Social Constructionism in Decision-Making: Analyzing Correctional Officers Deterring Inmates’ Gang Activity

By Xlibris US

Correctional officers lack consensus on an agreed upon definition of what constitutes institutional gang practices to enforce zero-tolerance policies for gang activity. The lack of consistency in enforcing such a policy has serious consequences for the physical safety of both inmates and officers in correctional environments. However, little research exists about their decision-making processes to enforce a zero-tolerance policy for gang activity. A social-construction framework guided this study. The research question explored the correctional officers decision-making processes to identify gang practices and enforce the zero-tolerance policy for gang activity. Using a phenomenological design, data analysis involved (a) an analysis of the lived experiences of six purposefully selected officers in enforcing the policy and (b) a differentiation between their awareness of group threats and nonthreats. The semi-structured interview guide consisted of open-ended questions to identify cognitive biases in their decision-making that revealed use of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and groupthink. An interactive and inductive cycle with member checking revealed that officers conformed to institutional socialization (i.e., they internalized their centers traditional norms and practices). In turn, this systemic process affected their personal judgments related to recognizing, agreeing to, and enforcing the zero-tolerance policy. Recommended was the creation of an awareness program to guide correctional personnel in identifying personal biases and making choices that are more rational in their decision making. The social change implications of this study highlights the importance of understanding the complexity of decision-making, controlling the effects of personal biases, and designing effective ways to build consensus among correctional staff.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Aug 26, 2014
• ISBN: 9781499064049

Book preview

Copyright © 2014 by Dr. Omar Garrison.

Library of Congress Control Number:   2014914808

ISBN:      Hardcover                  978-1-4990-6405-6

                Softcover                    978-1-4990-6406-3

                eBook                         978-1-4990-6404-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 10/17/2014

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

636132

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1

Introduction

Background Of The Study

Problem Statement

Nature Of The Study

Research Question

Purpose Of The Study

Conceptual Framework

Definition Of Terms

Gang Economy

Gang Family

Gang Identity

Assumptions

Scope And Delimitations

Limitations

Significance Of The Study

Summary

Chapter 2

Introduction

Sample Demographics

Historical Context Of The Zero-Tolerance Policy

Chain Of Command In Decision-Making

Emergent Themes

Analyzing Security Group Threats

Officer Responses To Threats

Conceptualizing The Decision-Making Process

Dynamics Of Interactional Processes

Chapter 3

Findings

Interpretation Of Findings

Recommendations

Recommendations For Practice

Implications For Social Change

Recommendation For Future Study

Researcher’s Experience

Conclusion

Author Autobiography

Reference

Endnotes

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Correctional institutions exist to provide individuals convicted of a crime with a secure and safe place to serve their sentence.¹ Convicts suffer penalty and imprisonment for violating societal laws. Imprisonment means limited freedom during confinement. Correctional institutions main goals are to manage discipline, rehabilitation, punishment, reintegration, and certify that individuals complete their incarceration period.²

In the United States, there are two justice systems, juvenile and criminal.³ According to the National Gang Center, the juvenile court places individuals under the age of 18 in a detention center. Although juvenile detention has a prison-like atmosphere to house children and teens who did not follow the law, its purpose is to reintegrate them into society. The courts protect the juvenile’s name from the public and usually remove the violation from the court’s record and/or seal the record at adjudication.⁴

According to Glaze, the criminal court places convicts, 18 and over, in an adult prison to serve their sentence. Adult conviction records are available to the public, and the conviction may count against them in future arrests.⁵

The two justice systems have separate correctional institutions controlled by their officers. Officers must enforce the zero-tolerance policy, and conduct security checks to ensure all individuals in either justice system are safe and secure.⁶

The two correctional institutions are interdependent⁷ and have similarities and differences. What occurs in juvenile corrections may have an adverse reaction in adult corrections. An overlap exists in the responsibility of the correctional officers inside the juvenile and adult correctional institutions.⁸ For example, the similarity involves their decision-making about zero-tolerance approaches to gang practices, which are essential to both.⁹

The objectives of correctional institutions are to care for, maintain custody of, and control inmates. Nevertheless, inside these correctional facilities are street gang members eager to maintain the same reputation that they had in the streets.¹⁰ Within the correctional setting, these street gangs develop a subculture into which they import their practices to further their criminality.¹¹

The percentage of juvenile street gang members under the age of 18 is 41.4%, while for street gang members 18 and over the percentage is 58.6%.¹² Today, age no longer distinguishes youth gang and adult gang practices.¹³ These indistinguishable ages of gangs are a serious concern because of the danger they pose for correctional institutions.¹⁴ The nature of gangs is another concern for the public.

Unless otherwise noted, the terms youth gangs, street gangs, and gangs in correctional institutions are interchangeable in this study. In addition, the term detention is synonymous with correctional institution in the context of correctional officers’ responsibilities.

The term gang means individuals with a common interest, common leadership, and common bonds in order to achieve a purpose.¹⁵ Those purposes could include illegal activity and/or taking control of an enterprise, territory, or facility. Kissner and Pyrooz pointed out that gang practices (i.e., gang symbols, graffiti, initiations, and missions) were a cause for considerable concern because of the increasing numbers of gang members in prisons.¹⁶ The most up-to-date estimate of gang members in the United States stands between 782,000 to 1 million.¹⁷

As of 2013, the race/ethnicity of gang members in the United States is as follows: Hispanics – 45%; African American – 35%; Caucasians – 7%; and all others – 7%.¹⁸ Raphael suggested that incarcerated juvenile gang members align themselves with gang members in the adult prison (i.e., delinquent youth and adult criminals). Together, they form a larger group, which can boss inmates and corrupt officers, and are potentially more dangerous in correctional institutions.¹⁹ While many other gangs exist, such as motorcycle and hate gangs, this study focuses on gang practices in a juvenile correctional institution.

Incarcerated gangs continue to pose a constant threat to the physical safety of many inmates²⁰, as well as correctional officers, as reflected in the following statistics.²¹

While the sources of these episodes are not always specified as gang responsibility, within these correctional facilities, gang cultures are at work and contribute to these statistics.

Table 1

Staff and Inmate’s Annualized Assaults and Injuries

For example, Table 1 shows that 4.5% of assaults resulted in hospitalization for staff and inmates’ nonlife threatening injury or required reconstructive surgery. In addition, 1.1% of assaults resulted in hospitalization for staff life threatening injury. Without officers maintaining vigilance and enforcing a zero-tolerance policy, gang practices could continue unimpeded.²²

With daily attention on these episodes within the prison environment, officers serve as the gatekeepers for enforcing the zero-tolerance policy for gang activity.

However, enforcing a zero-tolerance policy is a complex process requiring an understanding of the difficulties officers face when attempting to identify and assess gang practices.²³ In making these determinations, correctional officers use current observation, knowledge, and experience, as well as in-service training.²⁴

Officers must watch for and anticipate potentially dangerous gang behavior within the