Psychological Reports, 1990, 67, 755-761.
@ Psychological Reports 1990
SIX PROBLEMS OF A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT' RUSSELL EISENMAN McNeese Staft University Summary.-Based on close to two years as Senior Clinical Psychologist in a prison treatment program, the author presents six problems which he faced. These issues would likely characterize most prisons. They are authoritarianism, immediate supervisor, hostile environment, limited rewards, security vs treatment, and physical danger. Among the many examples is the case in which a supervisor ordered the psychologist to change his test report, thereby demanding unethical behavior.
For close to two years I worked in California as Senior Clinical Psychologist in a prison treatment program for youthful offenders. Coming from an academic background, I was something of an outsider and so had a somewhat open view of what went on. This is my personal account of six problems which I observed or experienced while working in this prison setting. These problems are very serious and would keep me from worlung in a prison again. These problems have existed for a long time in prisons, and are often seen as barriers to effective treatment (Cressey, 1960; Harnm & Schrink, 1989; Murton, 1976). Perhaps they would not seem so bad to someone else, but some of them are definitely problems which need to be faced by all those involved with prison work as they make a prison less effective than it could be. Running a prison is a very difficult task. I realize that people in positions of power in prisons have to deal with violent, antisocial inmates who often plot escapes or assaults, so I have some sympathy for the difficult tasks prison administrators face. Nevertheless, there are problems which need to be faced honestly and openly.
I . Authoritarian Setting One of the most striking differences in the prison setting compared to many other settings, especially academic institutions, is the authoritarian nature of the prison. In a more democratic setting there is room for debate about how things are done. In a more authoritarian setting there is supposed to be blind or nearly blind obedience to orders. For example, a school teacher who taught in another prison setting in California objected to his superiors about how the school was being run. H e told them "This is not a valid educational procedure." I n response he said, "They made it clear that 'I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped me improve this article. Also, thanks is expressed to Norman Skonovd who provided me with information abouc recidivism. Address requests for reprints to Russell Eisenman, Department of Psychology, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA 70609.
756
R. EISENMAN
they don't want any criticism, and when they say 'jump' they want me to say 'How high, sir?'." An example of the authoritarian nature of the prison where I worked is explained below under "Immediate Supervisor." 2. Immediate Supervisor
I n academia and other settings an employee may have considerable autonomy. While there may technically be someone who could be called an immediate supervisor, for the most part the professional is allowed to carry out tasks as he deems appropriate. Of course, university politics can be vicious, but there is usually not as direct control exerted as there is in prisons, police organizations, or the military, which are typically structured in a more authoritarian manner. To some extent my position in the prison allowed some independence, but to a large extent I was subject to the rule of an immediate supervisor. My immediate supervisor was the Program Administrator of the treatment program. Although he had only a B.A. in business and little or no advanced training in mental health issues, he often ran the program with an iron hand. One colleague referred to him as "a dictator." H e had much prison experience w h c h probably justified, in his mind, his telling professional clinical psychologists and social workers what to do. Here is a built-in conflict. The professional is apt to resent a person who, without their training, criticizes their reports or tells them how to do clinical work. O n e of the most striking problems I encountered with him concerned an 18-yr.-old youth on my individual therapy caseload who was both in need of treatment and a troublemaker in the prison. This young man basically had been abandoned all his life, being taken care of by a succession of relatives or foster parents, many or most of whom did not really care about him. I n fact, an uncle had raped him. The youth, whom I shall call Roy, was seething with anger and had a list of 56 people whom he said he intended to lull once he got out of prison. H e also said he wanted to go to shopping m d s and use an Uzi machine gun and kill people as soon as he was released. H e felt he probably would be killed in the assault, but that was alright with him. Also, he was a potential rapist and threatened to rape two of the female staff. My supervisor considered Roy someone who was a big pain in the neck and who did not respond to treatment. I felt that Roy needed long-term therapy for his problems and would show little or no effect of short-term treatment. I had a good therapeutic relationship with Roy and was willing to work with him in long-term therapy. My supervisor seemed fairly ignorant of the need for long-term treatment. H e expected quick results. H e wanted to transfer Roy to a tougher prison setting where he would receive little or no treatment. I n part, my supervisor may have judged Roy too dangerous to put up with in our setting. I was strongly opposed to the transfer.
PROBLEMS OF A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST
757
The supervisor asked me to complete psychological testing on Roy and prepare a report to be taken to the parole board, which would have, in effect, final say on his transfer. When I completed the testing, I found that Roy had paranoid tendencies or was possibly a paranoid schizophrenic. My supervisor was very unhappy with this report. H e made it clear that such a report would not support transfer out of our treatment program, and he ordered me to rewrite the report in a way which would support transfer. "We are paying your salary, so you should write what we want" I was told. I n effect he was asking me to lie to support an administrative decision, which I considered to be unethical. I was in a quandry. I did not want to write a dishonest report, yet I knew that my supervisor would accept nothing else. I attempted a compromise, wherein I rewrote the report with a different emphasis, but still kept in the data about paranoia and potential homicide. My supervisor was furious and told me that I had done an inadequate job. Subsequently, Roy became one of the first, if not the first, prisoners sent to the parole board without a psychological report. My supervisor simply withheld my report and succeeded in having Roy transferred to the tougher, essentially nontreatment facility. I feared that, without treatment, Roy would engage in his homicidal or rape tendencies once he got out.
3. Hostile Environment The prison setting is often an hostile one. Prisoners are oriented toward violence and macho posturing. The threat of fighting is often in the air. The guards, too, may have a similar t ~ u ~ h stance, - ~ u ~so this environment is far different from, say, a university setting. The unpleasant environment is further exacerbated by the overwhelming depression that may characterize the prisoners, who are leading restricted lives and whose faces, posture, and general behavior may indicate depression. A prison may expose one to a constant environment of aggression and depression-not exactly the most pleasant situation in which to live or work.
4. Limited Rewards The prison setting offered few rewards. Although the pay was good, I found that things like words of encouragement or general good feelings were seldom present. I n part, this is no doubt related to working in a place where people have to be on guard continuously against the possibility of escape or assault. Also, part of it may be associated with the fact that most of the staff are very different in training and background from the Ph.D. psychologists or MSW social workers. Most staff are from lower-class socioeconomic backgrounds and are primarily security-oriented in their work. Their jobs entail enforcing rules and looking out for antisocial behavior from the prisoners, etc., so there is little room for relaxation.
758
R. EISENMAN
At another level, my once optimistic hopes about reforming the prisoners soon dulled. Most of them are committed to lives of crime and have few skills for "going straight" even were they so inclined. Rehabilitation of offenders is difficult (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990; Benda, 1989; Brodsky, 1982, 1988; Cressey, 1959, 1960; Eisenman, in press; McShane & Williams, 1989; Palmer & Wedge, 1989; Sechrest, White, & Brown, 1979). Research on recidivism shows rates are extremely high, especially if the data are gathered over several years. Data on recidivism gathered after, say six months, wdl present a much more optimistic picture, as well as a misleading one. For the treatment programs, such as the one in which I was working, staff told me the state of California had data showing a recidivism rate of 85% The most reasonable expectation was that most of our caseload would eventually be arrested again. Incidentally, another implication of the 85% recidivism rate for treatment programs was that it was harder to help those youthful offenders assigned to treatment programs than those deemed not in need of treatment. The idea was that not only were our prisoners criminals, but emotionally disturbed as well. The implication was that the nontreatment programs would have a lower recidivism rate. I was never able to find data from the state showing the treatment programs having either an 85% recidivism rate or a higher recidivism rate than their nontreatment programs. Perhaps the concepts are accurate but the data are not readily available. Perhaps the treatment programs d o not have a worse recidivism rate than the nontreatment programs. I did find that for the entire prison system of youthful offenders in Cahfornia the rearrest rate after three years is 84% (Baud & Skonovd, 1988). If recidivism is defined as convictions instead of arrests, the figure drops from 84% to 69% (Baud & Skonovd, 1988). I t appears there will be more failures than successes. One way to deal with this is to be thankful for the few successes and not expect most of one's caseload to reform. The protection of society is greatly aided if 15% of rhe prisoners stop robbing or assaulting people. But, it would be difficult for me to feel happy with a large failure rate. The typical youthful offender with whom I worked had been subjected to physical, psychological, or sexual abuse as a child, had a long criminal history, and had no empathy for victims. While my heart went out to them for the horrible lives they had, the fact that they hurt others without remorse and were basically committed to antisocial careers diminished my joy in working with them. To work in a prison setting, one must be content with a very small success rate. j.Security us
Treatment
Anyone who has tried to provide treatment in a prison setting usually runs up against the problem of the strong security orientation and how it takes precedence over treatment. This is so even when there is really no con-
PROBLEMS OF A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST
759
flict. Treatment needs will often be subordinated or defeated to fit perceived security needs. Since people can lose jobs over escapes or assaults, there is a constant paranoid-like attitude. One example: I had to test a prisoner who had been on my therapy caseload and with whom I got along very well, to see if he was psychotic and should stay in our treatment program. When I presented my request to the woman who was Senior Youth Counselor (in essence, chief guard), she said that I could only test him if he were handcuffed, in leg irons, and three guards were standing there over us. Further, d this had to take place in the day room, a very public place with lots of comings and goings by prisoners and staff. This hardly would make for a suitable testing atmosphere, but it indicates how she viewed the situation. To her the number one issue was security, and since this prisoner had previously attacked a guard, he was never to be trusted again under any circumstances. The fact that the prisoner and I got along well was dismissed as naive thinking on my part. I n fact, later her decision was overruled and I tested the young man without incident. As he was a paranoid schizophrenic, he remained in our treatment program. The prison psychiatrist tried several different antipsychotic medications and finally found one which seemed to eliminate the psychotic thinking. Subsequently, he was paroled from the program.
6. Physica I Danger
I have left until last the issue of physical danger. Many people probably think of this as the number one concern as far as working in a prison is concerned. I believe that prisons are dangerous, but much less dangerous than most people think. I n other words, it is not a simple issue. Because there are great precautions taken for security, there is less opportunity for assaults from prisoners than the average person believes. Also, much of the hostility which prisoners have is often expressed against each other. Finally, the upper level professional treatment staff may be the safest of all the staff, in that prisoners see such people as trying to help them and express fewer hostilities toward this group than toward guards. The guards have the job of getting immediate conformity from the prisoners, which often leads to confict and, on occasion, assaults by the prisoners. But, the therapists are seeking over-all change, which does not usually involve an immediate demand, and so is less threatening to the prisoner. Even more immediate demands are ones which the prisoner can sabotage without confronting the professionals directly, e.g., the prisoner may not be more friendly to others as he was urged, but he can defy such a recommendation without a direct confrontation. When a guard says "Go to your room," there is either direct conformity or direct confrontation. Bad things d o happen. I heard about a teacher who was lulled in a sister institution. She had apparently returned to the classroom area when most
760
R. EISENMAN
people did not know she was there. Also, a guard in another institution was lulled during an escape attempt by inmates. The injuries he received from the prisoners were so severe he died in the hospital. At my own fachty, my predecessor was punched in the face while standing in the very office I occupied. One or more psychologists were taken hostage in the Cuban detainees' uprising at the Atlanta federal penitentiary.
Conclusion The above six areas identify issues I faced while working as a psychologist in a prison and which one might expect to face should one seek employment in a prison setting. If people already working in prisons can be more cognizant of these issues, the prison might be made a better place. While some of the above-mentioned issues might be difficult, e.g., where to draw the line in security vs treatment, others are more clear-cut. Psychologists should never be asked to alter the data from tests to support an administrative decision. Prisons are typically set up for the protection of society, including the safety of the staff and prisoners. Treatment is desirable, but often flies in the face of the basic nature of the prison, so confhcts can arise. Many prisoners have no concept of controlling their lives. They seem to see life as a series of random events to which they react, often in aggressive ways In treatment one needs to convince them that self-control is possible and that violence is not the answer. I n addition, it would be valuable to have job training and postprison assistance in finding work and in moving out of their original neighborhood, which is often one of gangs, crime, etc. Effective group homes are needed. People often have a negative stereotyped view of prisons. To some extent some of the stereotypes may be correct, but improvements could be made if we addressed the problems which occur in prisons. REFERENCES ANDREWS,D. A , , ZINGER, I., HOGE,R. D., BONTA,J., GENDREAU, P., & CULLEN,F. T. (1990) Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologicaUy informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. & SKONOVD, N. (1988) Development of risk prediction scales for the California Yorrthful Offender Parole Board: based on an assessment of 1981-82 releases. Sacramento, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency/California Youth Authority. BENDA, B. B. (1989) Predicting return to prison among adolescent males: a comparison of three statistics. Journal of Criminal Jrrstice, 17, 487-500. BKODSKY,S. L. (1982) The prisoner as agent of attitude change: a study of prison rofiles' effects. In Scared straight! And rhe panacea phenomenon. Englewood C ~ S N, J : Prentice-Hall. Pp. 56-59. BRODSKY, S. L. (1988) Fear of Litigation in mental health professionals. Criminal Jrrstice and Behavior, 15, 492-500. CRESSEY,D. R. (1959) Contradictory directives in complex organizations: the case of the prison. Administrative Science Qrmrterly, 4, 1-9. CRESSEY, D. R. (1960) Limitations on organization of treatment in the modern prison. I n R. A . Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G . H. Grasser, R. McCleery, L. E. Ohlin, G . M. Sykes, &
BAIRD, C.,
PROBLEMS O F A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST
761
S. L. Messinger (Eds.), Theoretical studies in social organization of the prison. New York: Social Science Research Council. Pp. 78-110. EISENMAN, R. (in press) College student volunteers in a prison. College Student Journal. HAMM,M. S., & SCHRINK, J. L. (1989) The conditions of effective implementation: a guide to accomplishing rehabilitative objectives in corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 166-182. MCSHANE, M. D., & WILLIAMS,F. P.111. (1989) Running on empty: creativity and the correctional agenda. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 562-576. MURTON,T. 0 . (1976) The dilemma of prison reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. PALMER, T., & WEDGE,R. (1989) California's juvenile probation camps: findings and implications. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 234-253. SECI-IREST, L., WHITE, S., & BROWN, E. (Eds.) (1979) The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: problems and prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Accepted September 21, 1990.
@ Psychological Reports 1990
SIX PROBLEMS OF A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT' RUSSELL EISENMAN McNeese Staft University Summary.-Based on close to two years as Senior Clinical Psychologist in a prison treatment program, the author presents six problems which he faced. These issues would likely characterize most prisons. They are authoritarianism, immediate supervisor, hostile environment, limited rewards, security vs treatment, and physical danger. Among the many examples is the case in which a supervisor ordered the psychologist to change his test report, thereby demanding unethical behavior.
For close to two years I worked in California as Senior Clinical Psychologist in a prison treatment program for youthful offenders. Coming from an academic background, I was something of an outsider and so had a somewhat open view of what went on. This is my personal account of six problems which I observed or experienced while working in this prison setting. These problems are very serious and would keep me from worlung in a prison again. These problems have existed for a long time in prisons, and are often seen as barriers to effective treatment (Cressey, 1960; Harnm & Schrink, 1989; Murton, 1976). Perhaps they would not seem so bad to someone else, but some of them are definitely problems which need to be faced by all those involved with prison work as they make a prison less effective than it could be. Running a prison is a very difficult task. I realize that people in positions of power in prisons have to deal with violent, antisocial inmates who often plot escapes or assaults, so I have some sympathy for the difficult tasks prison administrators face. Nevertheless, there are problems which need to be faced honestly and openly.
I . Authoritarian Setting One of the most striking differences in the prison setting compared to many other settings, especially academic institutions, is the authoritarian nature of the prison. In a more democratic setting there is room for debate about how things are done. In a more authoritarian setting there is supposed to be blind or nearly blind obedience to orders. For example, a school teacher who taught in another prison setting in California objected to his superiors about how the school was being run. H e told them "This is not a valid educational procedure." I n response he said, "They made it clear that 'I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose comments helped me improve this article. Also, thanks is expressed to Norman Skonovd who provided me with information abouc recidivism. Address requests for reprints to Russell Eisenman, Department of Psychology, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA 70609.
756
R. EISENMAN
they don't want any criticism, and when they say 'jump' they want me to say 'How high, sir?'." An example of the authoritarian nature of the prison where I worked is explained below under "Immediate Supervisor." 2. Immediate Supervisor
I n academia and other settings an employee may have considerable autonomy. While there may technically be someone who could be called an immediate supervisor, for the most part the professional is allowed to carry out tasks as he deems appropriate. Of course, university politics can be vicious, but there is usually not as direct control exerted as there is in prisons, police organizations, or the military, which are typically structured in a more authoritarian manner. To some extent my position in the prison allowed some independence, but to a large extent I was subject to the rule of an immediate supervisor. My immediate supervisor was the Program Administrator of the treatment program. Although he had only a B.A. in business and little or no advanced training in mental health issues, he often ran the program with an iron hand. One colleague referred to him as "a dictator." H e had much prison experience w h c h probably justified, in his mind, his telling professional clinical psychologists and social workers what to do. Here is a built-in conflict. The professional is apt to resent a person who, without their training, criticizes their reports or tells them how to do clinical work. O n e of the most striking problems I encountered with him concerned an 18-yr.-old youth on my individual therapy caseload who was both in need of treatment and a troublemaker in the prison. This young man basically had been abandoned all his life, being taken care of by a succession of relatives or foster parents, many or most of whom did not really care about him. I n fact, an uncle had raped him. The youth, whom I shall call Roy, was seething with anger and had a list of 56 people whom he said he intended to lull once he got out of prison. H e also said he wanted to go to shopping m d s and use an Uzi machine gun and kill people as soon as he was released. H e felt he probably would be killed in the assault, but that was alright with him. Also, he was a potential rapist and threatened to rape two of the female staff. My supervisor considered Roy someone who was a big pain in the neck and who did not respond to treatment. I felt that Roy needed long-term therapy for his problems and would show little or no effect of short-term treatment. I had a good therapeutic relationship with Roy and was willing to work with him in long-term therapy. My supervisor seemed fairly ignorant of the need for long-term treatment. H e expected quick results. H e wanted to transfer Roy to a tougher prison setting where he would receive little or no treatment. I n part, my supervisor may have judged Roy too dangerous to put up with in our setting. I was strongly opposed to the transfer.
PROBLEMS OF A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST
757
The supervisor asked me to complete psychological testing on Roy and prepare a report to be taken to the parole board, which would have, in effect, final say on his transfer. When I completed the testing, I found that Roy had paranoid tendencies or was possibly a paranoid schizophrenic. My supervisor was very unhappy with this report. H e made it clear that such a report would not support transfer out of our treatment program, and he ordered me to rewrite the report in a way which would support transfer. "We are paying your salary, so you should write what we want" I was told. I n effect he was asking me to lie to support an administrative decision, which I considered to be unethical. I was in a quandry. I did not want to write a dishonest report, yet I knew that my supervisor would accept nothing else. I attempted a compromise, wherein I rewrote the report with a different emphasis, but still kept in the data about paranoia and potential homicide. My supervisor was furious and told me that I had done an inadequate job. Subsequently, Roy became one of the first, if not the first, prisoners sent to the parole board without a psychological report. My supervisor simply withheld my report and succeeded in having Roy transferred to the tougher, essentially nontreatment facility. I feared that, without treatment, Roy would engage in his homicidal or rape tendencies once he got out.
3. Hostile Environment The prison setting is often an hostile one. Prisoners are oriented toward violence and macho posturing. The threat of fighting is often in the air. The guards, too, may have a similar t ~ u ~ h stance, - ~ u ~so this environment is far different from, say, a university setting. The unpleasant environment is further exacerbated by the overwhelming depression that may characterize the prisoners, who are leading restricted lives and whose faces, posture, and general behavior may indicate depression. A prison may expose one to a constant environment of aggression and depression-not exactly the most pleasant situation in which to live or work.
4. Limited Rewards The prison setting offered few rewards. Although the pay was good, I found that things like words of encouragement or general good feelings were seldom present. I n part, this is no doubt related to working in a place where people have to be on guard continuously against the possibility of escape or assault. Also, part of it may be associated with the fact that most of the staff are very different in training and background from the Ph.D. psychologists or MSW social workers. Most staff are from lower-class socioeconomic backgrounds and are primarily security-oriented in their work. Their jobs entail enforcing rules and looking out for antisocial behavior from the prisoners, etc., so there is little room for relaxation.
758
R. EISENMAN
At another level, my once optimistic hopes about reforming the prisoners soon dulled. Most of them are committed to lives of crime and have few skills for "going straight" even were they so inclined. Rehabilitation of offenders is difficult (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990; Benda, 1989; Brodsky, 1982, 1988; Cressey, 1959, 1960; Eisenman, in press; McShane & Williams, 1989; Palmer & Wedge, 1989; Sechrest, White, & Brown, 1979). Research on recidivism shows rates are extremely high, especially if the data are gathered over several years. Data on recidivism gathered after, say six months, wdl present a much more optimistic picture, as well as a misleading one. For the treatment programs, such as the one in which I was working, staff told me the state of California had data showing a recidivism rate of 85% The most reasonable expectation was that most of our caseload would eventually be arrested again. Incidentally, another implication of the 85% recidivism rate for treatment programs was that it was harder to help those youthful offenders assigned to treatment programs than those deemed not in need of treatment. The idea was that not only were our prisoners criminals, but emotionally disturbed as well. The implication was that the nontreatment programs would have a lower recidivism rate. I was never able to find data from the state showing the treatment programs having either an 85% recidivism rate or a higher recidivism rate than their nontreatment programs. Perhaps the concepts are accurate but the data are not readily available. Perhaps the treatment programs d o not have a worse recidivism rate than the nontreatment programs. I did find that for the entire prison system of youthful offenders in Cahfornia the rearrest rate after three years is 84% (Baud & Skonovd, 1988). If recidivism is defined as convictions instead of arrests, the figure drops from 84% to 69% (Baud & Skonovd, 1988). I t appears there will be more failures than successes. One way to deal with this is to be thankful for the few successes and not expect most of one's caseload to reform. The protection of society is greatly aided if 15% of rhe prisoners stop robbing or assaulting people. But, it would be difficult for me to feel happy with a large failure rate. The typical youthful offender with whom I worked had been subjected to physical, psychological, or sexual abuse as a child, had a long criminal history, and had no empathy for victims. While my heart went out to them for the horrible lives they had, the fact that they hurt others without remorse and were basically committed to antisocial careers diminished my joy in working with them. To work in a prison setting, one must be content with a very small success rate. j.Security us
Treatment
Anyone who has tried to provide treatment in a prison setting usually runs up against the problem of the strong security orientation and how it takes precedence over treatment. This is so even when there is really no con-
PROBLEMS OF A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST
759
flict. Treatment needs will often be subordinated or defeated to fit perceived security needs. Since people can lose jobs over escapes or assaults, there is a constant paranoid-like attitude. One example: I had to test a prisoner who had been on my therapy caseload and with whom I got along very well, to see if he was psychotic and should stay in our treatment program. When I presented my request to the woman who was Senior Youth Counselor (in essence, chief guard), she said that I could only test him if he were handcuffed, in leg irons, and three guards were standing there over us. Further, d this had to take place in the day room, a very public place with lots of comings and goings by prisoners and staff. This hardly would make for a suitable testing atmosphere, but it indicates how she viewed the situation. To her the number one issue was security, and since this prisoner had previously attacked a guard, he was never to be trusted again under any circumstances. The fact that the prisoner and I got along well was dismissed as naive thinking on my part. I n fact, later her decision was overruled and I tested the young man without incident. As he was a paranoid schizophrenic, he remained in our treatment program. The prison psychiatrist tried several different antipsychotic medications and finally found one which seemed to eliminate the psychotic thinking. Subsequently, he was paroled from the program.
6. Physica I Danger
I have left until last the issue of physical danger. Many people probably think of this as the number one concern as far as working in a prison is concerned. I believe that prisons are dangerous, but much less dangerous than most people think. I n other words, it is not a simple issue. Because there are great precautions taken for security, there is less opportunity for assaults from prisoners than the average person believes. Also, much of the hostility which prisoners have is often expressed against each other. Finally, the upper level professional treatment staff may be the safest of all the staff, in that prisoners see such people as trying to help them and express fewer hostilities toward this group than toward guards. The guards have the job of getting immediate conformity from the prisoners, which often leads to confict and, on occasion, assaults by the prisoners. But, the therapists are seeking over-all change, which does not usually involve an immediate demand, and so is less threatening to the prisoner. Even more immediate demands are ones which the prisoner can sabotage without confronting the professionals directly, e.g., the prisoner may not be more friendly to others as he was urged, but he can defy such a recommendation without a direct confrontation. When a guard says "Go to your room," there is either direct conformity or direct confrontation. Bad things d o happen. I heard about a teacher who was lulled in a sister institution. She had apparently returned to the classroom area when most
760
R. EISENMAN
people did not know she was there. Also, a guard in another institution was lulled during an escape attempt by inmates. The injuries he received from the prisoners were so severe he died in the hospital. At my own fachty, my predecessor was punched in the face while standing in the very office I occupied. One or more psychologists were taken hostage in the Cuban detainees' uprising at the Atlanta federal penitentiary.
Conclusion The above six areas identify issues I faced while working as a psychologist in a prison and which one might expect to face should one seek employment in a prison setting. If people already working in prisons can be more cognizant of these issues, the prison might be made a better place. While some of the above-mentioned issues might be difficult, e.g., where to draw the line in security vs treatment, others are more clear-cut. Psychologists should never be asked to alter the data from tests to support an administrative decision. Prisons are typically set up for the protection of society, including the safety of the staff and prisoners. Treatment is desirable, but often flies in the face of the basic nature of the prison, so confhcts can arise. Many prisoners have no concept of controlling their lives. They seem to see life as a series of random events to which they react, often in aggressive ways In treatment one needs to convince them that self-control is possible and that violence is not the answer. I n addition, it would be valuable to have job training and postprison assistance in finding work and in moving out of their original neighborhood, which is often one of gangs, crime, etc. Effective group homes are needed. People often have a negative stereotyped view of prisons. To some extent some of the stereotypes may be correct, but improvements could be made if we addressed the problems which occur in prisons. REFERENCES ANDREWS,D. A , , ZINGER, I., HOGE,R. D., BONTA,J., GENDREAU, P., & CULLEN,F. T. (1990) Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologicaUy informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. & SKONOVD, N. (1988) Development of risk prediction scales for the California Yorrthful Offender Parole Board: based on an assessment of 1981-82 releases. Sacramento, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency/California Youth Authority. BENDA, B. B. (1989) Predicting return to prison among adolescent males: a comparison of three statistics. Journal of Criminal Jrrstice, 17, 487-500. BKODSKY,S. L. (1982) The prisoner as agent of attitude change: a study of prison rofiles' effects. In Scared straight! And rhe panacea phenomenon. Englewood C ~ S N, J : Prentice-Hall. Pp. 56-59. BRODSKY, S. L. (1988) Fear of Litigation in mental health professionals. Criminal Jrrstice and Behavior, 15, 492-500. CRESSEY,D. R. (1959) Contradictory directives in complex organizations: the case of the prison. Administrative Science Qrmrterly, 4, 1-9. CRESSEY, D. R. (1960) Limitations on organization of treatment in the modern prison. I n R. A . Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G . H. Grasser, R. McCleery, L. E. Ohlin, G . M. Sykes, &
BAIRD, C.,
PROBLEMS O F A PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST
761
S. L. Messinger (Eds.), Theoretical studies in social organization of the prison. New York: Social Science Research Council. Pp. 78-110. EISENMAN, R. (in press) College student volunteers in a prison. College Student Journal. HAMM,M. S., & SCHRINK, J. L. (1989) The conditions of effective implementation: a guide to accomplishing rehabilitative objectives in corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 166-182. MCSHANE, M. D., & WILLIAMS,F. P.111. (1989) Running on empty: creativity and the correctional agenda. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 562-576. MURTON,T. 0 . (1976) The dilemma of prison reform. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. PALMER, T., & WEDGE,R. (1989) California's juvenile probation camps: findings and implications. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 234-253. SECI-IREST, L., WHITE, S., & BROWN, E. (Eds.) (1979) The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: problems and prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Accepted September 21, 1990.
