Time Served in Prison, in-Prison Experiences, and Perceptions of Procedural Justice

Abstract

The coercive nature of prisons is a longstanding topic of academic inquiry. Although correctional staff help incarcerated individuals adjust to prison by enforcing prison rules and providing guidance, incarcerated individuals are confined against their will. Most research on this topic typically does not focus on the role that time served in prison and in-prison experiences may have on perceptions of fairness by correctional staff. In this study, we examine whether in-prison experiences vary in their effect across different lengths of time served on perceptions of procedural justice. The findings from a nationally representative sample of incarcerated individuals reveal that most in-prison experiences, such as confinement in restrictive housing, decreased perceptions of procedural justice and fairness. As correctional agencies develop strategies to help incarcerated individuals adjust to prison, it is important to recognize that the coercive nature of prisons creates difficulties for individuals to perceive treatment by staff as procedurally just.

Keywords:

• prisons
• time served
• adjustment
• procedural justice
• restrictive housing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Time served includes the exposure an individual has within a given environment. Individuals with greater exposure to a prison environment or facility have a better understanding of the norms and expectations within that facility (see Kreager et al., 2017). Such a distinction is important as Cochran (2020) finds that prison transfers are a routine part of prison life, and we account for this by isolating how perceptions of procedural justice within a given facility differ across categories of time served (e.g., facility exposure).

2 Significant differences across the two methods include one variable in the less than 1 year time served analyses is significant (visits), and one variable in the between 1 and 5 years time served analyses is significant (no prior incarceration) when using listwise deletion at the .05 level instead of the .01 level. This includes “don’t know” responses imputed at the mean with rounding for the outcome measure used in this study.

3 A reviewer requested that we perform a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess model fit and the validity of our scales. Thus, prior to imputing data for regression analyses, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for those who served less than one year in a facility at the time of the survey, between one and five years in a facility at the time of the survey, and more than five years in a facility at the time of the survey. The CFA allowed us to assess how well our theoretical model fit the data prior to conducting regression analyses. Model fit was evaluated with several fit statistics, including the chi-square (χ²) statistic, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The chi-square value, which assesses the degree of model misfit with the data, is often significant in large samples (i.e., n > 200) (Kline, 2016). Thus, fit guidelines suggest a CFI value close to 0.95 or greater, RMSEA values close to 0.06 or less, and SRMR values close to or less than 0.08 indicate acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The CFA indicated that all factor loadings were statistically significant and the model fit the data well for those who served less than one year in a facility at the time of the survey (χ² (338 df, N = 13,224) = 5913.03, p < 0.05; RMSEA=.04; CFI=.92; SRMR=.02), between one and five years in a facility at the time of the survey (χ² (338 df, N = 8, 996) = 4016.29, p < 0.05; RMSEA=.04; CFI=.92; SRMR=.02), and more than five years at the time of the survey (χ² (338 df, N = 3,173) = 1513.72, p < 0.05; RMSEA=.03; CFI=.92; SRMR=.02). CFA results (i.e., factor loadings) are available upon request.

Additional information

Funding

This project was funded by the Sam Houston State External Grant Application Development System (EGADS) for approximately $4,000 (Award # 29036).

Notes on contributors

H. Daniel Butler

H. Daniel Butler is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University. His research examines how the prison environment influences individuals' institutional and post-release behaviors in addition to understanding the experiences and well-being of correctional staff. He earned his PhD from the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Starr J. Solomon

Starr J. Solomon, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Kent State University. Her current research interests include policing, procedural justice, legitimacy, police recruitment, and criminal decision-making.

Matt DeLisi

Matt DeLisi is Distinguished Professor, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Dean's Professor, Coordinator of Criminal Justice, and Faculty Affiliate of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University. A Fellow of the Academy of Criminal Justice Science and Association for Psychological Science, Dr. DeLisi is the author of 450 scholarly publications in the social, behavioral, and forensic sciences.