Wasted Honor -- - Say What you Need To Say......: Correctional Officers

Wasted Honor -

Carl R. ToersBijns is the author of the Wasted Honor Trilogy [Wasted Honor I,II and Gorilla Justice] and his newest book From the Womb to the Tomb, the Tony Lester Story, which is a reflection of his life and his experiences as a correctional officer and a correctional administrator retiring with the rank of deputy warden in the New Mexico and Arizona correctional systems.

Carl also wrote a book on his combat experience in the Kindle book titled - Combat Medic - Men with destiny - A red cross of Valor -

Carl is considered by many a rogue expert in the field of prison security systems since leaving the profession. Carl has been involved in the design of many pilot programs related to mental health treatment, security threat groups, suicide prevention, and maximum custody operational plans including double bunking max inmates and enhancing security for staff. He invites you to read his books so you can understand and grasp the cultural and political implications and influences of these prisons. He deals with the emotions, the stress and anxiety as well as the realities faced working inside a prison. He deals with the occupational risks while elaborating on the psychological impact of both prison worker and prisoner.

His most recent book, Gorilla Justice, is an un-edited raw fictional version of realistic prison experiences and events through the eyes of an anecdotal translation of the inmate’s plight and suffering while enduring the harsh and toxic prison environment including solitary confinement.

Carl has been interviewed by numerous news stations and newspapers in Phoenix regarding the escape from the Kingman prison and other high profile media cases related to wrongful deaths and suicides inside prisons. His insights have been solicited by the ACLU, Amnesty International, and various other legal firms representing solitary confinement cases in California and Arizona. He is currently working on the STG Step Down program at Pelican Bay and has offered his own experience insights with the Center of Constitutional Rights lawyers and interns to establish a core program at the SHU units. He has personally corresponded and written with SHU prisoners to assess the living conditions and how it impacts their long term placement inside these type of units that are similar to those in Arizona Florence Eyman special management unit where Carl was a unit deputy warden for almost two years before his promotion to Deputy Warden of Operations in Safford and Eyman.

He is a strong advocate for the mentally ill and is a board member of David's Hope Inc. a non-profit advocacy group in Phoenix and also serves as a senior advisor for Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council in Chino, California As a subject matter expert and corrections consultant, Carl has provided interviews and spoken on national and international radio talk shows e.g. BBC CBC Lou Show & TV shows as well as the Associated Press.

I use sarcasm, satire, parodies and other means to make you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Friday, September 6, 2013

Correctional Officers - Judgment & Decision-Making

Most correctional officers are adequately prepared for the job and in most cases resilient in nature and disposition and do remarkably well under the circumstances of working inside a large jail or prison. However, we must all admit that stress does take its toll and one of their main challenges is to deal and manage stress while making good sound decisions and appropriately based judgment calls that keeps everyone safe and sound twenty four hours a day seven days a week.

To be a good decision maker, we must first stabilize our emotional conduct and resist the natural negative impacts of stress. This requires self-awareness and self-care. Once this is achieved the mindset is much clearer and better in most cases to offer better decision making efforts and safer environments to work in most of the time. Therefore it is important to mention that a clear mind makes better decisions especially under duress.

Focusing on the fact that many officers and correctional employees are aware how to combat stress we should focus on better judgment and decision making processes and actions beyond the fair, firm and consistent concept taught in many law enforcement academies throughout the country. So it is favorable to start looking at quality of judgment and decision making in the corrections field. Whether or not the ability to measure judgment is reasonable or even possible we shall examine what constitutes good judgment and compare it with the job at hand as a correctional officer.

First off, correctional officers have an array of tools at his or her disposal besides their basic training. This includes post orders, institutional orders and agency directives or policies. It is a well-accepted practice that most decisions are based on such a foundations and requires little coaxing or motivation to stay on track with such guidance.

However, not every decision can be made out of a book or policy thus the individual must be capable of making independent judgment with independent criteria based on individual qualifications and standards to boost their basic foundation when trained or mentored by others. In addition there are firm emergency preparedness plans that need to be reviewed and learned to make critical decisions under stressful situations.

Using a basic skill such as a situational awareness assessment, one can expect a number of different decisions for different situations. This fact has long been established over time and through practical experience and time. Regardless, correctional officers need to realize that whatever decision they make it will have a significant impact on the situational outcome and lessons learned from taking such actions.

In corrections there are blurred boundaries that are often misread or in some cases unrecognized at the time of the assessment. Thus theoretically, officers must learn how to approach each problem and evaluate and analyze things quickly in order to determine the correct approach to the problem and be put at risk that they do not have all the information needed to make a good decision.

This is quite complex in nature and often neglected in training line staff to prepare them for command decision positions. First we must recognize that judgment and decision making are intimately linked but are two separate concepts requiring separate processing. The process demands separate cognitive demand and pose distinct challenges in order to

Judgment is an assessment tool that allows alternatives between choices suggested in the problem solving process. It takes into consideration a continuum of different aspects that are based about a person, an object or a situation. Hence the final result based on judgment is an overall evaluation based on factors provided or given for each person, object or situation.

Decision making is determined to be a choice between alternatives and determines a specific response to a persons, object or situation. Herein because there are consequences for such a decision and accountability why such a decision was made in the first place it is important to distinguish the difference between these two concepts.

When it is all said and done, a correctional officer relies on the quality of judgment to do the job properly. This requires an analysis for accuracy and review the quality of facts gathered or provided and then encompass those established guidelines provided for such a condition. This leaves little wiggle room in the level of accuracy or for taking incorrect or deviating practices to make it come together as a valid evaluation that can be resolved satisfactorily.

So what makes a decision a good decision you have to ask? Working in such a complex environment that is influenced by many uncertainties the best decisions are those that yield the best results, conditions or consequences for achieving a safe and secure environment. However, one must take into account such results could in fact have come about by chance and not because of a thorough evaluation of the process involved. Some may call it luck but others call it a calculated guess for making the “best” decision at the time.

Regardless good decision-making involves using your training, your experience, the laws of logic and probability along with common sense. Keeping it rational and determining the probability of the outcome is a common approach and should keep in mind that the optimum decision may be ideal for one situation or person but not in other situations or persons. In other words, evaluating the outcome should include comparing options or decision how to resolve it taking into consideration of all the facts before finalizing a decision.

However, what is reasonable for one person may not apply for another person. One decision maker can be of average experience while the other may be relatively better experienced and determine which strategy is better based on the examination of the problem and comparing possible outcomes with various strategies while in the end looking at tradeoffs or compromising factors.

Regardless the process should include the goals, the consequences, and the relative value of outcomes of different approaches or options. This would logically be considered a good decision making process that takes much into consideration before the final decision is reached.

Therefore, here we have to caution the decision maker not to rely on ‘lessons learned” in the past as the factors may not be identical or duplicated creating a different outcome possibility and flawing the process. This is where the judgment comes into play and create a need to assess and decide the outcomes through comparisons and some level of consensus, peer acknowledgment and or evaluation and the appropriateness of the action proposed to be taken with the challenge to take the ultimate or best decisions for each problem or call to make.

Henceforward in a correctional setting one must be cautioned and be made aware that such evaluations if taken as a routine matter could reveal a degree of predictable or anticipated course of action of the proposed action and would be to the benefit of controversy as how well the inmates know the decision will be made ahead of time and how consistently these facts gathered are applied with the individual’s knowledge base creating a pre-determined response to a problem.

In other words, specifically in a critical or crisis situation, there should be room made for actions or decisions made by the antagonistic group and that it is a strong possibility that they will make tactical or strategically implied assumptions that whatever decision is made, formulated and finalized within a hostile situation or environment the method [solution] chosen could fall into the hands of the inmates and thus the response is compromised even when following the process but failing to compare potential outcomes and consequences laid on the table beforehand.

Like it was mentioned and said in the beginning of this article, working inside a prison has many uncertainties and planning a situational assessment using judgment and decision-making tools should be done with caution and with some level of expertise and experience as well as taking the time to conduct peer assessments [for consensus] and share evaluation materials before finalizing the resolution.