Which of the following is a recommended boundary in dealing with inmate con games?

• A. Saying no firmly
• B. Monitor conversations with inmates
• C. Do not monitor conversations
• D. Sharing personal information to build rapport

Answer: (A)

Setting clear, firm boundaries is the key idea here. Inmate con games hinge on pushing limits, exploiting flattery, or pressuring staff to gain favors. Saying no firmly provides a straightforward, unambiguous boundary that the other person cannot coerce you past. A decisive refusal shows you are in control of the interaction, keeps interactions professional, and reduces the chance that manipulative tactics will work. Keep the response brief, direct, and consistent, and when you set the boundary, avoid getting drawn into justifications or personal chatter.

There are practical reasons this is the strongest boundary. A firm no signals that personal requests or attempts to shift responsibility won’t be granted, which discourages further manipulation. It also protects your safety and the integrity of the staff–inmate relationship by maintaining professional distance. In contrast, monitoring conversations is more about procedure and safety oversight than about the personal boundary you set with the inmate to resist manipulation. Not monitoring can undermine safety, and choosing not to monitor misses a line of defense. Sharing personal information to build rapport directly creates vulnerability that con artists can exploit, so it’s a boundary to avoid entirely.