Implications of Different Outcome Measures for an Understanding of Inmate Misconduct

Benjamin Steiner, John Wooldredge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Quantitative studies geared toward understanding differences among prison inmates in their odds of committing rule infractions have grown over the last decade but with little consistency in the models examined, especially regarding the types of rule violations examined. These differences have, in turn, contributed to an increasingly complex picture of inmate misconduct that appears counterproductive for both theory and practice. The study described here was designed to assess the ramifications of examining different outcome measures for quantitative analyses of the subject. Findings revealed that three of the nine models examined produced unique information regarding the effects of various inmate predictors, including the models of physical assaults (on inmates and/or staff), drug/alcohol use, and other nonviolent misconduct. Analyses also uncovered several new substantive findings on the topic. Findings are discussed in light of their relevance for practice as well as theories of inmate behavior.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1234-1262
Number of pages29
JournalCrime and Delinquency
Volume59
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2013

Fingerprint

Prisons
Alcohols
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pharmaceutical Preparations
assault
correctional institution
alcohol
drug
staff

Keywords

  • inmate misconduct
  • inmates
  • prison
  • rule infractions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Law

Cite this

Implications of Different Outcome Measures for an Understanding of Inmate Misconduct. / Steiner, Benjamin; Wooldredge, John.

In: Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 59, No. 8, 01.12.2013, p. 1234-1262.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{622297801ea3478880c583e75c5627e9,
title = "Implications of Different Outcome Measures for an Understanding of Inmate Misconduct",
abstract = "Quantitative studies geared toward understanding differences among prison inmates in their odds of committing rule infractions have grown over the last decade but with little consistency in the models examined, especially regarding the types of rule violations examined. These differences have, in turn, contributed to an increasingly complex picture of inmate misconduct that appears counterproductive for both theory and practice. The study described here was designed to assess the ramifications of examining different outcome measures for quantitative analyses of the subject. Findings revealed that three of the nine models examined produced unique information regarding the effects of various inmate predictors, including the models of physical assaults (on inmates and/or staff), drug/alcohol use, and other nonviolent misconduct. Analyses also uncovered several new substantive findings on the topic. Findings are discussed in light of their relevance for practice as well as theories of inmate behavior.",
keywords = "inmate misconduct, inmates, prison, rule infractions",
author = "Benjamin Steiner and John Wooldredge",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0011128709335151",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "1234--1262",
journal = "Crime and Delinquency",
issn = "0011-1287",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implications of Different Outcome Measures for an Understanding of Inmate Misconduct

AU - Steiner, Benjamin

AU - Wooldredge, John

PY - 2013/12/1

Y1 - 2013/12/1

N2 - Quantitative studies geared toward understanding differences among prison inmates in their odds of committing rule infractions have grown over the last decade but with little consistency in the models examined, especially regarding the types of rule violations examined. These differences have, in turn, contributed to an increasingly complex picture of inmate misconduct that appears counterproductive for both theory and practice. The study described here was designed to assess the ramifications of examining different outcome measures for quantitative analyses of the subject. Findings revealed that three of the nine models examined produced unique information regarding the effects of various inmate predictors, including the models of physical assaults (on inmates and/or staff), drug/alcohol use, and other nonviolent misconduct. Analyses also uncovered several new substantive findings on the topic. Findings are discussed in light of their relevance for practice as well as theories of inmate behavior.

AB - Quantitative studies geared toward understanding differences among prison inmates in their odds of committing rule infractions have grown over the last decade but with little consistency in the models examined, especially regarding the types of rule violations examined. These differences have, in turn, contributed to an increasingly complex picture of inmate misconduct that appears counterproductive for both theory and practice. The study described here was designed to assess the ramifications of examining different outcome measures for quantitative analyses of the subject. Findings revealed that three of the nine models examined produced unique information regarding the effects of various inmate predictors, including the models of physical assaults (on inmates and/or staff), drug/alcohol use, and other nonviolent misconduct. Analyses also uncovered several new substantive findings on the topic. Findings are discussed in light of their relevance for practice as well as theories of inmate behavior.

KW - inmate misconduct

KW - inmates

KW - prison

KW - rule infractions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887524267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887524267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0011128709335151

DO - 10.1177/0011128709335151

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84887524267

VL - 59

SP - 1234

EP - 1262

JO - Crime and Delinquency

JF - Crime and Delinquency

SN - 0011-1287

IS - 8

ER -