Crime and Delinquency
The Prison Journal
Crime and Delinquency
Reviewed By Christine J. Sutton
Criminogenic Effects of the Prison Environment on Inmate Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence” by Scott Camp and Gerald G. Gaes (2005).
Criminologists have long debated whether prisons are criminogenic or rehabilitative. Proponents of both positions have considered three influences on inmate behavior: criminal propensity, inmate culture in the prison, and the actual prison regime, with the latter two being regarded as environmental influences. Criminal propensity is reflected in the inmate’s criminal history and includes the individual inmate’s characteristics. Prison inmate culture is predominately developed by the inmates and referred to as the informal structure of the prison. The formal organization of the prison is the prison regime and includes policies and types of inmate programs offered.
The authors of this article theorized that if prisons are criminogenic, the probability of misconduct should vary with the different security levels assigned to inmates. The authors set out to examine what happens to inmate behavior, specifically misconduct, when inmates with similar criminal histories are placed in different prison environments. Their aim was to discover whether the different assigned levels of incarceration caused them to be more criminally oriented while in prison.
“Misconduct” included violations of prison rules that can result in disciplinary actions, such as prisoners not cleaning their living areas, having personal property that is prohibited, misusing phone calls and the U.S. mail, as well as criminal acts, such as assaults and murders. For their empirical analysis, the authors used the research conducted on new classifications of felon inmates in the California Department of Corrections prison system during a six month period ending in April 1999 (Berk, Ladd, Graziano and Beck). That research compared a new classification system to the old one used for male inmates.
During the six months ending in April 1999, there were 140,000 male inmates in California prisons. There were 9,656 newly committed inmates assigned to an institution based on the old security classification system and 9,662 inmates assigned based on the new classification system. The designation to a prison was done randomly, determined by the identification number the inmate received; those receiving even numbers were designated by the old system.
For purposes of the Camp and Gaes study, 561 inmates who were classified as Level I under the old system were classified as Level III under the new system. Of those, 297 inmates went to Level I prisons and the other 264 inmates went to Level III prisons. The sample groups were tracked for two years and an equal number in each group remained in custody for that period. Although the Level I and Level III prisons have separate facilities and no contact with one another, they were in the same location.
After analyzing the misconduct data, the authors found that the Level III inmates randomly assigned to Level I and III security environments acted like other inmates in Level III environments. The results also demonstrated that the percentage of inmates with misconduct did not significantly differ whether the inmates were placed in Level I or Level III prisons. The misconduct rate was close to Level III inmates: 62 percent. If we presume that these differently placed groups of inmates had about the same propensity to misconduct, at least according to the California prison classification system, we can conclude that the Level III prisons did not seem to encourage inmates to greater participation in prison misconduct. Alternatively, the less violent or criminogenic environment of Level I institutions did not seem to lower the misconduct level of Level III inmates. If the prison environment had an effect on Level III inmates housed in Level I facilities, we would expect to find misconduct rates lower than those for Level III inmates housed in Level III institutions.
The original study by Berk et al. demonstrated that the new California classification system was justified on the grounds of providing greater precision in predicting undesirable behavior. The Camp and Gaes study in Crime and Delinquency indicates that the new method of segregating inmates was benign in its effect on the behavior of inmates who moved up in security from Level I to Level III in prisons. Camp and Gaes’ results also suggest that the classification of inmates for housing may not be as important as often thought, or at least that the possible negative effect can be overcome with adequate security and custody measures. In California, different prison environments did not alter the behavior of inmates in ways not already predicted by the propensity toward crime demonstrated by the inmates before entering prison. Inmates with similar histories in the study were equally likely to commit misconduct in prison, regardless of whether they were assigned to a Level I or a Level III facility.
Reviewed By Sam Torres
“Wardens’ Perceptions of Prison Sex,” by H. Hensley and R. Tewksbury (2005)
This study by Hensley and Tewksbury sought to assess whether and to what degree individual demographic variables and institutional characteristic variables were related to wardens’ perceptions of the prevalence of sexual assault in their institutions, the prevalence of inmates’ consensual sexual activities, and wardens’ assessment of sexual assaults that come to their attention. Data was gathered from anonymous questionnaires of 226 male and female wardens from state-operated institutions. Of the 441 respondents, 226 participated in the study, yielding a response rate of 52.4%.
Wardens were asked three questions regarding their knowledge of coerced and consensual sex in their prisons. First, “What percentage of inmate sexual assaults do you believe you personally know about?” Second, “In the past 12 months, what percentage of the inmates in your institution do you believe have engaged in sexual activities with other inmates because of pressure and/or force?” Finally, “In the past 12 months, what percentage of the inmates in your institution do you believe have engaged in sexual activities with other inmates consensually?” Demographic characteristics of the wardens (age, gender, and race) were recorded for the study. In addition, data were also collected on education, number of years as warden, overcrowding of facility, sex of prison inmates, security level, current number of inmates, and ratio of inmates to correctional staff.
The study found that female and nonwhite wardens were more likely to report that a higher percentage of inmates had consensual sex in their institutions compared to male and white wardens. Wardens of all female and male/female prisons were more likely to report that a higher percentage of inmates had consensual sex in their institutions compared to wardens of all-male facilities. Prisons with a higher inmate-to-correctional-staff ratio were more likely to report that a higher percentage of inmates had consensual sex compared to prisons with a lower inmate-to-correctional- staff ratio.
The authors conclude that the results demonstrate the need for education and training of correctional administrators. Generally speaking, prison wardens do not believe that there is a significant level of sexual activity, consensual or coercive and/ or assaultive, occurring in their institutions. Prior research, according to Hensley and Tewksbury, has established that sexual activity among inmates does occur and is often associated with institutional misconduct and violence. Hence, it is critical that wardens be clearly aware of the extent and type of sexual activities that occur in their facilities and respond accordingly.
Wardens as a whole do not believe a high percentage of the inmates in their facilities engage in sexual activity, especially of a coercive and/or assaultive nature. While female and non-white wardens estimated a greater prevalence of consensual sexual activities among inmates, this is to be expected because women and minorities are known in the social science literature to be less homophobic and therefore more likely to accept and expect same-sex sexual activities to occur. Likewise, wardens in women’s and male/female sexual institutions estimate a greater percentage of their inmates are engaged in sexual activities. Again, according to the authors, this is to be expected because the scientific literature has emphasized female inmates’ sexuality over that of male inmates.
Hensley and Tewksbury indicate that the higher estimates of the prevalence of sexual activities among inmates where there is a higher inmate-staff ratio is to be expected because with a lower concentration of staff present it is logical to expect that sexual misconduct will not be detected by staff.
In 1934 Joseph Fishman reported that the study of sex in prisons is shrouded in silence, and 70 years later, this continues to hold true as few, if any, well-known research institutions dare to explore this subject. Hence, any research into this forbidden area can only enhance our knowledge of this activity within prison walls. Hensley and Tewksbury seek to explain the reasons that female and non-white wardens estimate a greater prevalence of consensual sexual activities in their prisons in contrast to white male wardens and wardens of all male prisons. Furthermore, they explain why wardens of all female and male/female institutions also estimate a greater level of sexual activity than do wardens of all male prisons. Conspicuously absent, however is any attempt at explaining why wardens do not believe that there is a significant level of sexual activity, consensual, coercive and/or assaultive occurring in their institutions. In other words, wardens seem to be saying that while “yes” sexual activity may be occurring in their prisons, if it does occur, it is minimal, and largely consensual. That the chief managers of prisons minimize the activity, or that there may be coercive/assaultive sex occurring, must be understood in the context of how these wardens speculate that they would be perceived as managers if they admitted widespread sexual activity and/or sexual victimization in their institution. Acknowledging that these prohibited sexual activities occur, possibly at high rates, is to acknowledge their own ineffectiveness in running the institution. Hensley and Tewksbury should have explored this denial as an administrative defense mechanism.
Furthermore, by definition, wardens are administrators in contrast to the “line workers” that have day to day contact with inmates. Since they tend to lack the daily contact that correctional officers and other staff have with the inmates, one has to question how much information regarding inmate sexual activity actually finds its way to the warden’s desk. In addition, if many correctional officers overlook and/or ignore what they perceive to be consensual sexual activity, and such behavior is frequently not “written up” as violation of institutional rules, then such under-reporting of the activity might support the wardens’ conclusion that little sexual activity is occurring in their facilities. By its nature, sexual activity occurs in private, and as an abundance of studies demonstrate, coerced sexual victimization frequently goes unreported. It can furthermore be expected that coerced sexual victimization in the hyper-masculine atmosphere of all-male prisons is even less likely to be reported. The authors should have explored further the potential reasons for the extreme naivete and denial demonstrated by the wardens in this study.