to further boundary violations. Within this frame officers assigned to women’s facilities could receive training on how to better interact with women inmates and handle minor nuisances like requests for additional supplies rather than relying on standard training that prepares officers for work in male facilities.

Also, if female inmates are experiencing higher levels of boundary violative behavior, they could be empowered with knowledge via gender-specific education, possibly during orientation or some other delivery method, explaining that these behaviors are something they may have to respond to while in prison and that the prison takes their grievances seriously. In order for administrators to encourage reporting, they have to make certain that inmates who do report victi- mization or other boundary violations are kept safe and free from harassment from both other inmates and correctional staff. However, knowledge concerning boundary violations should not only be shared with female inmates; male inmates also require this education. Inmates may feel like they have something to gain from staff misconduct, whether it’s a sexual relationship or an opportunity to obtain contraband,

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 373

and informing them of possible future coercion based on a past consensual relationship may be necessary to recogniz- ing long-term consequences of such actions. Not only should such relationships be discouraged during intake, increased penalties for engaging in any unprofessional relationships with staff should be promoted.

Administrators can also provide incentives for keeping clear social distance between the correctional staff and the inmate population. Staff members who follow the custodial frame, being firm but fair and impersonal, should be recog- nized and staff who break the custodial frame, becoming too close to one or more inmates, should be penalized. As per PREA and state prison policy, there should be zero tolerance for staff–inmate intimate relationships and prison administrators should lessen the opportunities for these relationships to develop. Friendships developing between staff and inmates should also be examined as these friend- ships have the potential to grow into something more. Finally, an effective system should be in place to ensure that contraband does not enter the prison facility. The introduc- tion of contraband can lead to exploitation of the inmate population by staff. Again, by decreasing the incentives for correctional staff to engage in such behavior and by increas- ing the recognition of rule-abiding staff, prison administrators may be successful in stemming this problem.

There are many avenues for future research on the topic of correctional staff boundary violations, especially regarding inmate perceptions of inappropriate behavior by staff and how these perceptions can affect behaviors. Marquart and colleagues’ (2001) correctional frame should be examined among female inmate populations to see how the maintain- ing of control by staff differs from male institutions and to determine if this frame is perceived to be effective. Addition- ally, researchers may consider using inmate survey data in conjunction with official records to uncover a dark figure of boundary violations with an eye toward differences in male and female prisons. Also, inmate data could be used to establish profiles for risk of engaging in those types of rela- tionships. Finally, evaluative measures of staff training and inmate education could be undertaken to ensure that prison administrations provide effective levels of training and education to curtail instances of boundary violations.

374 A. G. Blackburn et al.

Overall, our society, and especially our criminal justice system, must engage in an honest conversation about what actions between staff and inmates will be tolerated. It is important to protect those vulnerable to exploitation in our society, including prison inmates. While the findings pre- sented here represent a start in exploring gender differences in inmate perceptions of staff boundary violations, this topic should be further explored especially as the female inmate population grows at an unprecedented rate.

REFERENCES

Allen, B. and D. Bosta. 1981. Games Criminals Play. Susanville, CA: Rae John Publishers.

Associated Press. 2006. ‘‘Cell Phones becoming New Prison ’Cash’.’’ msnbc (January 29). Available at (http://www.msnbc.msn.com)

Baro, A. L. 1997. ‘‘Spheres of Consent: An Analysis of the Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Women Incarcerated in the State of Hawaii.’’ Women & Criminal Justice 8(3):61–84.

Beck, A. J. and P. M. Harrison. 2007. Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003: Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Beck, A. J., P. M. Harrison, and D. B. Adams. 2007. Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003: Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 (NCJ 218914). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Belknap, J. 2007. The Invisible Woman. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bloom, B., B. Owen, and S. Covington. 2003. Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Bowker, L. 1980. Prison Victimization. New York: Elsevier. Brownmiller, S. 1975. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.

New York: Fawcett Columbine. Calhoun, A. J. and H. D. Coleman. 2002. ‘‘Female Inmates’ Perspectives

on Sexual Abuse by Correctional Personnel: An Exploratory Study.’’ Women & Criminal Justice 13(2=3):101–124.

Cheeseman-Dial, K. A. and R. M. Worley. 2008. ‘‘Crossing the Line: A Quantitative Analysis of Inmate Boundary Violators in a Southern Prison System.’’ American Journal of Criminal Justice 33:69–84.

Classen, C. C., O. G. Palesh, and R. Aggarwal. 2005. ‘‘Sexual Revictimi- zation.’’ Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 6:103–129.

Cressey, D. 1973.Other People’s Money. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 375

Crouch, B. M. and J. W. Marquart. 1980. ‘‘On Becoming a Prison Guard.’’ Pp. 63–106 in The Keepers: Prison Guards and Contemporary Corrections, edited by B. M. Crouch. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Crouch, B. M. and J. W. Marquart. 1989. An Appeal to Justice: Litigated Reform of Texas Prisons. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Dumond, R. W. 1992. ‘‘The Sexual Assault of Male Inmates in Incarcerated Settings.’’ International Journal of the Sociology of Law 20(2):135–157.

Dumond, R. W. 2000. ‘‘Inmate Sexual Assault: The Plague which Per- sists.’’ Prison Journal 80(4):407–414.

Dumond, R. W. and D. A. Dumond. 2002a. ‘‘The Treatment of Sexual Assault Victims.’’ Pp. 67–88 in Prison Sex: Practice and Policy, edited by C. Hensley. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Dumond, R. W. and D. A. Dumond. 2002b. ‘‘Training Staff on Inmate Sexual Assault.’’ Pp. 89–100 in Prison Sex: Practice and Policy, edited by C. Hensley. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Finkelhor, D. and A. Browne. 1985. ‘‘The Traumatic Impact of Child Sexual Abuse: A Conceptualization.’’ American Journal of Orthopsy- chiatry 55:530–541.

Fleisher, M. S. and J. L. Krienert. 2006. ‘‘The Culture of Prison Sexual Violence.’’ Available at (http:==www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/ 216515.pdf) (accessed January 29, 2009).

Girschick, L. B. 2003. ‘‘Abused Women and Incarceration.’’ Pp. 95–117 in Women in Prison: Gender and Social Control, edited by B. H. Zaitzow and J. Thomas. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Harlow, C. W. 1999. ‘‘Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers (NCJ 172879).’’ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Henriques, Z. and E. Gilbert. 2000. ‘‘Sexual Abuse and Sexual Assault of Women in Prison.’’ Pp. 253–268 in It’s a Crime: Women and Justice, 2nd ed., edited by R. Muraskin. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Human Rights Watch. 1996. All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in the U.S. State Prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Lockwood, D. 1980. Prison Sexual Violence. New York: Elsevier. Lutze, F. E. 2003. ‘‘Ultramasculine Stereotypes and Violence.’’ Pp. 183–203

inWomen in Prison: Gender and Social Control, edited by B. H. Zaitzow and J. Thomas. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Maeve, M. K. 1999. ‘‘Adjuciated Health: Incarcerated Women and the Social Construction of Health.’’ Crime, Law, & Social Change 31:49–71.

Marquart, J. W. 1986. ‘‘The Use of Physical Force by Prison Guards: Individuals, Situations, and Organizations.’’ Criminology 24:347–366.

Marquart, J. W., M. B. Barnhill, and K. Balshaw-Biddle. 2001. ‘‘Fatal Attrac- tion: An Analysis of Employee Boundary Violations in a Southern Prison System, 1995–1998.’’ Justice Quarterly 18(4):877–910.

376 A. G. Blackburn et al.

McClellan, D. S. 1994. ‘‘Disparity in the Discipline of Male and Female Inmates in Texas Prisons.’’ Women & Criminal Justice 5(2):71–97.

Newman, A. 2006. ‘‘New York Priest’s Sex-Abuse Trial Begins, in Pennsylvania.’’ Available at (http://www.nytimes.com) (accessed January 29, 2009).

Owen, B. 1998. ‘‘In the Mix’’: Struggling and Survival in a Women’s Prison. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Pollock, J. 2004. Prison and Prison Life: Cost and Consequences. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Prison Rape Elimination Act. 2003. Public Law 108-79. Strom-Gottfried, S. 1999. ‘‘Professional Boundaries: An Analysis of

Violations by Social Workers.’’ Families in Society 80:439–449. Struckman-Johnson, C., D. Struckman-Johnson, L. Rucker, K. Bumby,

and S. Donaldson. 1996. ‘‘Sexual Coercion Reported by Men and Women in Prison.’’ Journal of Sex Research 33(1):67–76.

Struckman-Johnson, C. and D. Struckman-Johnson. 2000. ‘‘Sexual Coercion Rates in Seven Midwestern Prison Facilities for Men.’’ The Prison Journal 80(4):379–390.

Struckman-Johnson, C. and D. Struckman-Johnson. 2002. ‘‘Sexual Coercion Reported by Women in Three Midwestern Prisons.’’ The Journal of Sex Research 39(3):217–227.

Struckman-Johnson, C. and D. Struckman-Johnson. 2006. ‘‘A Comparison of Sexual Coercion Experiences Reported by Men and Women in Prison.’’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21(12): 1591–1615.

Sykes, G. M. 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Toch, H. 1977. Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. New York: The Free Press.

Watterson, K. 1996. Women in Prison: Inside the Concrete Womb (Rev. ed.). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

West, H. C. and W. J. Sabol. 2008. Prisoners in 2007 (NCJ 224280). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Wooden, W. S. and J. Parker. 1982. Men behind Bars: Sexual Exploi- tation in Prison. New York: Plenum Press.

Worley, R., J. W. Marquart, and J. L. Mullings. 2003. ‘‘Prison Guard Predators: An Analysis of Inmates who Established Inappropriate Relationships with Prison Staff, 1995–1998.’’ Deviant Behavior 24:175–194.

Worley, R. and K. A. Cheeseman. 2006. ‘‘Guards as Embezzlers: The Consequences of ’Non-Shareable Problems’ in Prison Settings.’’ Deviant Behavior 27:203–222.

Zernike, K. 2005. ‘‘The Siren Song of Sex with Boys.’’ New York Times (January 29). Available at (http://www.nytimes.com)

Inmate Perceptions of Staff Boundary Violations 377

ASHLEY G. BLACKBURN, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of North Texas. Her work appears most recently in the Prison Jour- nal, Journal of Crime & Justice, and Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. Her current research and teaching interests include correctional misconduct and victimization, intimate partner violence, and the trafficking of women and girls.

SHANNON K. FOWLER, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Crimi- nology and Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at Arlington. He earned his doctorate at Sam Houston State University in Criminal Justice in 2007. His research interests include institutional and community violence, especially in regard to sexual violence.

JANET L. MULLINGS, Ph.D., is an Associate Dean and Professor in the College of Crimi- nal Justice at Sam Houston State University. Her research and teaching interests include long-term consequences of victimization, child abuse and neglect, family violence, and women offenders.

JAMES W. MARQUART, Ph.D. (Texas A&M University, 1983) is a Professor and Dean of the School of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. He has long-term research and teaching interests in prison organizations and criminal justice policy. His current research involves investigating inappropriate staff–inmate rela- tionships in prison settings, sexual victimization in prison settings, and the consequences of juridical intervention in prison settings.

378 A. G. Blackburn et al.

Copyright of Deviant Behavior is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.