aggressive behavior among female inmates: an ...

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR AMONG FEMALE INMATES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

CANDACE KRUTTSCHNITT SHARON KRMPOTICH University of Minnesota

Over the past decade the issue of inmate violence and victimization in institutions for adult males has dominated the field of penology. Despite evidence of violence and degradation in institutions for women, empirical research documenting this phenomenon is scarce. Using data gathered from the Minnesota correctional facility for adult female felons, this study looks at the extent of agressive behavior among female inmates and examines some of the factors that may be associated significantly with aggressive acts. Race, age, childhood family structure, offense of conviction, time served on present and past offense(s), race relations, and current drug use are examined in light of the prior research on prison violence. The data reveal that both race and childhood family structure are associated significantly with female inmate aggression. The implications of these findings for future research are discussed.

T h e 1960s a n d e a r l y 1970s w i t n e s s e d a n u m b e r of serious p r i s o n riots in m a n y l a r g e f e d e r a l a n d state institutions for m e n ; t h r o u g h o u t this period, riots in institutions for w o m e n also occ u r r e d , a l t h o u g h far less f r e q u e n t l y t h a n in institutions for men. M a n n (1984: 210-11) n o t e s t h a t in r e c e n t y e a r s w o m e n p r i s o n e r s h a v e rioted, set fires, a t t a c k e d c o r r e c t i o n a l officers, gone o n h u n g e r strikes, a n d d e s t r o y e d buildings, just like t h e i r m a l e c o u n t e r p a r t s at A t t i c a in 1971, at Pontiac, Illinois in 1978, a n d at t h e N e w Mexico S t a t e P r i s o n in 1980. Yet, M a n n ' s brief d o c u m e n t a t i o n of t h e riots t h a t o c c u r r e d in 1971 at A l d e r s o n Prison, in 1973 at t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a H o u s e of Corrections, a n d at t h e California I n s t i t u t e f o r W o m e n suggests t h a t s u c h riots a r e d i r e c t e d at g u a r d s a n d p r i s o n staff r a t h e r t h a n at o t h e r inmates, as is characteristic of m e n ' s institutions today. N e v e r t h e l e s s , despite t h e r e c e n t preval e n c e of studies of p r i s o n violence, few scholars y e t h a v e e x a m i n e d t h e e x t e n t of violence a n d victimization in w o m e n ' s prisons (see e.g., B o w k e r 1980: 49-54). Special appreciation is extended to David Ward for allowing us to use the research instruments developed in his study of Stillwater State Prison (1979-1980). We are also grateful to Frank Martin and Lisa Thornquist for their critical readings. JUSTICE QUARTERLY, Vol. 7 No. 2, June 1990 © 1990 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

372

FEMALEINMATES

A review of the literature on female correctional facilities reveals that the great majority of the research is devoted to understanding females' patterns of adaptation to prison life (Burkhart 1973; Heffernan 1972; Jensen and Jones 1976; Kruttschnitt 1981; Mawby 1982; Tittle 1969; Zingraff and Zingraff 1980), including the role of homosexuality and the development of pseudofamilies in this process (Giallombardo 1966, 1974; Halleck a n d Hersko 1962; Propper 1980, 1981; Ward and Kassebaum 1965). S e v e r a l recent studies focus on the effects of incarceration on mothers and their children (Baunach 1985; Brodie 1982; Haley 1980; Henriques 1982; McGowan and Blumenthal 1976; McHugh 1980; Stanton 1980). Finally a small but growing body of historical research addresses the development of women's prisons (see e.g., Dobash, Dobash, and Gutteridge 1986; F r e e d m a n 1981; Gibson 1976; Rafter 1985). Thus there appears to be a gap in our understanding of the causes and nature of the violence taking place in women's institutions. To address this gap on at least a preliminary level, this study explores the issue of violence in one women's correctional facility. Specifically, we attempt to determine 1) the extent of aggressive activity and 2) w h e t h e r any significant relationships exist between incidents o f aggression and the background characteristics and current institutional lives of female inmates.

The Correlates o f Female Prison Violence Although little is k n o w n about violence in women's prisons, information about the nature and extent of female inmate aggression can be gleaned from the extant literature. Perhaps one of the most thoroughly documented aspects of women's adaptation to prison life is the establishment of pseudofamilies and homosexual liaisons. This body of research also has generated information on aggression among female inmates. Ward and Kassebaurn's (1965) study of the California Institution for Women at Frontera, for example, revealed that four times as many homosexuals as non_homosexuals had three or more disciplinary reports. By contrast, Giallombardo's (1966) study of the w o m e n incarcerated at Alderson and Heffernan's (1972) research at Occoquan suggested that homosexual liaisons in the prisons were primarily consensual; physical violence occurred only occasionally when an inmate jilted her lover (see also Giallombardo 1974; Harris 1967). More recently, however, Bowker (1981:416-17) noted an increase in reports of female sexual assaults, which suggests that the traditional pro= cess of using psychological pressure to induce homosexual liaisons may be giving way to physical coercion. Finally, staff behavior also has been implicated in sexual assaults. Simmons's (1975) study of

KRUTTSCHNITT AND KRMPOTICH

373

the State Industrial F a r m for w o m e n at Goochland, Virginia revealed a high level of inmate violence. She believes that m a n y of the fights were caused by staff moves to break up k n o w n homosexual couples by forcing one m e m b e r of each couple to relocate to a different part of the institution. W h e n this was accomplished, one of the old partners would take a n e w lover, temporarily creating a lovers' triangle that often led to a fight. Related to the formation of pseudofamilies is the development of subcultures within women's prisons. Heffernan (1972) found that violence at Occoquan was concentrated in one of three subcultures, namely the "life." Members of the life subculture were much more likely to be involved in inmate fights than m e m b e r s of either the "cool" or the "square" subcultures (see also Linquist 1978). Feld (1977) observed incarcerated female juveniles in Lancaster, Massachusetts and found that an inmate elite used violence to reinforce their own status positions and to avoid having to do menial institution tasks.

Although race and race relations are viewed as important correlates of violence in men's prisons, little is k n o w n about h o w the racial composition of women's prisons affects the institutional environment. Spencer (1977) studied a midwestern medium-security women's prison and found that because the staff had to solicit the aid of inmates to maintain control of the institution, they used and fostered interracial hostility (see also Harper 1952). Moyer's (1981) analysis of black leadership in a southeastern state correctional center for w o m e n revealed that blacks were more likely to have disciplinary reports and to be leaders among the inmates. Sieverdes a n d Bartollas (1982) also found that among juveniles, black females tended to use aggressive roles to dominate the inmate social system. Finally, a study of race relations i n an upper midwestern correctional facility for w o m e n yielded somewhat ambiguous results. When inmates were asked to state the most common reason for physical assaults by inmates on other inmates, 61 percent of the nonwhite inmates but only 17 percent of the white inmates cited race relations. Nonwhite women were less likely than the white w o m e n to describe the prison as a safe place for minorities. Most minority women, however, claimed to have one or more close friendships with white w o m e n (Kruttschnitt 1983). Next to race, age is the demographic variable that has been associated most consistently with levels of conflict and violence a m o n g male inmates (Flanagan 1983). Unfortunately, w e k n o w of only two studies that examine the relationship between age and aggressive behavior a m o n g female inmates. First, Jensen (1977) studied 175 female inmates in a Southeastern minimum-security

374

FEMALEINMATES

institution. Although he found that the older inmates were less prone to rule violations, this relationship was mitigated by the inmates' prior prison experiences. Second, in a case study of N e w York's Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, the age of the inmates and the population size seemed to influence the amount of hostility and violence that occurred. The entry of younger w o m e n into the institution seemed to coincide with increased hostility (Fox 1984). Finally, the Findings of two other studies are worth noting. Snortum, Hannum, and Mills (1970) examined the relationship of rule violations to self-concept, the concept of parents, and selected M M P I scales. Data on 54 inmates from the Iowa State Women's R e f o r m a t o r y revealed that a negative concept of the m o t h e r figure (as opposed to the father figure) clearly was implicated in the development of "chronic resistance" to prison rules. Balthazar and Cook (1984) took a similar approach to their research on violent female juveniles in a Louisiana institution. They hypothesized that the girls reared by traditional mother-father families committed fewer violent acts than those reared in any other family configurations. Although the data suggested that juveniles raised in a mother-only family committed roughly twice as many violent acts as those raised in a mother-father family, the relationship was not statisically significant. In view of the limited amount of available information on aggression in women's correctional facilities, the w o r k on the causes and correlates of violence in men's prisons provides an important avenue for luther exploration of this topic. Male Prison Violence Over the past 20 years, research on correctional facilities for male offenders has shifted from an examination of the prisoner's normative system (Akers, Hayner, and Gruninger 1974; Clemmer 1940; Garabedian 1963; Glaser 1964; Street, Vinter, and P e r r o w 1966; Sykes 1958; Sykes and Messinger 1960; Tittle 1969; Wellford 1967; Wilson 1968; Wheeler 1961) to a study of the nature and extent of prison violence (Bartollas, Miller, and Dintz 1976; Bowker 1980; Braswell, Dillingham, and Montgomery 1985; Cohen, Cole, and Bailey 1976; Fox 1982; Lockwood 1980; Scacco 1975; Toch 1977; Wooden and P a r k e r 1982). ~ These studies point frequently to race relations, homosexuality, and drugs as important correlates, if not causal factors, of prison violence. For example, Irwin's (1980) now1 For an excellent overview of this historical transition in penology research, see Irwin (1980).


375

classic study of the changes in American penology over this cent u r y cites the politicization of blacks as one of the current causes of racial violence in our prisons (see also Jacobs 1979, 1982). Similarly, Carroll's (1974:184) study of an eastern correctional institution led him to conclude that the cause of most interracial sexual assaults lies deep within the entire sociohistorical context of blackwhite relations in this country. By contrast, Lockwood (1980) found that racism was not the cause b u t the consequence of sexual harassment. The contribution of drugs to male prison violence was illustrated carefully in Bowker's P~-/son SubcuZtures (1977). Specifically, B o w k e r found that most drug-related violence was due to economic transactions: violence erupts either w h e n prisoners cannot pay the debts owec~ from drug purchases or w h e n they steal drugs from their supplier. According to Bowker, drugs such as amphetamines and strong stimulants increase the probability of violence in the user; alcohol may increase violence in those who are predisposed to violence. Other characteristics of the inmate population also are thought to affect the level of violence in an institution. A study of violent and nonviolent prisoners at San Quentin Prison in California, for example, revealed that violent prisoners 1) were younger; 2) had been reared by one parent; 3) had been reared with an alcoholic, abusive, or criminal parent; 4) scored lower in measured grade level (6.5 or lower); 5) had been incarcerated previously and had a history of institutional violence; and 6) had been arrested first before age 12 for a robbery or burglary (Bennett 1976; see also B o w k e r 1980; Ellis, Grasmick, and Gilman 1974; Toch 1977). Finally, even the organizational attributes of the prison have been cited to explain rates of inmate aggression in male correctional facilities. Organizational factors that are thought to affect the level of violence in a prison include 1) overcrowding (EklandOlson 1986; Fox 1982); 2) the architectural design of the institution, which can facilitate or inhibit victimization (Bowker 1980); and 3) the mechanisms of social control. Ekland-Olson (1986) examined two models designed to explain prison violence and found that social control was more important than overcrowding in explaining this phenomenon. Feld (1977) also noted the importance of social control; he found that inmates in treatment-oriented institutions experience less violence and/or victimization than those in custodial-type institutions (see also Marquart and Crouch 1985; Messinger 1969). In summary, research on both men's and women's correctional facilities suggests a n u m b e r of variables that may be important in

376

FEMALE INMATES

understanding the nature and the extent of inmate violence. Within the confines of our data, we n o w attempt to discover 1) the incidence of aggression among female inmates and 2) some of the factors that m a y be related significantlyto these acts of aggression. METHODOLOGY T h e i n s t i t u t i o n w e s t u d i e d is t h e M i n n e s o t a C o r r e c t i o n a l Facility for W o m e n at S h a k o p e e . Built in 1923, it is a m i n i m u m - s e c u r i t y facility l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 26 m i l e s f r o m t h e Minneapolis-St. P a u l m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a T h e p r i s o n consists of f o u r m a i n buildings d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y s e c u r i t y level. T h e administ r a t i o n building includes o n its u p p e r f l o o r s e v e n isolation cells for w o m e n c o n s i d e r e d to b e s e c u r i t y risks o r t h o s e w h o e x h i b i t " p r o b l e m " behavior. T h e r e m a i n i n g t h r e e buildings e n c o m p a s s m e d i u m custody, m i n i m u m custody, a n d a n h o n o r s unit. W e collected t h e d a t a for this s t u d y in 1980. A t t h a t t i m e t h e prison h a d a m a x i m u m capacity of 70; t h e e n t i r e i n m a t e p o p u l a t i o n consisted of 50 w o m e n . 2 N o walls or fences s u r r o u n d e d t h e prison, a n d s e c u r i t y w a s m a i n t a i n e d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h a p a r i t y of g u a r d s to inmates: t h e s t a f f - i n m a t e ratio was .96:1. T h e staff also a t t e m p t e d to r e g u late i n m a t e s ' b e h a v i o r b y c o n t r a c t i n g w i t h i n m a t e s for t h e i r o w n "level of a c h i e v e m e n t " or custodial status.

W e gathered data on these inmates by administering a questionnaire. To ensure that the questionnaire tapped the women's concerns, w e interviewed several inmates at the outset of the study. W e then informed the w o m e n in each cottage about the study, requested their assistance,and guaranteed them anonymity. The questionnaire was administered to all 57 inmates; 53 w o m e n completed the form, producing a 93 percent response rate. The questionnaire requested information on each inmate's demographic profile and criminal justice history, as well as a variety of issues concerning her current institutionallife. Two points should be noted here: 1) Minnesota was following an indeterminate sentencing policy at the time of data collection, and 2) the state since has constructed an entirely new women's prison at Shakopee, which opened in 1986. The reader may wonder why this analysis is appearing almost 10 years after these data were gathered. Shortly after these data were gathered, two other sets of analyses were completed, which addressed the issues of inmate solidarity (Kruttschnitt 1981) and race relations among female inmates (Kruttschnitt 1983). Initiation and completion of other research projects unfortunately delayed this work on female inmate aggression. Since 1980, however, it has become clear that inmate violence is a central aspect of American prisons. Its revelance for female inmates is complex, however; we hope to study whether, and how, the situation has changed in the new facility at Shakopee.


377

The Dependent Variable The variable used to measure aggression was the inmate's selfreport of the type of behavior for which she was disciplined most frequently (see appendix for the exact wording and response categories used in the survey). We placed the respondents into three categories according to the types of behaviors for which they reported being disciplined: 1) those who stated that they had never been disciplined; 2) those who were punished for nonaggressive acts (failure to sign in and out, yelling, contraband, insubordination or acting out, escape, appearance, foul language, loss of prison property, unclean room, tardy to work, and smoking); and 3) those who were punished for acts of aggression (fighting, arson, verbal threats, and weapon use). The reader may wonder why we chose to use inmates' self-reports of aggressive acts rather than official prison disciplinary reports. The instruments used to gather data for this study were patterned after those employed in the Stillwater Transition Study (Ward 1980). Because a particular focus of this study was inmates' and staff members' perceptions about the institutional environment (especially victimization and safety), we did not gather official record data. Certainly the great majority of research on aggression among inmates relies on official disciplinary records (see, e.g., Carroll 1974; Eldand-Olson 1986; Flanagan 1980, 1983; Roske 1985). In light of delinquency research, however, there is strong evidence that self-report measures are valid indicators of official records (Hindelang, Hirshi, and Weis 1981: 105). Further, by inquiring only about the acts for which these women were disciplined rather than about any acts of aggression, we increased the face validity of this measure. Such inquiry increases the probability that respondents will not include behavior which prison officials would ignore or view as trivial (Hindelang et al. 1981: 89-92). In addition, asking respondents to recall events for which they were punished may help to eliminate response bias due to memory fade. We also attempted to check the reliability of these self-reports by cross-checking the inmates' responses with the answers they gave to other questions about their institutional experiences. For example, women who reported never having been ' ~ r i t t e n up or disciplined" also should have reported that they were never placed in segregation. Similarly, women who stated that they had been disciplined only for nonviolent acts should have been less likely to report acts of aggression toward other inmates, regardless of

378

FEMALEINMATES

w h e t h e r it was detected. In virtually all cases, we found the inmates' self-reports of their behavior toward other inmates to be quite consistent with their disciplinary history. Finally, the issue of response bias also raises the question of "bounding" the measure of aggression. Because we asked these w o m e n to report only the types of acts for which they were disciplined most frequently, with no reference to a time period, they could forget behaviors for which they had been sanctioned in the previous year, or could include those from prior prison commitments. Nonetheless, reliability scores for the "ever" variety of self-reported delinquency (i.e., the n u m b e r of different acts that respondents report ever having committed) are extremely high (Hindelang et al. 1981: 81).

Independent Variables We examined eight independent variables: race, offense of conviction, age, childhood family structure ("who raised them"), current drug use, time served on present offense, total time served on prior prison commitments, and perceptions of race relations in the institution. Again, the appendix contains the exact questions and response categories that we used to create each of these variables. Table 1 shows how the variables were operationalized. In addition, the following information is not apparent from the data presented in Table 1. For the race variable, nonwhites include eight American Indians, 11 blacks, and two others of mixed racial background. For offense of conviction, nonviolent crimes refer to burglary, forgery, theft, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, prostitution, and narcotic drug law violations; violent crimes include murder, manslaughter, assault, robbery, and kidnapping. For childhood family structure, any inmate who was not raised by both h e r m o t h e r and father was classified as "other." Finally, as the appendix shows, the variable "current drug use" was created from the inmates' responses to six questions about frequency of alcohol and drug use. If an inmate responded that she "never" used any of the listed substances, she was coded as "none"; if she used any of these substances "once,' or "once in a while," she was coded as a moderate user; ff she used any of these substances " r e g u l a r l y " or "daily," she was coded as a heavy user. On the basis of the extant literature, we provide the following justifications and hypotheses for our independent variables. First, given the politicization of minority inmates in this country over the past 20 years and the documented increase in racial conflict and violence in prisons (Carroll 1974; Irwin 1980), we expect blacks and m e m b e r s of other minorities to be more aggressive than

KRUTTSCHNITT A N D KRMPOTICH

379

Table 1. Inmates at the Correctional Facility at Shakopee, 1980: Variables, Scales and Related Statistics Dependent Variable Scale Inmate's aggression level 0. Never punished 1. Nonaggressive acts 2. Aggressive acts Independent Variables Race 0. Nonwhite 1. White Offense of conviction 0. Nonviolent 1. Violent Age Interval Who raised inmate 0. Other 1. Mom and dad Current drug use 0. None 1. Moderate 2. Heavy Time served on 1. < 6 months present offense 2. 6-12 months 3. 13-24 months 4. 25-36 months 5. 60> months Total time served 1. None on prior convictions 2. < 6 months 3. 6-12 months 4. 13-24 months 5. 25-36 months Racial conflict present 0. Disagree among inmates 1. Agree

Adjusted Frequencies (N=53) 15.1 (8) 69.8 (37) 15.1 (8) 40.4 59.6 50.0 50.0 ~-- 25.44 46.3 53.7 28.0 32.0 40.0 25.0 23.1 42.3 7.7 1.9 69.2 5.8 7.7 13.5 3.8 81.6 18.4

(21) (31) (25) (25) (sd = 5.65) (19) (22) (14) (16) (20) (13) (12) (22) (4) (1) (36) (3) (4) (7) (2) (40) (9)

whites and acts of aggression to be more pronounced when perceptions of racial conflict are present. The noted association between age and adaptation to institutional life leads us to believe that younger inmates will be more aggressive t h a n older inmates (Benn e t t 1976; Fox 1984; J e n s e n 1977; Jensen and Jones 1976). Although we have no evidence t h a t family structure causes aggression, the likelihood of less parental control in single-parent households (Reid and Patterson 1988) suggests that inmates reared by both parents may be less aggressive t h a n those reared in other family structures (see also Balthazar and Cook 1984). In view of the economic and psychopharmacological effects of drugs on inmates, inmates currently using drugs should be more aggressive t h a n those who are not using drugs (Bowker 1977). Several theorists have suggested that the characteristics which an inmate imports into the prison are related to their institutional behavior (Akers et al. 1974, 1977; Ellis et al. 1974; J e n s e n and Jones 1976;

380

FEMALEINMATES

Kruttschnitt 1981). In connection with understanding aggression, we expect that both prior violent behavior (i.e., offense of conviction) and previous periods of incarceration (i.e., time served on prior offenses) will increase the odds of aggression (see, e.g., Bennett 1976; B o w k e r 1980; Ellis et al. 1974; Sylvester, Reed, and Nelson 1977). Finally, because w o m e n who have served more time on their current offense have had a greater chance to be punished for a rule violation or an act of aggression (Sylvester et al. 1977), we control for the length of time served on current offense. Although a n u m b e r of studies suggest the importance of testing the relationship b e t w e e n aggressive acts and inmate homosexuality (Bowker 1981; Simmons 1975; Ward and Kassebaum 1965), limitations of the data prevented us from exploring this hypothesis. At any rate, sexual assults did not appear to be a problem in this institution. Only one incident of sexual violence was reported. FINDINGS Table I contains a descriptive profile of the entire study population and the percentage of females w h o reported engaging in aggressive acts. s Although only 15 percent (N-8) of the female inmates appear to have engaged in such acts, this figure appears somewhat high in light of prior research. Bowker's (1980) review of the victimization rates in female prisons uncovered only three reports. First, an assault rate of .019, or approximately one prisoner in every 50, was reported for one Canadian prison for w o m e n in 1965. The other two studies, which were conducted in the 1970s, report much lower rates. B o w k e r (1980: 49) concludes that these data, in combination with the qualitative studies of female prisons, suggest that violence in prisons for w o m e n and girls is considerably lower than in prisons for m e n and boys. It is difficult to determine the extent to which our data reflect a high level of female aggression or simply a change in the behavior of female inmates over time. William's (1981) analysis of females incarcerated in Michigan implies that the latter explanation may be more plausible than the former. Although his research addresses escapes r a t h e r than inmate aggression, it shows a significant change in the behavior of female inmates over time. In 1967-68 there were no escapes by female inmates, but in 1973-74, 22 percent of the female inmates attempted escape. One other explanation for this rather high incidence of female aggression can be derived from the research of Dobash and his colleagues (1986) on prisons in Britain. Differences b e t w e e n t h e n u m b e r of w o m e n completing t h e survey (N=53) a n d t h e n u m b e r of w o m e n s h o w n in t h e analyses are due to missing data on selected variables.


381

Specifically, they suggest that w o m e n consistently are punished and put on report more frequently than m e n for offenses against prison discipline. They argue that this difference is due to the greater readiness to put w o m e n on report for behavior that would be tolerated in a men's prison (1986: 146-47). Certainly each of these hypotheses remains important for further research. In order to determine the form and the strength of the relationships b e t w e e n aggression and the independent variables, we selected multiple regression as the method of analysis. Although the use of an ordinal-level variable in regression analysis has caused some debate (Bollen and Barb 1981: 232-33), a n u m b e r of scholars argue that the use of parametric statistics with ordinal data will not confound regression analysis (see, e.g., Greenberg 1979; Labovitz 1971). The correlation matrix produced from the regression analysis appears in Table 2. On the basis of the zero-order correlations, none of the independent variables appears to be correlated highly with aggression; the strongest associations occur for age and fmnily structure. Younger inmates and w o m e n raised by both a m o t h e r and a father are most likely to engage in aggressive acts. Among the independent variables, however, family structure and race are correlated highly (.596); whites are more likely than nonwhites to have been raised by both parents. Although this finding is consistent with the results of the national survey of female inmates (Glick and Neto 1977: 123), it also raises the possibility of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity tends to underestimate the absolute value of coefficients; hence it is more difficult to achieve statistical significance. In examining the results of the regression equation, then, we will be sensitive to this possible effect. Table 3 presents the findings from both a multivariate analysis with all variables in the equation and a separate analysis with only the significant variables in the equation. Keeping in mind the exploratory nature of this work, the size of the sample, and the possibility of Type II errors, we employed a significance level of .10 in addition to the more conventional .05 level (see Morrison and Henkel 1970). 4 The regression results confirm partially what we observed in Table 2. Overall we explain only a small amount of the variation in female inmate aggression (R 2 -=- .18 with all variables and .12 with only significant variables); only two variables---race 4 A small n u m b e r of observations with eight independent variables mskes it m o r e difficult to obtain coefficients with small standard errors. There is no reason to believe, however, that using regression with these data will produce biased estimates or standard errors that are estimated incorrectly (see A c h e n 1982:82, Footnote 6; K r a e m e r and T h i e m a n n 1987:65).

-.234

.164

.182

Race Relations

Time on Prior Convictions

Aggression

.270

-- .203

Time Served

Drugs

.126

-- .167

Family

--.175

Race

Offense

- .199

.013

-.122

.092

-- .031

.080

.043

--

Age

- - .112

--.064

--.209

.243

- - .254

.596

--

Race

.196

.147

--.055

.357

- - .170

-

Family

S h a k o p e e Inmates, 1980: Correlation Coefficients

Age

Offense

Table 2.

.108

.036

--.006

--.231

-

Drugs

.097

- - .011

-- .258

Time Served

.081

.230

Relations

Race

.029

Time on Prior Convictions

Aggression

t~

KRUTTSCHNITT AND KRMPOTICH Table 3.

Variables

383

Aggression Among Shakopee Inmates: Unstandardized (b) and Standardized Regression Coefficients (beta) and Related Statistics a

b

beta

Removing Nonsignificant Variables b beta

-- .35 Race - .38* - .34 - .39* Offense of Conviction -.01 .23 Age - .02 - .22 Who Raised Inmate .43" .42 .42"* .41 Drug Use .06 .10 Time Served, Present Offense .03 .09 Total Time, Prior Convictions .34 -.07 Racial Conflict .06 .05 N=34 N=34 R 2 .18 R 2 .12 F .70 F 2.11 Differences in the total N between Tables 1 and 3 are due to missingdata. * Significantt-test (one-tailedtest) .10 ** Significant t-text (one-tailedtext) .05 and childhood family structure--appear to be associated significantly with aggression. Because we were concerned about potential suppressor effects between these two variables and the dependent variable, the fact that both emerged as significant increases our confidence in the observed relationships. The findings with regard to race show that whites are less aggressive t h a n minorities. Although it is tempting to conclude t h a t this outcome supports the few studies which have examined race relations among female inmates, at least three factors suggest that it would be premature to do so. First, both Moyer (1981) and Sieverdes and Bartollas (1982) found t h a t blacks used aggression to dominate other female inmates. The minority population that we are studying, however, is divided almost evenly between blacks (N11) and American Indians (N-8). Second, a previous study of this inmate population revealed that the majority of nonwhites reported having one or more close friendships with white women (Kruttschnitt 1983). Thus even if the nonwhites exhibit more violent behavior t h a n the whites, it seems unlikely that their aggressive actions would be based solely on racial alliances. Finally, the fact that race relations were not associated significantly with aggression in this analysis suggests f u r t h e r t h a t the aggression of these nonwhite women probably is not racially motivated. Net of the effect of race, childhood family structure has the strongest association with aggression. Specifically, we find that

384

FEMALEINMATES

contrary to prior research (Balthazar and Cook 1984), the women who were raised by both parents are more likely to be aggressive t h a n those who were raised in nontraditional family units. Most research suggests that children from conflict-ridden homes are at greater developmental risk than those from relatively harmonious homes, regardless o f whether they are f r o m broken or intact homes (Emery 1982: 313). Accordingly, these findings m a y suggest t h a t the women who were raised in the more traditional families were subject to greater parental conflict t h a n those who were raised by only one parent or in some other nontraditional family unit. None of the other variables appears to be associated significantly with aggression. The lack of significance between aggression and drug use is particularly surprising, especially in light of the links discovered between drug use and male inmate violence. Perhaps the relationship between drugs and inmate aggression depends more on the presence of gang activity than on the psychopharmacological effects of the drugs on the inmates (Bowker 1977). If the supply of drugs is not controlled by any one group of prisoners, its relationship to L,u n a t e violence m a y be decreased significantly. CONCLUSION In examining aggressive inmate behavior in a women's prison, we found t h a t fewer t h a n one-quarter of the incarcerated females engaged in acts of aggression toward their fellow inmates. Yet because the data are based on a small sample reflecting only one institutional population, the findings must be viewed as tentative. Nevertheless, these results illustrate how little we know about the dynamics of women's institutions. Comparable historical and current data could reveal, for example, w h e t h e r female inmates' behavior has become more aggressive over time or w h e t h e r the incidence of aggression among these women is representative of other female inmates. In attempting to determine what aspects of the inmates' demographic profiles or institutional life are related to aggressive behavior, we discovered that some of the factors cited most frequently as having a significant effect on violence among male inmates, such as age and drug use, had no effect on these women's behavior. In addition, we found virtually no evidence of predatory sexual behavior among these women. Certainly the absence of well-organized gang activity in this prison may explain the absence of sexual assaults and the lack of an observed relationship between drug use and inmate aggression. As Ekland-Olson (1986:415) states "We would do well to pay closer attention to the social dynamics of

KRUTTSCHNI~F AND KRMPOTICH

385

violence. Studies that rely on individual characteristicsto predict violence are notoriously ineffective." Although this statement suggests an important avenue for further exploration of the potential differences found in both the extent and the correlates of female inmate violence, stillw e are left with our finding that childhood family structure has the strongest association with aggression among female inmates. Most studies of prison violence draw considerable attention to race, but very few studies have explored the role of childhood family structure and its relationship to aggression. This topic demands additional exploration and analysis. W e need to know, for example 1) whether this effect is sex-specific;2) whether it applies to larger populations of female inmates, including those incarcerated for misdemeanors as well as for felonies;and 3) precisely w h y family structure would lead to aggression in a correctional setting. As noted previously, it is unlikely that the structure of the family itself serves to inhibit or facilitatean inmate's aggressive behavior (Emery 1982). Instead it is probable that the inmate's aggression level is influenced by some unmeasured factor associated with his or her childhood family structure (e.g.,spousal or child physical abuse, incest). Although our most promising approach to future research in penology m a y well be ethnographic studies of the social organization and social control mechanisms of institutions (Eklund-Olson 1986: 416; Marquart and Crouch 1985), w e also must continue to consider the effects of preprison experiences on institutional behavior. The long-standing and well-documented sex differences in adaptation to prison lifem a y be related more closely to the types of social control mechanisms exerted before incarceration than during incarceration. Finally, the policy implications of these findings deserve attention. Victimization has come to be an accepted part of prison life, varying only in degree across institutions. Institutions for m e n m a y produce more violence and victimization than women's institutions, but the detrimental effects of these experiences, regardless of an inmate's gender, must be taken seriously. The experience of being victimized no doubt provides a significantimpetus for aggressive behavior. Furthermore, as Bowker notes (1980:55), there is convincing evidence that the burden of victimization falls most heavily on those w h o have committed relatively minor crimes. Policy analysts and prison administrators must ask themselves, then, whether our prisons realisticallycan provide any rehabilitative or deterrent effect on their charges, or whether being sent to prison is simply "just deserts."

386

FEMALE INMATES

Appendix: Key to Variables Race: "What do you consider your race to be? 1-American Indian 2-Asian American 3-Black 4-Hispanic 5-White 77-Other Blank-No answer Offense of Conviction: "From the list below, check the primary offense for which you are now serving. If parole or probation violation, check the offense for which you were originally convicted." 1-Arson 2-Assault 3-Burglary 4-Prostitution 5-Forgery 6-Theft 7-Kidnapping 8-Murder/manslaughter 9-Narcotics sales/possession 10-Motor Vehicle ll-Robbery 77-Other Blank-No answer Age: "Age at last birthday?" Code actual age of respondent. Blank-No answer Who Raised Them: "Who raised you when you were growing up?" 1-Mother and father 2-Mother only 3-Father only 4-Stepparent(s) 5-Adopted parents 6-Foster home 7-Older brother/sister 8-Grandparent(s) 9-Other relative 10-Children's home l l - N o one 12-Institutions 77-Other Blank-No answer Drug Use:

"How often do you smoke marijuana?" "How often do you use towlin?" "How often do you drink alcohol?" "How often do you take barbiturates?" "How often do you take amphetamines?" "How often do you take other drugs?" 1-Never 2-Once in a while 3-Regularly 4-Daily 5-Once Blank-No answer

Time Served on Present Offense: "How much time have you served on your present offense so f a r at this institution? (If you were on parole, count the time you served before parole plus time served since you returned)." 1-Less than 6 months 2-6 to 12 months 3-13 to 24 months 4-25 to 36 months 5-37 to 48 months 6-49 to 60 months 7-more than 60 months Blank-No answer Total Time Served on Prior Convictions: "What is the total amount of time you have served at Shakopee for prior offenses (before your present offense)?" 1-No prior confinement 2-Less than 6 months 3-6 to 12 months 4-13 to 24 months 5-25 to 36 months 6-37 to 48 months 7-49 to 60 months 8-more than 60 months Blank-No answer Racial Conflict Exists among Inmates: "The prisoners here will never be able to get themselves together because of the racial conflict that exists." 1-Strongly disagree 2-Disagree 3-No opinion 4-Agree 5-Strongly agree Blank-No answer Inmate Aggression: "Please write in below what type of behavior you are most often written up for, or disciplined for." 1-Signing in and out 2-Yelling 3-Fighting 4-Contraband 5-Insubordination 6-Arson 7-Acting out 8-Weapons 9-Appearance 10-Foul language tl-Escape 12-Loss of prison property 13-Unclean room 14-Homosexual acts 15-Tardy to work 16-Smoking 17-Verbal threats 77-Other 99-Inappropriate (never punished) Blank-No answer

KR~HNITT

AND KRMPOTICH

387

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher (1982) Interpreting and Using Regression. Beverly Hills: Sage. Akers, Ron L., Norman S. Hayner, and Werner Gruninger (1974) "Homosexual and Drug Behavior in Prison: A Test of the Functional and Importation Models of the Inmate System." Social Problems 21: 410-22. (1977) "Prisonization in Five Countries." Criminology 14 (Feb):527-68. Balthazar, Mary L. and Ruall J. Cook (1984) "An Analysis of the Factors Related to the Rate of Violent Crimes Committed by Incarcerated Female Delinquents." In Sol Chaneles (ed.), Gender Issues, Sex Offenses, and Criminal Justice: Current Trends. New York: Hawarth, pp. 103-18. Bartollas, Clemens, S.J. Miller, and Simon Dinitz (1976) Juvenile Victimization. New York: Sage. Baunach, Phyllis J. (1985) Mothers in Prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Bennett, Lawrence A. (1976) "The Study of Violence in California Prisons: A Review with Policy Implications." In Albert K. Cohen, George F. Cole, and Robeft G. Bailey (eds.), Prison Violence. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 149-68. BoUen, Kenneth A. and Kenney H. Barb (1981) "Person's R. and Coarsely Categorized Measures." American Sociological Rev/ew 46: 232-39. Bowker, Lee H. (1977) Prisoner Subcultures. Lexington, MA: Heath. (1980) Prison Victimization. New York: Elsevier. - (1981) "Gender Differences in Prisoner Subcultures." In Lee H. Bowker (ed.), Women and Crime in A m e r ~ . New York: Macmillan, pp. 409-19. Braswell, Michael, Steven Dillingham, and Reid Montgomery, Jr. (1985) Prison Violence in America. Cincinnati: Anderson. Brodie, Donna (1982) "Babies behind Bars: Should Incarcerated Mothers Be Allowed to Keep Their Newborns with Them in Prison?" University o f Richmond Law ~ (Spring):677-92. Burkhart, Katherine (1973) Women in Prison. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Carroll, Leo (1974) Hacks, Blacks, and Cons: Race Relations in a Ma.vimum Security Prison. Lexiv~,-,ton,MA~ Heath. Clemmer, Donald (1940) The Prison Community. Boston: Christopher. Cohen, Albert K., George F. Cole, and Robert G. Bailey (1976) Prison Violence. Lexington, MA: Heath. Dobash, Russell P., R. Emerson Dobash, and Sue Gutteridge (1986) The Imprison. ment o f Women. Totowa, NJ: Blackwell. Ekland-Olson, Sheldon (1986) "Crowding, Social Control and Prison Violence: Evidence from the Post-Ru/z Years in Texas." Law and Society Review 20 (3):389421. Ellis, Desmond, Harold G. Grasmick, and Bernard Gilman (1974) "Violence in Prisons: A Sociological Analysis." American Journal of Sociology 80:16-43. Emery, Robert E. (1982) "Interparental Conflict and the Children of Discord and Divorce." Psychological Bulletin 92 (2): 310-30. Feld, Barry C. (1977) Neutralizing Inmate Violence. Cambridge: Ballinger. Flanagan, Timothy J. (1980) "Time Served mad Institutional Misconduct: Patterns of Involvement in Disciplinary Infractions among Long-Term and Short-Term Inmates." Journal o f Criminal Justice 8:357-67. (1983) "Correlates of Institutional Misconduct among State Prisoners: A Research Note." Criminology 21 (Feb):29-40. Fox, James G. (1982) Organizational and Racial Conflict in Maximum-Security Prisons. Lexington, MA: Heath. (1984) "Women's Prison Policy, Prisoner Activism and the Impact of the Contemporary Feminist Movement: A Case Study." Prison Journal 64 (Spring/Summer):15-36. Freedman, EsteUe B. (1981) Their Sis~rs' Keepers: Women's Prison Reform in America, 1830-1930. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Garabedian, Peter G. (1963) "Social Roles and Processes of Socialization in the Prison Community." Social Problems 11:139-52. Giallombardo, Rose (1966) Soc/ety of Women: A Study of a Women's Prison. New York: Wiley. (1974) The Social World o f Imprisoned Girls. New Yorl~ Wiley.

388

FEMALE INMATES

Gibson, H.E. (1976) "Women's Prisons: Laboratories for Penal Reform." In Laura Crites (ed.), The Female Offender. Lexington, MA: Heath, pp. 93-119. Glaser, Daniel (1964) The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Indianapolis: Bobbs-MelTill. Glick, Ruth M. and Virginia V. Neto (1977) National Study o f Women's Correctional Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Greenberg, David F. (1979) Mathematical Criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Haley, Kathleen (1980) "Mothers behind Bars: A Look at the Parental Rights of Incarcerated Women." In Susan K. Datesman and Frank R. Scarpitti (eds.), Women, Crime and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 339-53. Halleck, Seymour L. and Marvin Hersko (1962) "Homosexual Behavior in a Correctional Institution for Adolescent Girls." American Journal of Ortho-p~chiatry 32:911-17. Harper, Ida (1952) "The Role of the 'Finger' in a State Prison for Women." Social Forces 31:53-60. Harris, Sara (1967) Hellhole. New York: Dutton. Heffernan, Esther (1972) Making It in Prison: The Square, the Coo~ and the Life. New York: Wiley. Henriques, Zelma W. (1982) Imprisoned Mothers and Their Childrerv--A Descriptive and Analytic Study. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Hendelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi, and Joseph G. Weis (1981) Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills: Sage. Irwin, John (1980) Prisons in Turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown. Jacobs, James B. (1979) "Race Relations and the Prisoner Subculture." In Norval Morris and Michael Tonry (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-27. (1982) "Limits of Racial Integration in Prison." Criminal Law Bulletin 18 (March/April):1i7-53. Jensen, Gary F. (1977) "Age and Rule-Breaking in Prison: A Test of Sociocultural Interpretations." Criminology 14:555-68. Jensen, Gary F. and Dorothy Jones (1976) "Perspectives on Inmate Culture: A Study of Women in Prison." Social Farces 54:590-603. Kraemer, Helena Chmura and Sue Thlemann (1987) How many Subjects? Statistieal Power Analysis in Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kruttschnitt, Candace (1981) "Prison Codes, Inmate Solidarity, and Women: A Reexamination." In Marguerite O. Warren (ed.), Comparing Female and Male Offenders. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 123-41. (1983) "Race Relations and the Female Offender." Crime and Delinquency 29:577-92. Labovitz, Sanford (1971) "In Defense of Assigning Numbers to Ranks." American Sociological Review 36:521-22. Linquist, C.A. (1978) "Female Violators of Prison Discipline:F Backgrounds and Sanctions." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Lockwood, Daniel (1980) Prison Sexual Violence. New York: Elsevier. Mann, Coramae R. (1984) Female Crime and Delinquency. University of Alabama Press. Marqum% James W. and Ben M. Crouch (1985) "Judicial Reform and Prisoner Control: The Impact of Ruiz v. Estelle on a Texas Penitentiary." Law and Soc/ety Rev/ew 19 (4):55786. Mawby, R.I. (1982) "Women in Prison--A British Study." Crime and Delinquency 28 (January):24-39. McGowan, Brenda and Karen Blumenthal (1976) "Children of Women Prisoners: A Forgotten Minority." In Laura Crites (ed.), The Female Offender. Lexington, MA: Heath, pp. 121-36. McHugh, Gerald A. (1980) "Protection of the Rights of Pregnant Women in Prisons and Detention Facilities." New England Journal on Pr/son Law 6 (2):231-63. Messenger, Sheldon (1969) "Strategies of Control." Unpublished paper. University of California, Berkeley: Center for the Study of Law and Society. Morrison, D. and R. Henkel (1970) The Significance Test Controversy: A Reader. Chicago: Aldine. Moyer, Imogene L. (1981) "Black Leadership in a Women's Prison.'' Presented at annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Toronto.

KRUTTSCHNI2"r AND KRMPOTICH

389

Propper, Alice M. (1980) "Prison Homosexuality: Re-Examining Conventional Wisdom." In Curt T. Griffiths and Margit Nance (eds.), The Female Offender: Selected Papers from an International Symposium. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University, pp. 163-94. - (1981) Prison Homosexuality--Myth and Reality. Lexington, MA: Heath. Rafter, Nicole Hahn (1985) Partial Justice: Women in State Prisons, 1800-1935. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Reid, John B. and Gerald R. Patterson (1988) "The Development of Antisocial Behavior Patterns in Childhood and Adolescence." European Journal o f Personality 3:107-19. Roske, Allan C. (1985) "Predicting Violence in a Maximum Security Penitentiary: A Matter of Survival." Prison Journal 03:114o24. Scacco, Anthony M., Jr. (1975) Rape in Prison. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Sieverdas, Christopher M. and Clemens Bartollas (1982) "Race, Sex, and Juvenile Inmate Roles." Deviant Behavior 3 (April/June):203-18. Simmons, Imogene (1975) "Interaction and Leadership among Female Prisoners." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia. Snortum, John R., Thomas E. Hannum, and David H. Mills (1970) '~l~he Relation° ships of Self-Concept and Parent Image to Rule Violations in a Women's Prison." Journal o f Clinical Psychology 26:284-87. Spencer, E.J. (1977) "Social System of a Medium Security Women's Prison." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Stanton, Ann (1980) When Mothers Go to Jail. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Street, David, Robert Vinter, and Charles Perrow (1966) Organization for Treatment. New York: Free Press. Sykes, Gresb-m (1958) The Society o f Captives: A Study o f a Ma.vimum Security Prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sykes, Gresham and Sheldon L. Massinger (1960) "The Inmate Social System." In Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of Prison, Pamphlet 15. New York: Social Science Research Council, pp. 5-19. Sylvester, Sawyer, John Reed, and David Nelson (1977) Prison Homicide. New York: Spectrum. Tittle, Charles R. (1969) "Inmate Organization: Sex Differentiation and the Influence of Criminal Subcultures." American Sociological Review 34:492-505. Toch, Hans (1977) Peacekeeping: Police, Prisons, and Violence. Lexington, MA: Heath. Ward, David A. (1980) "Stillwater Transitional Study. A Survey of Inmate and Staff Views of Personal Safety and Other Aspects of Living and Working in the Minnesota State Prison." Unpublished technical report. Department of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Minnesota. Ward, David A. and Gene Kassebaum (1965) Women's Prisons: Sex and Social Structure. Chicago: Aldine. Wellford, Charles (1967) "Factors Associated with Adoption of the Inmate Code: A Study of Normative Socialization." The Journal o f Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 58 (June):197-203. Wheeler, Stanton (1961) "Socialization in Correctional Communities." American Sociological Review 26:697-712. Williams, Terry (1981) "Sentencing Time in Corrections and Parole." In Josefina Figueira-McDonough, Alfreda Iglehart, Rosemary Sarri, and Terry Williams (eds.), Women in Prison. Michigan" 1968-1978. Ann Arbor: School of Social Work and the Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, pp. 99123. Wilson, Thomas P. (1968) "Patterns of Management and Adaptation to Organizational Roles." American Journal of Sociology 74:146-57. Wooden, Wayne S. and Jay Parker (1982) Men behind Bars: Sexual Exploitation in Prison. New York: Plenum. Vega, Manuel, Ira Silverman, and John Accardi (1977) "The Female Felon." In Harry E. Allen and Nancy S. Beran (ecls.), Reform in Corrections: Problems and Issues. New York: Praeger, pp. 53-75. Zingraff, Matthew T. and Rhonda Zingraff (1980) "Adaptation Patterns of Incarcerated Female Delinquents." Juvenile and Family Court Journal (May):35-47.