Correctional officers can use both formal and informal controls to manage inmate behaviour.

Formal controls involve enforcing rules strictly "by the book," while informal controls use
verbal communication and discretion to avoid official action.

Challenges of Formal Control:

Inmate Resistance: Strict enforcement can lead to inmate resistance, including physical
attacks on officers

Lack of Respect: Officers who rely heavily on formal control often earn little respect from
inmates or their peers.

Challenges of Informal Control:

Inconsistency: Enforcement styles can vary between institutions, shifts, and even individual
officers, creating inconsistency

Abuse of Freedom: Lenient approaches can lead to some inmates using their greater freedom
to victimize others.

Blurred Boundaries: Maintaining social distance while also showing empathy can be a
difficult balance to strike.

Benefits of Informal Control:

Building Trust: Developing relationships with inmates can help build trust and encourage
better behaviour.

Reducing Tension: Overlooking minor infractions can reduce tension and create a more
cooperative environment

Promoting Self-Control: Effective discipline encourages inmates to develop self-control

Effective Communication is Key

The sources emphasize the importance of interpersonal communication skills for correctional
officers. Building and maintaining relationships with inmates is crucial for successful
behaviour management.

Decentralization

1
The sources suggest that decentralizing large prisons into smaller, semi-autonomous units can
be beneficial6. This empowers staff to set objectives and make decisions tailored to the
specific inmates in their unit

Benefits of Decentralization:

Safer Environment: This approach can help establish a safer environment for both staff and
inmates

Targeted Programs: Smaller units allow for the delivery of more focused counselling, social,
educational, and vocational training programs.

Approaches to Managing Inmate Behaviour

The sources describe two approaches correctional officers use to manage inmate behaviour:

Formal controls: This approach involves strict enforcement of rules and regulations, with
officers writing up inmates for every infraction. This method emphasizes external control and
relies on the threat of punishment to deter negative behaviour.

Informal controls: This approach focuses on building relationships and using verbal
communication to manage inmate behaviour. Officers using this method may overlook minor
rule violations in exchange for compliance with major regulations. They aim to develop
control "from within" by fostering trust and encouraging self-discipline.

Balancing Rules and Relationships in Correctional Facilities

Correctional officers face the challenge of balancing rule enforcement with building
relationships with inmates to effectively manage their behaviour. The sources highlight two
main approaches officers use: formal and informal controls.

Formal controls involve strict adherence to regulations, with officers writing up inmates for
every infraction. This method emphasizes external control and relies on the threat of
punishment to deter negative behaviour. However, rigidly enforcing every rule can lead to
several issues:

Increased inmate resistance: Inmates may react negatively to constant scrutiny and
punishment, leading to hostility and even physical attacks on officers.

Lack of respect: Officers who rely solely on formal control may earn little respect from either
inmates or their fellow officers.

2
Missed opportunities for rehabilitation: Focusing only on punishment can hinder efforts to
foster positive change and personal growth in inmates.

On the other hand, informal controls prioritize building relationships and using verbal
communication to manage behaviour. Officers using this approach may overlook minor rule
violations as part of an "implicit bargain" with inmates to ensure compliance with major
regulations. This approach aims to cultivate self-control in inmates rather than imposing
external rules. The benefits of this approach include:

Improved relationships: Developing rapport with inmates can create a more cooperative and
less hostile environment.

Encouraging self-discipline: When inmates feel respected and trusted, they may be more
likely to regulate their own behaviour without constant oversight.

Reducing tension: Overlooking minor infractions can reduce tension and create a more
positive atmosphere for both inmates and officers.

However, relying too heavily on informal controls also presents challenges:

Inconsistency: Enforcement styles can vary significantly between institutions, shifts, and
individual officers, leading to confusion and potential manipulation by inmates.

Potential for abuse: Inmates given too much freedom may take advantage of the situation and
victimize others.

Maintaining boundaries: Officers must carefully balance empathy and concern with
maintaining professional distance to avoid inappropriate relationships that could compromise
their judgment

The classification of inmates into different security levels is an integral process within the
corrections system, essential for the management, safety, and security of individuals within
the prison environment. The primary types of security levels for inmates are minimum,
medium, and maximum security. Each level serves a distinct purpose and is characterized by
varying degrees of restrictions, supervision, and facility accommodations.

Minimum Security:
Minimum security facilities are typically designed for inmates who pose the least threat to

3
public safety and are often nearing the end of their sentences. Inmates classified under
minimum security are generally considered to have non-violent criminal backgrounds and
demonstrate good behavior while incarcerated. These facilities often resemble dormitory-
style accommodations and may allow for some degree of movement and interaction among
inmates. The supervision is less intense compared to higher security levels, and the perimeter
might not always be fenced. Inmates may have opportunities for work release, educational
programs, and community service. Minimum security prisons aim to prepare inmates for
reintegration into society by offering transitional programs that focus on skill development.

Medium Security:
Medium security facilities house inmates who exhibit a moderate risk to public safety and
who may have histories of violence or more serious crimes. These facilities strike a balance
between maintaining security and offering rehabilitation programs. The infrastructure
typically includes secured perimeters with barbed wire or electric fences and a higher staff-to-
inmate ratio to maintain control. Inmates in medium security may have more restricted
movement with scheduled activities and tighter supervision, but they often still have access to
educational and vocational programs. The focus is on maintaining order while encouraging
positive behavioral change through structured routines and opportunities for personal
development.

Maximum Security:
Maximum security facilities, often known as high-security prisons, are reserved for inmates
who pose the highest risk to society and have been convicted of the most serious offenses,
such as violent or repeat crimes. The design of these prisons emphasizes strict control and
surveillance, often with isolated cells, limited movement, and severe restrictions on inmate
interactions. These facilities employ comprehensive security measures, including high walls,
armed guards, and surveillance systems. The primary goal is to prevent escapes and protect
the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public. Rehabilitation opportunities are generally
limited due to the security concerns, focusing more on maintaining order and control.

In conclusion, the classification of inmates into minimum, medium, and maximum security
levels is a sophisticated process that considers several factors, including the nature of the
crime, behavior, and risk assessment. Each level has distinct characteristics aimed at

4
balancing security, order, and opportunities for rehabilitation. The ultimate objective is to
tailor the correctional environment to the needs of each inmate while ensuring the safety of
the institution and the broader community.