See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313845166

“Guarding against the manipulative inmate.”

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 3,006

1 author:

Robert Worley
Lamar University
100 PUBLICATIONS   396 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Worley on 20 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Corrections Volume XVII, No. 4
December/January 2012
ISSN 1083-3382

Managers’Report
MANAGEMENT • OPERATIONS • FINANCE • LAW AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION HUMAN RESOURCES
®

Technology Update Guarding Against the

Contraband
Detection
By Lt. Lisa Abernathy
Like every correctional facil-
ity, Calhoun County Jail in
Anniston, Alabama has had a
problem with contraband. From
cigarettes to razors, detain-
ees come in through the jail
sally port into booking with
all manner of prohibited mate-
rials and substances in and on
their persons. Traditionally, a
pat search is the technique jails
have used to detect contraband;
sometimes a strip search is called
for. Physical searches, however,
always carry some safety and lia-
bility risk—a physical search can
go wrong when it goes too far or
when it doesn’t go far enough.
Then there are visitors. They are
frequently “carrying” too.
Recently, Calhoun County Jail
became the first jail in the U.S.
to begin using the SECURPASS
Digital Security Screening sys-
tem to detect and interdict contra-
band. The scanning technology is
capable of detecting both metallic
and non-metallic items, producing
scanned images that have revealed
drugs tucked inside a sock, cell
phones strapped below the back
of a knee, and chewing tobacco
concealed beneath an elastic
waistband.
The SECURPASS system rep-
resents a significant investment,
but the technology is paying for
Manipulative Inmate
By Robert Worley, Ph.D.
Every day, correctional staff and
inmates engage one another in an intense
and in some respects ritualized form of
social interaction that is, essentially, a
battle for control. A layperson who has
never been “inside” would find it diffi-
cult to imagine that an inmate might be
capable of getting the upper hand over
a correctional officer; but anyone who
has encountered a practiced manipulator
knows it can and does happen—in fact,
there is probably not a cell block any-
where in the country where some kind
of manipulation is not occurring right
now. Among the most important skills
needed by line staff—both custodial and
non-custodial—is the ability to recognize
and deflect the manipulative inmate. This
article addresses some of the important
research that has been done on prison
manipulators, the dynamics and psychol-
ogy that come into play, and practical
guidelines for preventing the damage that
a manipulative inmate can do to security
and morale.
The Games Criminals Play
One of the first and still most com-
prehensive studies of prisoner manip-
ulation is the classic book Games
Criminals Play by Allen and Bosta
(1981). The authors’ thesis is that
manipulators employ various strategies
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Coordinating Jails and Pretrial Services to Reduce Overcrowding . . . . . . 51
Supreme Court Hears Argument on Arrestee Strip Searches . . . . . . . . . . 53
in order to corrupt staff members. In
time, if the behavior goes unchecked,
the manipulator is able to transform his
or her relationship with a correctional
staff member from a professional to a
deviant one.
The “We/They Syndrome.” One of
the most common but effective ways in
which manipulators compromise staff
is by cultivating a sense of camarade-
rie with the intended target. The pro-
cess begins very subtly, and inmates
often employ non-verbal techniques
(Allen & Bosta, 1981). This allows
the manipulator to retreat if he or she
perceives that those advances and sug-
gestions are not being taken favorably
by the correctional employee. The
behavior starts out cautiously, and the
manipulator carefully observes how
the officer/staff member reacts to any
inappropriate suggestions or com-
ments. Interestingly, one of the most
common opening gambits employed
by manipulators is to give employees
food items in order to establish rela-
tionships (Elliot & Verdeyen, 2002;
Worley & Cheeseman, 2006; Cheeseman
Dial & Worley, 2008). In an interview,
See MANIPULATORS, next page

See CONTRABAND, page 63 Quiz: Manipulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

© 2012 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.

CMR 1704.indd 49 1/5/2012 10:36:24 AM

 Page 50 Corrections Managers’ Report December/January 2012

MANIPULATORS, from page 49 a promise of protection. Allen and Bosta gradually able to transform a professional
contend that in many instances the inmate relationship into a deviant one.
one manipulator explained how the may offer to protect the staff member from Most manipulators are experts at
tactic works: his or her superiors. The offender may, identifying employees they perceive
for example, offer to help the employee as vulnerable or weak; manipula-
Here a boss [correctional officer] may complete job-related tasks, which could tors are particularly adept at detecting
go a whole shift and not get a lunch include showing the staff member how which staff members are uncomfortable
break. We can take advantage of them to fill out paperwork or assuming some working in penal institutions. In some
because of this. You know, we might of the responsibilities assigned by the cases, a manipulator may threaten an
offer a boss a candy bar or a soda on administration. If this cycle continues for employee as part of the “setup” pro-
a hot day. Sometimes we might offer a long enough period of time, the officer cess. If the threat is convincing, the
them a sandwich or something, and may begin to feel indebted or obligated inmate will offer a promise of protec-
this can lead to all kinds of things. to the inmate. In some cases, the inmate tion in exchange for contraband. One
Sometimes they take it and some- may even encourage an employee to manipulator described how inmates
times they don’t. When they do, it’s break institutional rules (Elliot, & Ver- can intimidate correctional officers into
like a fish on a hook. You just got to deyen, 2002). For example, one male having an inappropriate relationship.
reel them in slow. It takes patience. inmate explained to researchers how When this manipulator was asked what
Hey, all I got is time, man, so time he established an inappropriate sexual he would do if a staff member wanted
is on my side. (Worley et al., 2003, relationship with a female correctional to stop providing him with contraband,
p. 187) officer: he stated:
Manipulators also frequently appeal If a boss wants to stop, I’ll give them
At the time this boss lady was going
to an officer or employee’s altruistic a couple of months. But you never
through a lot with her family and
side. This may involve concocting a let them quit. An inmate can always
didn’t have any time to sleep. I told her
story in the hopes of garnering empa- threaten to go to rank, and if that don’t
that she could take a nap and I would
thy or sympathy (Allen & Bosta, 1981; work then I tell him something like, “I
just “watch her back.” Pretty soon we
Cornelius, 2001). Over time, if this ain’t got but 15 months to go before I
became good friends and we would
behavior goes unchecked, the staff discharge. I know you love your kids.
just stay up all night talking, even
member may come to identify more I’d hate to see them get hurt.” Bosses
though I was supposed to be cleaning
with the inmate than with his or her with kids don’t want anything to hap-
the wing and she was supposed to be
fellow officers. This is a concept that pen to their family. (Worley et al.,
guarding the other inmates. (Worley et
Allen and Bosta refer to as the “we/they 2003, p. 186)
al., 2003, p. 184)
syndrome”.
The Offer of Protection. Another Beginning with the relatively benign
important way manipulators exploit cor- offer to act as a lookout (“holding
rectional employees is by offering them jiggers”) for the C.O., the inmate was See MANIPULATORS, page 55

Corrections Managers’ Report ®

Editor Emeritus: Gary W. DeLand Editorial Board

Contributing Russ Immarigeon, M.S.W.
Editor:
Managing Editor: Leslie Gwyn
Editorial Director: Deborah J. Launer
Publisher: Mark E. Peel
Correction Managers’ Report (ISSN 1083-3382) is published bimonthly by
Civic Research Institute, Inc., 4478 U.S. Route 27, P. O. Box 585, Kings-
ton, NJ 08528. Periodicals postage paid at Kingston, NJ and at additional
mailing office (USPS # 0015-086). Subscriptions: $179.95 per year in the
United States and Canada. $30 additional per year elsewhere. Vol. XVII,
No. 4. December/January 2012. Copyright 2012 by Civic Research Insti-
tute, Inc. All rights reserved. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
Civic Research Institute, Inc., P.O. Box 585, Kingston, NJ 08528. Correc-
tions Managers’Report is a registered trademark owned by Civic Research
Institute, Inc., and may not be used without express permission.
George M. Camp - Principal, Criminal Justice Institute,
Co-editor, The Corrections Yearbook, former Director,
Missouri Department of Corrections.
Fred Cohen - Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of
Criminal Justice, State University of New York, Albany,
Author of The Mentally Disordered Inmate and the Law.
Co-Editor of Correctional Law Reporter.
William C. Collins, Esq. - Attorney specializing in cor-
rections, former Senior Assistant Attorney General for the
State of Washington. Author of Practical Guide to Inmate
Discipline. Co-Editor of Correctional Law Reporter.
Dr. Jack Enter - Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice,
North Georgia College, former Program Director, Crimi-
nal Justice Coordinating Council (Georgia), instructor,
International Chiefs of Police Association.
Michael W. Haley, Ed.D. - Warden, Mobile County
Metro Jail, Mobile, AL.
Michael P. Hodge, Esq. - Employee Litigation Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Robert Jones, M.D. - Medical Director, Montana State
Prison.
Jake Katz - Assistant Director, Los Angeles Juvenile
Assessment Center, Detective Division, Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department; former Custody Man-
agement Specialist, Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department; former Technical Assistance Manager,
National Institue of Corrections Jail Center.
Aaron Kennard - Executive Director, National Sheriffs’
Association.
Richard G. Kiekbusch, Ph.D. - Associate Professor,
University of Texas, Permian Basin; Past President,
American Jail Association.
O. Lane McCotter - Former Director, Utah Department
of Corrections, New Mexico Department of Corrections
and Texas Department of Corrections.
Dr. Stephen J. Sampson - Chief Psychologist, Geor-
gia Regional Hospital, President, Communication
Skills Institute, Inc. Lawrenceville, Georgia, Assistant
Professor, Criminal Justice Department, Georgia State
University.
Affiliations shown for identification purposes only.
Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions
or policies of a writer’s agency or association.

The information in this publication is not intended to replace the services of a trained legal, health or other professional. Neither the editor, nor the contributors, nor Civic Research Institute, Inc. is engaged in
rendering legal, psychological, health or other professional services. The editor(s), the contributors and Civic Research Institute, Inc. specifically disclaim any liability, loss or risk, personal or otherwise, which
is incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this publication.

© 2012 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.

CMR 1704.indd 50 1/5/2012 10:36:25 AM

 December/January 2012
MANIPULATORS, from page 50
References to Sex. Another tactic
employed by manipulators is to make
references to sexual activities in the
presence of staff members (Cornelius,
2001; Allen & Bosta, 1981). This
technique is most often utilized when
the employee and inmate are of the
opposite sex, and because the vast
majority of correctional facilities
house male offenders, female offi-
cers tend to be the victims of this type
of approach (Cornelius, 2001). Allen
and Bosta provide an example of how
one prisoner made sexual references
about a female employee, which ulti-
mately led to her manipulation. In
this case, a male inmate approached
a female correctional officer with
whom he had developed a friendship
and made the following statement:
“Last night while four of us guys were
playing cards, one guy said if there
was only you and him in the housing
unit, you would freely have sex with
him. I put him in his place, though.
I told him you were not like that and to
stop talking that way” (Allen & Bosta,
1981, p. 65).
It is noteworthy that the inmate
placed himself in the symbolic role
of protector, attempting to show his
victim that he was different from
the other inmates. He insinuated
that, unlike other inmates, he was not
even interested in sex. Manipulators
often make carefully crafted sexual
references, such as in the example
above, to female employees. Once
these statements are made, the inmate
will gauge how the staff member
reacts. If the offender perceives
the reaction to be favorable, then
the inappropriate comments will
begin to escalate. In fact, over time
the inmate will begin to direct sexual
references more toward himself,
leaving little ambiguity about his
intentions.
The Touch Game. In other instances,
male inmates will play what is known
as the “touch game” with female cor-
rectional employees (Cornelius, 2001).
This consists of innocent touches (e.g.,
flicking a speck of dirt from the offi-
cer’s uniform or touching an employee
on the shoulder) initiated by the inmate
(Allen & Bosta, 1981). If an employee
© 2012 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
CMR 1704.indd 55
Corrections Managers’ Report
reacts unfavorably to being touched,
the inmate will often make it appear as
though this was accidental. One pris-
oner manipulator described the touch
game in the following way: “When a
boss is opening a door, we might grab
for it too and touch hands for a moment.
After a while we might be touching
something else” (Worley et al., 2003,
p. 186).
Allen and Bosta contend that manip-
ulators are particularly interested in
touching the breasts of female employ-
ees. They argue that once a male inmate
is able to touch the private areas of a
female staff member, a strong personal
bond is established. This is true even if
the employee perceives the touching to
be accidental (Allen & Bosta, 1981). If
a manipulator touches a staff member,
this is almost always intentional, even
if he pretends it was an accident. Many
Once under the control of a manipulative inmate,
it can be very hard for an officer to escape:
“An inmate can always go to ‘rank’.”
inmates who touch staff members
may wait days, or even weeks, before
they escalate their behaviors. Often
they want to see whether or not their
victims will report this inappropriate
behavior to their superiors (Allen &
Bosta, 1981).
Rumor Spreading. Another way in
which manipulators compromise staff is
by generating gossip (Cornelius, 2001;
Elliot & Verdeyen, 2002). Rumors
isolate correctional employees from
one another. If inmates are effective
in damaging a staff member’s reputa-
tion, he or she may be ostracized by
fellow correctional officers and admin-
istrators. In some cases, employees
who are maligned by rumors may be
harassed by their coworkers (Allen
& Bosta, 1981). When rumors gain
momentum, inmates may attempt
to befriend the rejected staff mem-
ber. Manipulators are quite skilled at
identifying vulnerable individuals,
and tend to prey on staff members
who lack a solid support system
(Worley & Cheeseman, 2006). Even if
an offender is responsible for creating
a rumor, he will never admit this to
Page 55
his target. Rather, the manipulator
will approach the isolated employee
and use this as an opportunity to cul-
tivate an inappropriate relationship.
The inmate will make statements
such as, “We don’t believe the rumors,”
and “They [other employees] are
treating you just like they treat us!”
(Allen & Bosta, 1981, p. 69). If this
cycle continues, it is possible that the
victim will see the inmate as his or
her only true friend. This opens the
door for all types of unprofessional
behaviors.
What Motivates the Manipulative
Inmate?
Not every inmate is a manipula-
tor—in fact, manipulators are a small
minority among inmates. The tac-
tics used by manipulators carry some
risks, and can backfire on the inmate.
Almost every correctional agency has
rules that forbid any type of familiar-
ity between inmates and staff members.
Inmates are often given strict instruc-
tion not to fraternize with employees,
and many institutions punish offenders
who attempt to solicit an employee or
establish an inappropriate relationship.
An inmate who compromises a staff
member may face severe sanctions.
These punishments can include the loss
of privileges and good-time credits. In
addition, these offenders can also be
transferred to undesirable facilities or
placed in solitary confinement. There
is also the possibility that these offend-
ers could be subjected to a variety of
informal control mechanisms. These
punishments could range from psycho-
logical abuse to beatings. While these
mechanisms may not be sanctioned or
even condoned by custodial admin-
istrators, informal punishments are
nevertheless very real and are usually
extremely devastating and unpleasant
for inmates (Irwin, 2005). Given all of
See MANIPULATORS, next page
1/5/2012 10:36:25 AM
 Page 56 Corrections Managers’ Report
MANIPULATORS, from page 55
the potential consequences, one has to
wonder why some offenders attempt to
manipulate staff members. A good deal
of research has been done on factors
that contribute to manipulative behav-
ior, and the findings are important for
administrators, officers, and employees
to know in order to understand what
motivates the inmate to groom and cap-
ture his target.
The Relationship Between the
“Keeper” and the “Kept”
Allen and Bosta (1981) contend
that most inmates want only to do
their time and secretly yearn to follow
institutional rules: “Prisoners have no
respect for staff members they can
lower to their own level of behavior.
They do maintain great respect for
Sometimes a manipulator is just after a
simple creature comfort, like candy or a
cigarette. But some manipulators suffer from
dangerous personality disorders.
people who, regardless of pressure,
can continue to provide a high level of
dignity and professionalism—people
they can emulate” (Allen & Bosta,
1981, p. 12).
Most prisoners feel uncomfortable
around correctional officers who disre-
gard institutional rules. In fact, it is not
unusual for older inmates to discourage
younger prisoners from establishing
inappropriate relationships with employ-
ees. Inmates crave structure and orderli-
ness, and a staff member who behaves
unprofessionally—for example, one
having sex with inmates or smuggling
drugs or weapons into the facility—com-
promises the security of the institution
and creates risks for compliant inmates
as well as staff.
Inmates are particularly observant of
their environments, and if they believe
that an employee is placing them in a
precarious situation, they often become
leery and nervous (Cornelius, 2001;
Cheeseman, 2006). As the situation
© 2012 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
CMR 1704.indd 56
spins out of control, inmates may begin
to take measures to protect themselves.
For instance, they may become “battle
ready” by wearing two or three sets
of clothing in order to prevent a pos-
sible injury (Elliot & Verdeyen, 2002),
or they may remain awake at night
because they are afraid that a riot or
serious incident is imminent (Corne-
lius, 2001). Inmates may also avoid
participating in programs or recre-
ational activities if they perceive that
a deviant staff member is placing them
in harm’s way.
Most prisoners want to have full
access to the amenities and creature
comforts that the administration has
provided them. Understandably, they
become disgruntled when they feel
compelled to avoid activities that they
find enjoyable. This is especially true if
their fear is due to a naïve staff mem-
ber who is incapable of establishing a
certain level of professional distance
from other offenders. For this reason,
many offenders freely provide infor-
mation to the administration when-
ever they notice a staff member acting
overly familiar with an inmate (Allen &
Bosta, 1981). Still, even though both
staff members and offenders have a
stake in maintaining a safe environment,
there will be those inmates who initiate
inappropriate relationships and encour-
age staff members to cross the line.
The Underground Prison
Economy
One of the most common reasons
offenders manipulate staff members is to
obtain items that they are unable to get
through the commissary. These items
may not even pose a huge threat to secu-
rity, but they are simply unavailable.
In a recent study (Worley & Cheese-
man, 2005), prisoner manipulators were
asked what inmates have to gain from
establishing inappropriate relationships.
December/January 2012
Surprisingly, one of the most common
responses that the manipulators gave was
food. Incarcerated offenders crave food
from the outside world. One respondent
stated that he was more concerned with
obtaining free-world food products than
more dangerous items, such as weapons,
cell phones, or drugs.
In addition to food items, cigarettes
have also become one of the most highly
coveted items in correctional facilities.
According to some researchers, the recent
anti-tobacco policies of many prison
agencies have contributed to correctional
officer deviance (Silverman, 2001; Lan-
kenau, 2001; Elliot & Verdeyen, 2002).
Some employees may see nothing wrong
with smuggling in tobacco, because it is
not a mind-altering substance and has
only recently become restricted (Silver-
man, 2001):
Since the ban in Texas, tobacco has
become the number one contraband
item. Moreover, many C.O.’s and
other staff members are smokers,
and some do not feel that bring-
ing tobacco in is “really a viola-
tion,” because they disagree with
the ban. For some, throwing a carton
of cigarettes over the wall to make
an extra $100 is more of a game
than a law violation. It presents staff
with an easy way to supplement
their income without really feeling
guilty or that they are violating the
law. (p. 240)
Inmates may see an enormous oppor-
tunity to conspire with prison staff
members in order to provide a much
needed commodity to the prison popu-
lation. Vermont, the first state to outlaw
smoking, had to lift its ban after offend-
ers began soliciting staff members and
even having sex with other inmates
for cigarettes (Blood, 1996; Silver-
man, 2001). In a qualitative study con-
ducted by Lankenau (2001), one inmate
respondent convicted for a drug offense
stated, “I would’ve never messed with
coke on the street if I knew how much
money I could’ve made selling ciga-
rettes here in the joint” (p. 159).
Some inmates are motivated by finan-
cial considerations to manipulate correc-
tional employees. Some inmates may be
heavily addicted to nicotine and need to
establish relationships with employees
See MANIPULATORS, page 59
1/5/2012 10:36:25 AM
 December/January 2012
MANIPULATORS, from page 56
to obtain tobacco products. In one study,
a prisoner manipulator who was a self-
proclaimed chain smoker claimed to have
established an inappropriate relationship
in order to obtain cigarettes.
When I first got here all I wanted
to do was do my time and be left
alone. But when this place did away
with smoking, I said bullshit on this
I’m gonna make me some money.
So I hooked up with some ole ugly
ass boss lady and I told her how
great she looked and how she need-
ed a strong dude like me to be her
partner. Shit, she fell for that real
fast. Next thing you know I got her
bringing in cigarettes by the carton.
I was making good money and liv-
ing good. Hell you give ’em a line
of B.S. and you got ’em hooked. We
eventually got busted. Ha, she told
me how she loved me. I told her you
a fool who was a mule. (Worley et
al., 2003, p. 185)
Convict Romeos
While many prisoner manipulators
aggressively forge relationships with
employees to make illicit profits in the
underground prison economy, there are
also those inmates who are motivated
by “matters-of-the-heart.” It is debat-
able as to whether or not these offend-
ers’ affections are genuine or concocted.
In some cases, offenders who success-
fully establish romantic relationships
with staff members actually marry these
individuals following their termination
or resignation from the agency. Worley
and Cheeseman (2005) identified five
cases in which male prisoner manipula-
tors married female staff members. In
three of these cases, the respondents
admitted to having sexual relationships
with the employees during their incar-
ceration. One respondent stated: “She
was a manager, so she had keys. We
would get our ‘groove on’ in a room
with a door that locked. We had lots of
privacy, and we kept this a secret from
everybody. I didn’t tell nobody, not
even my main homeboy who shared a
cell with me” (Worley & Cheeseman,
2005, p. 22).
Although it may seem an obvious
admission of failure to perform one’s
© 2012 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
CMR 1704.indd 59
Corrections Managers’ Report
duties in a professional manner for ex-
prison employees to marry the very
inmates that they were once paid to super-
vise, the Supreme Court has held that all
prisoners have a constitutional right to
marriage (Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
(1987)). Since the Turner ruling, mar-
riage behind bars has been occurring in
correctional facilities everywhere. Inter-
estingly, a number of high-profile serial
killers, sexual sadists, and death-row
inmates have managed to marry while
incarcerated.
Hell-Raisers
Some offenders feel compelled to
engage in a unique kind of psycho-
logical warfare (Worley et al., 2003).
These rebels with a cause establish
inappropriate relationships with staff
members in order to create havoc
and chaos. Even though these prison-
ers may derive certain benefits from
manipulating staff members, their
“I would’ve never messed with coke on the street
if I knew how much money I could’ve made
selling cigarettes here in the joint.”
main goal is to disrupt the stability
and order of the institution. In a recent
study, researchers identified eight
hell-raisers, and most of these offend-
ers claimed they enjoyed the notoriety
that followed after their relationship
was exposed (Worley et al., 2003).
Hell-raisers are especially likely to
target non-security staff members. In
some cases, these manipulators have
successfully established inappropri-
ate relationships with high-ranking
civilian employees. One inmate in
the study even claimed to have had a
sexual relationship with a correctional
administrator’s wife.
Malignant Narcissists
According to Pollock (1995), soci-
ety’s most violent criminals tend to
exhibit extreme forms of narcissistic
personality disorders. Research has
also shown that many serial killers
have delusions of grandeur. Many of
these notorious killers were extremely
manipulative in the outside world and
not surprisingly proved to be very
Page 59
manipulative as inmates (Hickey,
2006). It is not at all uncommon for
serial murderers to establish outside
relationships during their incarceration.
Some serial murderers get married and
have fan clubs. Notorious killers such
as John Wayne Gacy, the Menendez
Brothers, Richard Ramirez, Karla Faye
Tucker, and Ted Bundy have managed
to find admirers while incarcerated
(Worley & Cheeseman, 2005; Hickey,
2006).
While scholars such as Money (1989)
have argued that individuals who marry
these criminals usually have sexual
paraphilias or suffer from mental ill-
nesses, it is the offender who is respon-
sible for identifying vulnerable victims
and exploiting them. In this respect,
even the most notorious inmates who
have little to no outside contact are able
to be manipulative by using postal or
e-mail to engage in, or establish, outside
relationships. The Internet is one of the
latest tools prisoner manipulators are
utilizing in order to extort victims and
there are a variety of websites that allow
inmates to prey on lonely and naïve
individuals.
How to Stop Manipulators
Clearly, manipulators pose enor-
mous problems for correctional admin-
istrators. Fighting against the dangers
of manipulative inmates is a battle that
is never finished and never completely
won: every newly admitted inmate and
every newly hired employee has the
potential to hit the “restart” button, and
the game begins again. Three elements
are key to successfully thwarting the
manipulative inmate: 1) A clear and
fully articulated policy that spells out
both expected and prohibited behav-
iors for inmates and staff alike, estab-
lishes procedures and punishments
when infractions occur, and is fully
supported by management; 2) Regular
See MANIPULATORS, next page
1/5/2012 10:36:25 AM
 Page 60 Corrections Managers’ Report
MANIPULATORS, from page 59
and repeated staff training, especially
for new employees but with refreshers
for all staff; 3) Follow-up and “exit”
interviews and incident reports when-
ever a serious violation occurs, espe-
cially one that results in a termination
of employment—lessons learned that
should be incorporated into your train-
ing. Training is essential, and it is par-
ticularly important for new employees
to receive specialized training in deal-
ing with prisoner manipulators. This
is consistent with the findings of Mar-
quart et al. (2001), who argue that cor-
rectional employees are the most likely
to be manipulated during their first
12 months of employment. Because
manipulators target both security and
non-security employees, every staff
Correctional employees are most likely
to be manipulated during their first
12 months of employment.
member who works in close proximity
with inmates should be given training
(Worley et al., 2003).
The most effective training makes
use of actual case studies and, unfor-
tunately, virtually every facility has
examples to draw on. Naturally, the
administrator must ensure that trainers
protect the privacy of former staff mem-
bers during these sessions. This is espe-
cially true if the disgraced employee is
facing either a civil or a criminal trial
as a result of his or her involvement
with an inmate. Instructors must not
disclose any names or other identifying
information during training sessions,
as such disclosures may compromise
an ongoing investigation or even result
in a defamation lawsuit by a terminated
employee.
It is also a good practice to inter-
view former staff members who have
become personally involved with an
inmate. Such exit interviews can give
invaluable insights into manipulators.
If a disgraced staff member explains
the events, behaviors, and cues used by
the manipulator in the “setup,” other
employees can be alert to warning signs.
© 2012 Civic Research Institute. Photocopying or other reproduction without written permission is expressly prohibited and is a violation of copyright.
CMR 1704.indd 60
Exit interviews should be voluntary, and
administrators should get the employ-
ee’s written consent before the inter-
view takes place. When an interview is
conducted with a terminated employee,
it should be explained that any informa-
tion collected may be used for training
purposes. An exit interview should not
be used to build a criminal case against
a former employee.
While training is essential, it has to
be backed up by a serious commitment
on the part of administrators to firmly
discipline manipulators. Being proac-
tive in punishing offenders who solicit
staff members or are caught engaging in
inappropriate behaviors is essential, but
it is often very difficult. The very attri-
butes that make a manipulator successful
in wresting control from staff members
will also make it difficult for officers
and managers to confront the inmate
with concrete evidence: manipulators
are slippery. Officers have to know they
will be supported by management. Your
facility should have a clear policy about
what constitutes manipulation and what
the consequences are for inmates who
attempt it. Many agencies treat manip-
ulative behavior as a minor offense,
equivalent to infractions like failure to
adhere to grooming standards or sleep-
ing during work. This is a mistake. For
an anti-manipulation policy to have a
deterrent effect, the risk of institutional
punishment must be meaningful.
References
Allen, B., & Bosta, D. (1981). Games criminals
play. Susanville, CA: Rae John.
Blood, M. (1996, February 26). Rikers is joining
ranks of smoke free prisons. The StarLedger,
p. 037.
Cheeseman, K. (2006). Correctional staff and
management. In J. Pollock (Ed.) Prisons: Today and
tomorrow (pp. 197–225). Sudbury, MA: Jones &
Bartlett.
Cheeseman Dial, K., & Worley, R. (2008). Crossing
the line: A quantitative analysis of inmate boundary
violators in a southern prison system. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 69–84.
December/January 2012
Cornelius, G. (2001). The art of the con: Avoiding
offender manipulation. Lanham, MD: American
Correctional Association.
Elliot, B., & Verdeyen, V. (2002). Game over: Strat-
egies for redirecting inmate deception. Lanham,
MD: American Correctional Association.
Hickey, E. (2006). Serial murderers and their victims
(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Irwin, J. (2005). The warehouse prison: Disposal
of the new dangerous class. Los Angeles: Roxbury
Publishing.
Lankenau, S. E. (2001). Smoke ’em if you got’ em:
Cigarette black markets in U.S. prisons and jails.
Prison Journal, 81(2), 142–161.
Marquart, J. W., Barnhill, M. B., & Balshaw-
Biddle, K. (2001). Fatal attraction: An analysis
of employee boundary violations in a southern
prison system, 1995–1998. Justice Quarterly,
18, 878–910.
Money, J. (1989). Lovemaps: Clinical conceptions
of sexual/erotic health and pathology. Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books.
Pollock, P. H. (1995). A case of spree serial murder
with suggested diagnostic opinions. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 39(3).
Silverman, I. J. (2001). Corrections: A comprehen-
sive view. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Worley, R. M., & Cheeseman, K. A. (2005). The
turning of the screw: Correctional employees,
inmates, and marriage in a southern penitentiary
system. Crime & Justice International, 21(88),
19–22.
Worley, R. M., & Cheeseman, K. A. (2006).
Guards as embezzlers: The consequences of “non-
share-able” problems in prison settings. Deviant
Behavior, 27(2), 203–222.
Worley, R. M., Marquart, J. W., & Mullings, J.
L. (2003). Prison guard predators: An analysis of
inmates who established inappropriate relationships
with prison staff, 1995–1998. Deviant Behavior,
24(2), 175–198.
Robert M. Worley, Ph.D., is an assistant profes-
sor of criminology at Penn State Altoona, where
his research interests include inmate-guard
inappropriate relationships, sexual offend-
ing, prison gangs, white-collar crimes, and
legal issues in criminal justice. This article
is adapted from his chapter, “Managing
Prisoner Manipulation in Correctional Set-
tings,” in Managing Special Populations in Jails
and Prison, Volume II edited by Stan Stojkovic,
© 2010 Civic Research Institute, where read-
ers interested in a more extensive treatment of
manipulation will find coverage of some notorious
cases of manipulation of both staff and outside
victims, hybrostophilia (or love of criminals), and
manipulators and the internet. Before entering
academia, the author served as a correctional
officer with the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. Q
1/5/2012 10:36:25 AM
Copyright of Corrections Managers' Report is the property of Civic Research Institute 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.

View publication stats