Criminogenic Effects of the Prison Environment on Inmate Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence

Criminologists and correctional practitioners worry that prisons encourage criminal behavior among inmates, i.e., that prisons are criminogenic. The current study analyzed a subset of the experimental data collected by Berk, Ladd, Graziano, and Baek (2003) to test a new inmate classification system in California and demonstrated that this effect does not necessarily exist. There were 561 male inmates whose equivalent classification scores indicated they had the same level of risk to commit institutional misconduct at the time they were assigned to their initial institution. Half of these inmates were sent to the lowest security level prisons in California, Level I prisons, and the other half were sent to Level III prisons, one step down from the highest security level in California, Level IV. If prisons are criminogenic as a result of cohabiting with other high risk inmates and/or differences in prison practices at different security levels, then the probability of misconduct should vary with the security level to which the inmates were assigned. Instead, inmates were equally likely to commit misconduct in prison regardless of whether they were assigned to a Level I or a Level III prison. Criminogenic Effects of the Prison Environment on Inmate Behavior: Some Experimental Evidence Criminologists have long debated whether prisons are criminogenic or rehabilitative. There are arguments for both positions, and this paper discusses three influences upon inmate behavior. The first influence is the criminal propensity that inmates bring with them to prison. Criminal propensity is presumed by most to be manifest in the criminal history of inmates, but the important conceptual point is that it is a characteristic of the individual inmates. The second influence upon inmate behavior is the inmate culture of the prison. Although inmate culture is formed and shaped by other factors, it is primarily developed and constituted among inmates. Organizational sociologists call this the informal structure of the prison. The final influence upon inmate behavior is the formal organization of the prison, or what others call the prison regime (Sparks, Bottoms, & Hay, 1996). Prison regime includes a wide range of factors from the types of inmate programs offered to policies for staff-inmate interactions. Both the second and third factors comprise what it typically thought of as the environmental influences upon inmates. The present investigation empirically examines what happens to inmate behavior, in particular, misconduct, when inmates with similar criminal histories (propensities) are placed in prisons with different prison environments. The empirical analysis capitalizes on recent research conducted on inmate classification in the California prison system. Berk, Ladd, Graziano, and Baek (2003) used an experimental design to compare the effectiveness of a new classification system to the old one for male inmates. Female inmates were not analyzed because females effectively have only one classification type in California. What is important for our purposes is that some inmates who were assigned a minimum score (Level I) under the old system were assigned a higher score (Level III) under the new system. It is seldom the case that classification 2 systems are altered in such a manner that inmate classifications change by two levels, but there were 561 inmates whose risk score jumped two levels from a Level I to a Level III classification in California. These inmates, which represent a sub-sample of the 21,734 inmates examined by Berk et al. (2003), were randomly assigned to either a Level I prison or a Level III prison. This scenario provided the opportunity to investigate inmate behavior when the first influence upon criminal behavior (propensity) was held constant and the other two factors (inmate culture and prison regime) varied according to the study design. While the research design does not allow for disentangling the independent effects of inmate culture and prison regime, it does allow for an initial assessment of the joint effect. The following discussion examines the logic for using inmate misconduct as a proxy for criminal behavior, the three sources of influence upon inmate misconduct (propensity, inmate culture, and prison regime), the design of the study, and the results derived from the data obtained from Berk and his colleagues. The authors recognize that simplified discussions are presented regarding the dimensions of inmate culture, prison regime, and the interactions between the two. The logic of the research design does not depend upon specification of these complexities, but at the same time, the design does allow us to examine whether the prison environment matters, where the environment is comprised of inmate culture and regime. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings. INMATE MISCONDUCT, CRIMINOGENIC? Much of the behavior that is classified as misconduct in prison would not be criminal behavior if committed outside of the confines of prison. Free citizens do not typically get arrested for not cleaning their room, but an inmate can certainly get a Ashot@ (a prison charge) if having a messy living area is a chronic problem. Inmates also have rules about what personal 3 property is allowed, how much time is permitted for phone calls, and how the U.S. mail is used. Violations of any of these rules can result in disciplinary action. On the other hand, there is certainly a subset of prison misconduct that is criminal, including behaviors such as assaults and murders. The question is whether the former type of inmate misconduct can be thought of as expressing criminal behavior in the same way that more serious offenses do. The knee-jerk reaction is to deny that rule violations are indicative of criminal tendencies, but this reaction is not necessarily supported by empirical evidence. It is fairly well accepted that prior criminal history predicts prison misconduct (Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997). For example, Camp, Gaes, Langan and Saylor (2003) analyzed inmate misconduct categorized into six categories as well as considered all together. Four of the categories primarily covered offenses that are not criminal on the street, including offenses related to the security of the prison (possessing staff clothing, engaging in a demonstration, etc.), inmate accountability (failing to work as instructed, being in an unauthorized area with member of the opposite sex, etc.), property (possessing unauthorized items, lending for profit, etc.), and a residual category of other (being unsanitary or untidy, tattooing or self-mutilation, etc.) (see S. D. Camp et al., 2003: Appendix). The authors found that the initial custody score of the inmate, a measure of previous criminal history used to make a classification assignment, was a significant predictor of three of the four classifications of inmate misconduct. The only type of misconduct that previous criminal history did not predict was security-related misconduct (see S. D. Camp et al., 2003: Table 2). The initial custody score also predicted violent misconduct and all misconduct considered together. The only type of prison Acriminal@ behavior not predicted by initial custody score was drug misconduct.