Assessing the Need for Gender-Specific Explanations of Prisoner Victimization

Abstract

The literature on differences in the carceral experiences of women and men underscores the relevance of both background (pre-prison) and confinement factors for shaping inmates’ experiences during incarceration, but with a heavier emphasis on linkages between background factors and problems women face during confinement. Here, we apply these ideas to an understanding of sex differences in factors influencing victimization risk during incarceration. Sex-specific models of physical assaults and property thefts were estimated for random samples of inmates from 46 prisons in Ohio and Kentucky. Background factors were more important than confinement factors for influencing assaults on women whereas both sets of factors were relevant for men. Both background and confinement factors were important for predicting theft victimizations for both groups although the magnitude of several effects varied by an inmate’s sex. Findings suggest that effective crime prevention strategies in prison may vary across facilities for women and for men.

Keywords:

• women in prison
• inmate victimization
• female inmates

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Guy Harris, along with Brian Martin and Gayle Bickle with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and Ruth Edwards and Tammy Morgan with the Kentucky Department of Correction for their assistance with the collection of the data for this study.

Funding

This study was supported, in part, by grants from the National Institute of Justice (Award #2007-IJ-CX-0010) and the National Science Foundation (Award #SES-07155515). The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice or the National Science Foundation.

Notes

¹ Aside from a potentially higher risk of retaliation for acting out while in general population, the odds of assault among women with recent episodes of drug abuse might also be higher by nature of participating in drug treatment programs with others like themselves (i.e. if they interact more regularly with less stable inmates).

² The three private facilities for adults in Kentucky were excluded per the wishes of the Kentucky Department of Correction (KDOC). Correctional camps, mental health units, reception units, and youthful offender units were excluded (with two exceptions) due to unmeasured structural and managerial differences between those units and the primary facilities in which they existed. Exceptions included men in the correctional camp at Ohio State Penitentiary and women in the camp at Trumbull Correctional Institution, for reasons dictated by the larger project.

³ The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) dictated two sample sizes based on facility. We were approved to select 130 inmates from each of 11 facilities targeted for a longitudinal study, and 260 inmates from each of the other facilities. The goal was to obtain at least 100 inmates per facility in the first group, and at least 200 inmates per facility in the second. Kentucky sample sizes were dictated by wardens and drawn after data collection in Ohio. We requested 200 inmates per facility based on project resources, and wardens adjusted these numbers based on actual populations and staff resources. This led to target samples of 200 inmates (N = 4 prisons), 180 (N = 3), 175 (N = 1), 160 (N = 1), 150 (N = 2), 125 (N = 1), and 100 (N = 1). The last two samples were restricted because one facility was a work release facility, and the other prison housed primarily offenders with mental health issues.

⁴ Inmates were unavailable because they were released/transferred, posed a safety risk, were on a visit, in the infirmary, or were out to court during data collection (Ohio = 163; Kentucky = 134).

⁵ Some inmates did not receive a pass to complete the survey although we located most of them and offered them the opportunity to participate. Any inmate had the right to refuse participation.

⁶ The survey is available on request. Inmates were asked how many times each of the following happened in the past six months: Someone took something that belonged to you when you were not around and without your permission; Physically assaulted by an inmate for reasons other than because you tried to hurt him/her first; Stabbed by another inmate for reasons other than because you tried to hurt him/her first. The last two items were combined into “assaults” for the analysis. A six month period was selected to minimize recall error (Sudman & Bradburn, 1982).

⁷ Inmate ethnicity was excluded from the models due to limited dispersion in the sample of women. Models for male victimizations were estimated with and without “Latino,” and its exclusion did not substantively alter any of the other included effects. The coefficients for African-American were virtually identical between the two sets of models for men.

⁸ All facilities offered the following programs: academic/developmental education, career-technology-vocational, apprenticeships, and advanced job training/college. Programs varied in number across prisons but did not drop below 12 per facility in either state. Ohio does not mandate programming except for a minimum of six months of GED classes for inmates without high school degrees. Policy requires staff to complete an assessment for every inmate, write a case plan, and follow up. Case managers recommend programming based on the inmate’s risk and needs, but these programs cannot be mandated. On average across these facilities, inmates had 10.45 daily hours of program time available, outside of count, chow, sleep, and lockdown. Issues impacting program participation were waiting lists and program availability. With the exception of jobs and work programs, most programs operated between 8 am and 7 pm daily.

⁹ These five items tapped inmates’ level of agreement with each of the following: Overall, the correctional officers here do a good job; The correctional officers are generally fair to inmates; Correctional officers treat me the same as any other inmate here; Inmates often complain about being treated unfairly here; Correctional officers treat some inmates better than others.

¹⁰ Comparable levels of assault victimizations for both sexes might not reflect comparable levels of severe assaults. Under 1% of each sample reported stabbings during the study period, but the interpretations of “physical assaults” might have varied by sex. Some women may have reported less serious assaults (pushing or shoving) whereas some men may not have considered these to be physical assaults. Differences in interpretation were not examined, so our findings may ultimately reflect some gender differences in inmates’ definitions of physical assaults.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

John Wooldredge

John Wooldredge is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. His research and publications focus on institutional corrections (crowding, inmate violence, and inmate adaptation), and criminal case processing (sentencing and recidivism, extra-legal disparities in case processing and outcomes). Benjamin Steiner is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska—Omaha. He holds a PhD from the University of Cincinnati. His research and publications focus on juvenile court (case processing, sentencing, and factors influencing whether juveniles are bound over to adult courts), institutional corrections (inmate deviance and official responses to inmate misconduct), and parole outcomes.