Violence in Juvenile Institutions

VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study by Poole and Regoli was to provide a detailed comparison of the effects of selected deprivation and importation variables on inmate violence in four juvenile correctional institutions. METHODOLOGY: A 50% systematic sample of male, juvenile inmates was drawn from each of four Southern correctional institutions ranging in organizational goals and structures from more treatment-based to more custody-based on a continuum (School For Boys, Training School, Industrial School, Youth School). The sample, after shrinkage due to inmates' releases, transfers, illnesses, refusal to participate and incomplete questionnaires, involved 373 inmates (81% of the original sample of 461). Because of the reading problems of some inmates, questions on the anonymous survey were read out loud to groups of 15 to 20 inmates at a time. The race, age, attitudes towards aggression, and preinstitutional violence of the participating inmates were operationalized by both the responses on the questionnaire and from the inmates' records to measure aspects of importation theory. Race was made into a dichotomized dummy variable of black=1 (51%) and white=0 (49%). Age was computed at the time of the study from date of birth available from the inmates' records. Attitudes towards aggression and violence were measured by questions on the inmates' use of exploitation, manipulation and physical toughness on a Likert 5-point scale. Deprivation theory was operationalized by variables which measured the inmates' level of adherence to inmates' code of behavior; the orientation and structure of the institution (custody versus treatment); and time served at the present institution. The dependent variable of institutional violence was calculated by a score which consisted of the number of times inmates reported fighting with other inmates or staff with a weapon during the last month. The data was analyzed using least squares and covariance. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: This study operationalized both importation theories (inmates are violent, therefore will act violently regardless of prison structure) and selected deprivation theories (higher levels of violence will exist in prisons because of their structures regardless of inmates' characteristics) in order to compare them. The relationships found from the least square regression were that younger inmates were more likely to be placed in more custodial institutions; those inmates with more favorable attitudes about aggression and those involved in more preinstitutional violence were likely to be incarcerated for longer periods of time; those inmates in more custodial institutions were incarcerated for fewer months than those in more treatment institutions; inmates having positive attitudes about aggression and engaging in preinstitutional violence adhered more to the inmates' code supporting violence; inmates in more custodial institutions were more likely to support the inmates' code of violence; having a history of violent behavior, being in custodial institutions, and adhering to the inmates' code of violence all increased the likelihood of institutional violence. These relationships revealed that both variables measuring importation theory and deprivation theory were independently and directly related to institutional violence. When measuring the interactive effects of importation and deprivation, it was found that the effects of characteristics of the inmates did vary by institution type: in the School for Boys (the most treatment oriented program), race, attitudes towards aggression, preinstitutional violence and time served all had significant direct effects on inmate violence; in the Training School, preinstitutional violence and time served were the only significant predictors of institutional violence; in the Industrial School, only preinstitutional violence had a significant effect on inmate violence; and in the Youth Center (the most custody-oriented program), preinstitutional violence and inmate code had significant effects on inmate violence. Overall, these findings showed that preinstitutional violence had the strongest effect on institutional violence. In the most treatment-oriented program, it was the strongest predictor and in one of the custody-oriented program, it was the only predictor. The result that treatment-oriented institutions appeared to have more predictors of institutional violence than custodial institutions was explained by the fact that treatment facilities allow for more individual autonomy; and thus there was greater differentiation of inmates. More violence and more adherence to an inmate code of violence occurred in the more custody-oriented prisons lending support to the theory "...that as prison conditions become more brutal and oppressive, inmates will respond accordingly" (p.227). AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS: The authors suggested the need for further research focusing on the interaction of importation theory and deprivation theory. They also stressed the need for further studies "...grounded in the everyday concerns...of inmates" (p.228). (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) KW - Juvenile Violence KW - Juvenile Male KW - Juvenile Inmate KW - Juvenile Offender KW - Incarcerated KW - Juvenile Correctional Institution KW - Violence Causes KW - Inmate Violence KW - Inmate Treatment KW - Deprivation Theory KW - Male Inmate KW - Male Violence KW - Male Offender KW - Comparative Analysis KW - Intervention Program KW - Program Evaluation KW - Program Effectiveness KW - Violence Causes KW - Violence Intervention KW - Violence Treatment KW - Correctional Institution Intervention KW - Correctional Institution Treatment KW - Correctional Institution Program