Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct [1 ed.] 9781593327804, 9781593327583

Citation preview

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Edited by Nicholas P. Lovrich

A Series from LFB Scholarly Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion Religiosity and Prison Misconduct

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Benjamin Meade

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC El Paso 2014 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meade, Benjamin, 1981Moral communities and jailhouse religion : religiosity and prison misconduct / Benjamin Meade. pages cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59332-758-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Prisoners--Religious life--United States. 2. Prison discipline-United States. 3. Criminals--Rehabilitation--United States. 4. Prison psychology--United States. I. Title. HV8865.M43 2014 365'.6430973--dc23 2014018970

ISBN 978-1-59332-758-3 Manufactured in the United States of America. Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................... vii  Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................... 1  Chapter 2: Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance ........................ 11  Chapter 3: Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence .............. 39  Chapter 4: Religion and Corrections ......................................... 63 

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Chapter 5: Studying the Relationship between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct ......................... 93  Chapter 6: The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct ............................................................ 113  Chapter 7: Conclusion ............................................................. 133 Appendices .............................................................................. 155  References ............................................................................... 221  Index

............................................................................... 243 

v

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank a number of people for providing help and support while I worked on this study. First, I would like to thank Benjamin Steiner, Brandon Applegate, Barbara Koons-Witt, and Byron Johnson. Their input and guidance improved the quality of this work, and I am indebted to them for their insight. Benjamin Steiner deserves particular acknowledgement for the help offered with this book. In terms of social support, my family and friends have been an incredible source of encouragement. My colleagues Gillian Pinchevsky and Brian Fuleihan were extremely supportive during the completion of this work. My mother and father, Linda and Dane Meade, and my sisters, Mollie Berry and Katie Monahan, believed in me and encouraged me to keep on going when I would lose faith in myself. I am tremendously blessed and eternally grateful for their unconditional love and support. The successful completion of this work was utterly dependent upon each of those acknowledged above, and I thank you all.

vii

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved. Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Chapter 1

Introduction

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

“The LORD gives freedom to the prisoners.” Psalm 146:7 “Remember those who are in prison.” Hebrews 13:3 Religion and religiosity have been largely neglected in criminological research. They have played virtually no role in theoretical criminology, and rarely have been considered as a variable in applied research (Day & Laufer 1987; Johnson 2011; Stark & Bainbridge 1997). Yet, sociological research indicates that religion is important for virtually every American. Almost 90 percent of Americans report believing in God or a higher power (Ebaugh 2000; Greeley & Hout 1999; Smith et al. 2011). Findings from the 2010 General Social Survey revealed almost 60 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “I know God exists and I have no doubts about it.” Almost one-third of respondents expressed belief in God or a higher power with some doubts, but only three percent expressed outright disbelief (Smith et al. 2011). In addition, findings reported from the Faith Matters Survey revealed that 83 percent of Americans reported belonging to a religious group, 40 percent attended services weekly, and 60 percent prayed weekly (Putnam & Campbell 2010). The few scholars who have focused on religion and religiosity in criminology have referred to it as “the forgotten factor” or the “last acceptable prejudice” (see, e.g., Larson & Johnson 1998; Johnson 2011). Research examining religion in the prison system is even scarcer. The paucity of studies of religion and religiosity in the 1 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

2

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion

correctional context is particularly odd in light of the historical relationship between religion and corrections (Dodson et al. 2011; O’Connor 2002; Young et al. 1995). Religious faith groups started the first American prisons. The Quakers applied the ideas related to the conversion of sinners to the rehabilitation of criminal offenders (Young et al. 1995). For example, the first prisons in the U.S. were instituted by the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and they placed an emphasis on religious instruction and expiation through meditative isolation. Even the vocabulary used in correctional practice has clear religious undertones, and hints at the close ties between historical correctional philosophy and religion. The word penitentiary, for example, derives from the word penitence which refers to personal regret, contrition, or repentance for sins or wrongdoing (Clear & Sumter 2002). Rehabilitation, reformatories, reintegration and even the term “corrections” itself are words that are related to the Christian ideas of conversion, salvation, and redemption. Religion is also a major influence within contemporary correctional institutions. For example, The Office for FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFBNP) (formerly the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), created by President George W. Bush in 2001, represented an effort to support faith-based and community organizations by expanding their capacity to provide federally-funded social services. Part of the underlying logic behind the creation of the OFBNP was the idea that faith-based groups were often favorably situated to address the needs of local individuals attempting to re-engage with their community. The OFBNP created opportunities for the federal government to enter partnerships with faith-based organizations in order to expand the scope of the delivery of faith-based social programs to system-involved youths and adults. Faith-based prison programs and reentry services were some of the social programs most affected by these ambitious efforts (Dodson et al. 2011). Aside from work, education, and vocational training, religious services and spiritual programs are

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Introduction

3

the most widely offered programs and services in U.S. prisons (Johnson 2004). Nearly every prison has a full-time, paid chaplain who provides spiritual guidance and other religious services to inmates (Sundt & Cullen 1998; Sundt & Cullen 2002; Sundt et al. 2002), and the overwhelming majority of prison volunteers are associated with a church or religious organization. These volunteers provide services ranging from Bible study and worship leading to mentoring, life skills training and remedial and GED instruction (Johnson 2008). There is some evidence that inmates are less religious in practice and belief than the general population (see, e.g., Knudten 1977), nonetheless recent studies show a third of all inmates participate in religious worship services (O’Connor & Perryclear 2002).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

RELIGIOSITY, FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS, AND INMATE BEHAVIOR Correctional administrators have seemingly been quick to adopt and implement a vast array of religious programs and services for their inmates (Johnson 2008; Johnson 2011; O’Connor & Perryclear 2002). In 2005, eighteen states and the federal government operated a faith-based residential program, and two more states reported having one in development (National Institute of Corrections 2005). These programs are likely to be attractive to corrections officials because they are politically popular and cost effective, as many are staffed by volunteers or funded by private organizations, such as Prison Fellowship (Duwe & Johnson 2013). Although prison officials have been eager to expand religious opportunities and faith-based programs, scholars have been less than enthusiastic about the empirical study of religion, religiosity, and faith-based programs in prison. Many of the existing studies are of poor research design quality, conducted by individuals with little or no training in research methodology, or by individuals with a vested interest in the program(s) under study (Camp et al. 2006; Johnson 2008;

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

4

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion

Knudten and Knudten 1971; O’Connor 2004b). Some qualitative studies and a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence reported in the research literature indicate that religion has beneficial impacts for inmates, particularly in terms of facilitating the process of adapting to a stressful, foreign environment, and addressing the feelings of loneliness, isolation, and the sense of forsakenness prisoners often experience (Clear et al. 2000; Giordano et al. 2008; Johnson & Larson 2003; Kerley & Copes 2009; Maruna et al. 2006). However, few quantitative studies have examined the impact of inmates’ religiosity or religious programs on inmate behavior (i.e., misconduct, recidivism). Of these studies, only a handful have used strong research designs and/or methods sufficient to survive the peer review process of reputable academic journals (see, e.g., Camp et al. 2008; Giordano 2008; Johnson 1987; Johnson 2004; Kerley et al. 2005; Kerly et al. 2006; Pass 1999; Sturgis 2010; Young et al. 1995). The existing studies of strong design and well-collected empirical evidence to date have yet to demonstrate conclusive support for the hypothesis that religion and/or religious programs can reduce inmate misbehavior in prison, or offending after their release. This is an important line of research in light of the political and economic resources devoted to the expansion of faith-based programs in prison and the advocacy championing the effectiveness of faith-based programs (DiIulio 2011; Duwe & Johnson 2013; Johnson 2011; Mears et al. 2006; Mears 2007). Some of the existing studies have shown that religious inmates or religious program participants exhibit significantly fewer negative behaviors, such as misconduct, fighting among inmates, and/or recidivism (Camp et al. 2008; Clear & Sumter 2002; Kerley et al. 2005; LaVigne 2007; Young et al. 1995). However, an equal number of studies reveal no demonstrable behavioral differences between religious inmates and non-religious inmates (see e.g. Johnson 1987; Johnson et al. 2002; Johnson & Larson 2003; Koenig 1995; Sturgis 2010). Some studies have found, however, that inmates who graduate from faith-based programs and/or have higher levels of participation in faith-based

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Introduction

5

programs have lower odds of misconduct or recidivism than lowfrequency participants and/or non-participants (see, e.g., Johnson 2004; Johnson et al. 1992; Johnson & Larson 2003; O’Connor & Perryclear 2002). A principal criticism of this research, however, has been the potential threat to the internal validity of study designs. Selection bias would threaten internal validity if offenders who are involved with religion or who volunteer for/participate in faith-based programs are already different in some other way than those offenders who are not religious or do not volunteer to participate in faith-based programs (Camp et al. 2006). For example, some studies indicate that individuals who select into religion may have traits or characteristics (e.g., self-control, selfefficacy) that may predispose them to lower odds of deviance, relative to non-religious individuals. Thus, any observed differences in behavioral outcomes between religious and nonreligious prisoners could simply be due to other differences between the two groups rather than their level of religiosity or involvement in faith-based programs.1 In the broadest sense, the goal of this research is to study the effect of religiosity on inmate misconduct. I accomplish this through two separate, yet related studies. First, I attempt to estimate the effect of religiosity on inmate misconduct. I address the potential selection bias threat by using propensity score matching techniques to create statistically equivalent groups of religious inmates and nonreligious inmates. The effects of religiosity are then compared across the two groups.                                                              1

It is also plausible that inmates select into religious activities or faithbased programs for manipulative, or extrinsic reasons (see, e.g. Clear et al. 2000). These inmates may be more deviant to begin with, and therefore, have higher odds of misconduct. Researchers have not considered the potential for a selection bias that predisposes religious inmates to higher odds of misconduct. I discuss this possibility in more detail in chapter 4.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

6

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND MISCONDUCT IN CONTEXT Early scholarship regarding the relationship between religion/religiosity and crime/delinquency in the general population revealed a pattern of mixed findings, similar to the current findings regarding the religiosity-inmate misconduct relationship (see, e.g., Albrecht et al. 1977; Burkett & White 1974; Higgins & Albrecht 1977; Hirschi & Stark 1969). For example, Hirschi and Stark (1969), in the most widely-cited religion-delinquency study, observed that “kids were as likely to strip your car on their way home from Sunday school as they were on their way home from the pool hall or video game arcade” (cited in Stark & Bainbridge 1997, p. 2). Later studies revealed, however, that individuals who attended church frequently or stated that religion was an important influence in their lives were less likely to report engaging in delinquency, criminal acts of theft or violence, and substance use (see, e.g., Albrecht et al. 1977; Higgins and Albrecht 1977; Peek et al. 1979). This assortment of findings motivated scholars to attempt to explain why religiosity was an important influence in some studies, but not in others. One explanation suggested was that the study setting may influence the effectiveness of individual religiosity. Rodney Stark hypothesized that the study of religion/religiosity and crime should be approached from an ecological or contextual point of view (Stark 1987a; Stark 1987b; Stark & Bainbridge 1997; Stark et al. 1982). Drawing from the ideas of Durkheim in Suicide and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Stark and Bainbridge (1997) based their propositions on the premise that religion functioned as a group, rather than an individual, process of behavior direction. They argued that the proportion of persons in an ecological setting, as opposed to individual attendance or religious salience, is the critical factor in determining whether religion will constrain deviant behavior. Stark and Bainbridge (1997, p. 73) posited that

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Introduction

7

religion has efficacy to produce conformity to social norms principally through interaction with other religious individuals who accept religion as a valid basis for action. Regnerus (2003b) referred to this as “the light switch effect”, whereby religiosity significantly affects behavior only when an individual is situated in an ecological context with a critical mass of others who share the same beliefs and practices. For example, if individuals live in a community where most of their friends attend church and are religious, religion likely enters into everyday interactions and conversations. On the other hand, if the majority of individuals’ friends are not religious, religion will not be a part of everyday interaction, and “the effects of individual religiousness will be smothered by group indifference and will tend to become a very compartmentalized component of the individual’s life” (Stark & Bainbridge 1997, p. 72). Ultimately, since ecological areas vary in their degree of religiosity, the strength of the relationship between individual religiosity and crime/delinquency could be dependent upon the ecological and social context (Stark 1987; Stark & Bainbridge 1997; Stark et al. 1983). The context-dependent explanation was used to account for why studies conducted in regions of the country with larger secular influences failed to find any relationship between religiosity and deviance (e.g., Burkett & White 1974; Hirschi & Stark 1969), while studies in the “Bible Belt” and other more religious contexts found that religiosity was a strong predictor of lower odds of deviance (e.g., Albrecht et al 1977; Higgins & Albrecht 1977). Recent studies have also found empirical support for the argument that religious contexts have lower offending rates and/or condition the individual-level religiositydeviance relationship (see Regnerus 2003b; Stark 1996; Stark & Bainbridge 1997; Stark et al. 1982; Wallace et al. 2007). This contextual perspective on religiosity has been termed the moral communities hypothesis (Stark 1987; Stark et al. 1982; Stark & Bainbridge 1997). The moral communities hypothesis

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

8

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion

may shed light on the mixed findings of studies of the relationship between religiosity and inmate misconduct. In other words, the individual-level relationships between personal religiosity and institutional misbehavior may be stronger in prison environments that are more religious overall. Recent studies of prison misconduct have found evidence that differences in facility characteristics moderate the impact of individual-level predictors of misconduct (Clear & Sumter 2002; Wooldredge and Steiner 2009). It could be that prison environments that are more religious strengthen the hypothesized inverse effect of individual religiosity on misconduct. Many religious programs in prisons attempt to provide supportive religious environments and separate housing units for inmate participants, and many states have implemented entirely faithbased housing units or facilities (Johnson 2011; LaVigne et al. 2007). LaVigne et al. (2007) found that inmates released from faithbased prisons in Florida were less likely to be reincarcerated than a comparison group of inmates matched on key demographic and criminal history variables. In light of evidence concerning moral communities in the general population, stronger religious environments in prison may help to reinforce the effects of religiosity and counteract the potentially criminogenic effects associated with the typical prison environment. The second distinct study contained within this book involves an examination of the moral communities hypothesis within the prison context. I examine the effects of religious environments on the level of inmate misconduct, as well as whether the relationship between inmates’ personal religiosity and misconduct is affected by the level of religiosity in the prison environment in which they are confined. The impact of religiosity on misconduct is an important line of study, as misconduct is one of, if not the, most important outcomes investigated in prison research. Misconduct is one of the major indicators of order and safety in facilities for both practitioners and scholars (DiIulio 1987; Reisig 1998; Steiner &

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Introduction

9

Woolredge 2008; Toch et al. 1989), and researchers have also examined misconduct or, conversely, conformity to institutional rules as an indicator of inmate adaptation to prison (Wheeler 1961; MacKenzie et al 1987; Wright 1993). Related research has recently focused on identifying inmate and institutional correlates of misconduct (see e.g. Camp et al. 2003; Huebner 2003; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008). Studies identifying the important inmate- and facility-level predictors of misconduct can shed light on why some inmates commit institutional rule infractions, as well as why certain facilities have higher misconduct rates. This information is instructive for maintaining institutional security, and can aid in security or housing classification, not to mention the direction and delivery of institutional programs and services (Camp et al. 2003; DiIulio 1987; Griffin & Hepburn 2006). Examining the effects of religiosity on inmate misconduct may prove particularly insightful and advantageous for correctional administrators. As mentioned earlier, religious instruction and programs are politically popular and relatively inexpensive (Duwe & Johnson 2013). Increasing the opportunity for religious activities and programs may be a rather straightforward and attractive means of combating institutional misconduct and promoting order and safety within U.S. prisons. PLAN OF THE BOOK This book is organized as follows. Chapter 2 contains a review of the theoretical perspectives and the empirical and qualitative evidence concerning the relationship between religion/religiosity and deviance. Chapter 2 also provides important conceptual distinctions between the key terms of religion and religiosity. Chapter 3 will provide a basis for the study of misconduct as an outcome. First, the major perspectives on inmate behavior and prison order are discussed. Next, I review the literature on inmate misconduct, focusing on the task of highlighting the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

10

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

variables that have been shown to predict inmate misconduct in prior research. In chapter 4, I return to the discussion of religion and religiosity, and investigate its relevance to the prison environment. I discuss the influence of religion on the historical development of American correctional practice, and provide an overview of the putative benefits of involvement in religion for inmates. Finally, I discuss the ways in which inmate religiosity has been studied in prison, including the impact of religiosity on the adaptation process to prison, the impact of religiosity on inmate misconduct, and the role of religion/religiosity and faithbased programs on inmate misconduct/recidivism. In chapter 5, I discuss the data and methods used to carry out the two studies reported upon here, while Chapter 6 lays out the results derived from those two studies. The book concludes with Chapter 7, in which I discuss the implications of the findings both for future corrections research and for contemporary correctional and facility-management policy.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Chapter 2

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

“If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15 In this chapter, I provide a framework for the hypothesized effect of religion and/or religiosity on deviant outcomes. First, I define religion and religiosity as distinct conceptual phenomena in the social sciences. Following this, I review the several criminological theories that have been used to frame the relationship between religion/religiosity and various forms of deviance. Finally, I evaluate the existing empirical evidence regarding the religion/religiosity-deviance relationship. Sociologists of religion have struggled with a definition of religion, but generally agree that religion is more than simply the belief in the supernatural, god, or gods. A religion consists of social practices and institutions that have moral purpose (Voas 2007). It is a collection of organized practices, norms, and values (Voas 2007). The term religion, when used in this work, refers to the moral structure and/or institution that serves as the source of individual beliefs, knowledge, and practice. Religiosity, in scholarly terms, is the degree to which one is religious, and refers to the individual possession and personallysensed importance of religious beliefs and practices (Voas 2007). Johnson and colleagues (2000b) hence define religiosity as “the extent to which an individual is committed to the religion he or she professes and to its teachings, such that the individual’s attitudes and behaviors reflect this commitment” (p. 379). In 11 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

12

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

other words, religion is the organization that provides a set of beliefs, instructions on appropriate practices, and support for individual members, while religiosity is the acceptance of and commitment to those elements provided by religion. The elements of religiosity across different religions that serve important theoretical functions are beliefs and practices (Stark & Glock 1968). Beliefs refer to the set of theological tenets particular to a religion and the acknowledgement of the truth of those articles of faith. For example, Jews believe in the future coming of the awaited Messiah, Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and savior of the world, and Muslims believe Muhammad is the chief prophet of Allah. A religious belief system would also include instructions or commands about appropriate religious conduct (Stark & Glock 1968). Religious practice involves those things that people do to carry out their religious commitment. Religious practices can involve ritual or devotion (Stark & Glock 1968). Rituals are the formal acts and practices adherents are expected to perform such as the sacraments of communion or baptism, the participation in holy feast days, or pilgrimages. Devotion refers to individual or private expressions of commitment such as study, prayer, or meditation. Finally, religious beliefs and practices should produce consequences (Stark & Glock 1968). Religious beliefs prescribe how adherents should think and act in everyday life, and therefore the lifestyle and behavior of religious adherents should be in compliance with their beliefs. Because religion emphasizes moral conduct and virtuous character, one would expect that religious individuals would be less likely to violate social norms and break the laws of society. In other words, individuals who have stronger religious beliefs and more frequent religious practices (i.e., exhibit greater religiosity) should exhibit greater conformity to social norms.2                                                              2

It should be assumed that unless otherwise explicitly stated, the use of the terms religion and religiosity throughout this chapter refers to Christian religious practice and beliefs. Most of the studies reviewed

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

13

THEORIES OF RELIGION, RELIGIOSITY AND DEVIANCE

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Social Control The effect of religion and religiosity on deviance and crime has been most frequently framed within theories of social control. Control theories assume that the definition of deviance is similar across all groups of society and is caused by indifference to or weakness of shared norms (Kornhauser 1978). Control theorists reject the view that crime is based on needs or requires a strong motivation (Hirschi 2002 [1969]). Control theories assume that humans are naturally self-interested. As a consequence, no motivational explanation is needed for crime because crime is simply a quicker and easier way to gratify needs than conformity (Hirschi 2002 [1969]; Kornhauser 1978). What must be explained, according to Hirschi (2002 [1969]), is why individuals do not commit crime (p. 34). Control theories must therefore explain conformity or why individuals follow the rules. The key influence on deviant behavior is the variation in strength of social control across individuals (Kornhauser 1978). Social controls are “actual or potential rewards and punishments that accrue from conformity to or deviation from norms” (Kornhauser 1978, p. 24). Individuals accrue rewards and avoid punishment when they conform to the prevailing social order and                                                                                                                         in this chapter make this assumption, although many fail to state it clearly. For example, religiosity is often measured through belief or practice statements unique to Christianity such as I believe Jesus is the Son of God, I believe in the Devil, I frequently engage in the sacraments, etc. (see, e.g., Albrecth et al. 1977; Elifson et al. 1983; Evans et al. 1995a; Evans et al. 1995b; Litchfield et al. 1997). This assumption does not apply to subsequent discussions of religion/religiosity in prison, as scholars have been more careful to recognize the greater prevalence of other religions, particularly Islam, in U.S. prisons (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2000; Dammer 2002).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

14

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

deny their own need-gratifying behavior. Conversely, deviant behavior incurs punishment and jeopardizes those valuables gained through conformity (Kornhauser 1978). Thus, for social control theory advocates, variation in the strength of social controls, not variation in criminal motivation, is the underlying explanation for variation in deviance (Hirschi 2002 [1969]). When applying control theories to the study of religion and deviance, religion and religiosity are believed to function to restrain individuals. The assumptions of control theories are similar to the worldview of many Christians who believe that humans are fallen, inherently sinful, and need some outside, divine force to help them overcome their wicked inner-desires. Although various scholars have proposed that religion may integrate, deter, or foster bonds, there is a common element across perspectives of social control and religion. Religion and/or religiosity restrain individuals from doing things they otherwise would have done in the “naked” pursuit of self-interest (Rengerus et al. 2003). Durkheim provided one of the earliest attempts to consider religion as a principal form of social control. In Suicide (1951 [1897]), Durkheim outlined the relationship between religion, social integration, and suicide rates. Social integration refers to “a shared willingness to conform to and cause others to conform to a set of norms or rules defining proper interaction” (Stark & Bainbridge 1997, p. 4). Social integration is the degree to which the moral order governing proper interaction within society prevails over individual self-pursuits. Durkheim argued that people are moral only to the extent that they are social. In other words, people are restrained when they are integrated into social networks because they seek to maintain and protect their attachments (Stark & Bainbridge 1997). Religion is one core social mechanism by which individuals are socially integrated. Durkheim viewed religion as a socially constructed experience, and his views on the social function of religion are expressed clearly in his book The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (2001 [1915]). Durkheim argued that religion likely

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

15

developed out of a sense of community. Religion as a social institution functioned to make people willing to put the interests of society ahead of their self-interests. The rituals of religion are designed to teach self-discipline and provide instruction as to what individuals should and should not do. Religion also provides a positive social experience, where individuals enjoy a sense of heightened emotion within group interactions, which leads in time to stronger ties among the people who compose the religious group. Durkheim (2001 [1915]) asserted that religious individuals, in the ultimate sense, were actually worshipping the social group, or society. Although some scholars questioned Durkheim’s assumptions (see Stark & Bainbridge 1997 for an excellent critical analysis of the theories, data, and methods of Suicide), his ideas regarding the function and role of religion as a source of social control have fundamentally shaped the sociology of religion and deviance. The contemporary study of the ways in which religion controls behavior is often traced to Hirschi and Stark’s (1969) study of religiosity and delinquency. Hirschi and Stark (1969) posited that the threat of sanctions imbedded in religious belief and practice served to control deviance3. This perspective is called the hellfire hypothesis. Hirschi and Stark (1969) argued                                                              3

The deterrent effect of religious sanctions can be conceptualized under control theory, since deterrence doctrines and control theories share the same assumptions regarding human nature (Gibbs 1977). Strictly speaking, deterrence is the idea that punishment or the threat thereof reduces crime (Bentham 2009 [1823]). Gibbs (1977) argued that deterrence is a narrow conception of social control. Although deterrence recognizes that the unpleasantness of the punishment itself may influence behavior, it ignores other preventive effects of legal punishment. Social control theories include punishment as only one means through which behavior is controlled (i.e., Kornhauser 1978). For example, control theories include the threat of punishment as a mechanism of social control, but also are just as, if not more, focused on informal social control through relational networks (Hirschi 2002 [1969]; Kornhauser 1978).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

16

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

that the belief system of religion produces moral character and value, specifically through the supernatural aspect of divine punishment and rewards. That is, “the Christian sanctioning system of hellfire for sinners and heavenly glory for the just” (p. 203) deters unlawful conduct. Other scholars have expounded on the deterrent impact of religion and religiosity in terms of supernatural sanctions in this world (Harris 2003). Negative life events are punishments from God for sin, and positive life events are rewards for righteous behavior. Harris (2003) argued, for instance, that belief in an all-knowing God ensures the certainty of detection and punishment, and the emotional costs associated with interpreting negative life events as divine disapproval make punishment severe. Since negative life events are a frequent occurrence, the timing between wrongdoing and punishment is likely to also be swift. Hirshi and Stark (1969) did not find an impact of church attendance on delinquency or respect for the law or moral values. Other studies, however, have shown that religious individuals are more likely to perceive greater certainty and severity in objective sanctions for deviance (e.g., getting pulled over for drunk driving, getting in a fatal car accident) than non-religious individuals (Peek et al. 1979). Likewise, religious individuals who perceive greater severity and certainty of religious sanctions surrounding deviant behavior are less likely to report intentions to commit deviant behavior (Grasmick et al. 1991; Harris 2003). Other scholars have framed their discussion of religion, social control, and deviance within Hirschi’s (2002 [1969]) social bond theory. Hirschi (2002 [1969]) argued that individuals commit delinquency when their bond to society is weak or broken. When an individual’s bond to society is strong, the social bond restrains deviant and criminal behavior and brings individuals in line with the moral order. Hirschi (2002 [1969]) described the social bond in terms of four elements: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. First, attachment is defined as the way in which the affectionate relationships between or among individuals control

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

17

behavior. When individuals care about the wishes and expectations of others, and when they are sensitive to the opinion of others, they will abstain from deviance in order to preserve those relationships and sustain those favorable opinions (Hirschi 2002 [1969]). Religious affiliates, therefore, may be concerned about what other parishioners and church leaders think about them. The relationships that develop among churchgoers may provide social control, and church members may wish to be held in high esteem within the congregation. In this regard, Ellison and George (1994) argued that religious participation provides a meaningful context for the development of strong, resilient attachment networks. Through collective participation in rituals among people with similar characteristics, social encounters may be experienced as more satisfying and supporting as they reinforce basic social roles and identities. For example, interaction with a religious congregation may allow members to see themselves as good parents, citizens, neighbors, and people. Ellison and George (1994) found that those who frequently attended church reported broader social networks, more frequent contacts with others (potentially indicating stronger relationships), and enjoyed more benefits from supportive interactions than less involved religious individuals. Putnam and Campbell (2010) also discovered strong social ties among religious affiliates. They found that social networks (e.g., number of religious friends) were important for strengthening and reinforcing political beliefs and, net of the standard demographic controls, were the strongest predictors of giving, generosity, and civic engagement in their analyses. Similarly, Stroope (2011) found that individuals within congregations that exhibited more unity in beliefs reported a greater sense of belonging to their congregation. Recall Hirschi (2002 [1969]) argued that the stronger attachment networks individuals have, the less willing they would be to risk damaging social ties through deviance. It follows that religious individuals who have stronger social ties with fellow believers may have

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

18

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

lower odds of deviance, although this question has not been examined directly. Commitment is defined as the degree to which individuals invest themselves and their energy in a line of conventional action (Hirschi 2002 [1969]). The more time and energy one devotes to establishing a career, getting an education, or building a strong reputation, the more one has to lose by engaging in crime and deviance. Individuals may be committed to religion and church as an institution, their own faith and relationship with God, or both (Barh et al. 1998; Bahr & Hoffman 2008; Brownfield & Sorenson 1991; Corwyn & Benda 2000; Hoffman & Bahr 2005; Litchfield et al. 1997; McIntosh et al. 1981; SalasWright et al., 2012). Individuals may invest time, energy, and effort in developing a stake in conforming to the role expectations of a church member in good standing. Churches tend to cultivate the most active participants for volunteer and leadership roles in both the church and the broader community, and these positions may represent religious commitments which individuals may not wish to disrupt through deviance. Frequency of church attendance has been used in prior studies to represent commitment to religion, and numerous studies have shown a consistent relationship between frequency of church attendance and a host of deviant outcomes (Evans et al. 1995; Fernander et al. 2005; Jang & Franzen 2013; Johnson et al. 2000b; Johnson & Morris 2008; Longest & Vaisey 2008; Regnerus 2003a; Stark 1996; Ulmer et al. 2012). On a more intrinsic level, individuals can also be committed to their spiritual relationship with God. Christianity, in particular, emphasizes the importance of a personal relationship with God which requires time, investment, and cultivation on the part of the religious individual. A deeply religious person may not want to jeopardize the feeling of closeness with God by doing something to risk divine disapproval. Individuals who report that religion is very important to them have been shown to have significantly lower odds of engaging in a variety of forms of deviance (Cochran 1988; Cochran & Akers 1989; Klanjsek et

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

19

al. 2012; Regnerus 2003a; Regnerus 2003b; Regenerus & Smith 2005; Salas-Wright et al. 2013; Sloane & Potvin 1986). Involvement, according to Hirschi (2002 [1969]), acts as a restraint on opportunity. The more involved individuals are in conventional activities, the less time they have to devote to deviance. Although church attendance could be considered an indicator of involvement, church services generally occur once or twice a week for an hour or so at a time. Thus, involvement might be better assessed with participation in church-affiliated activities, attendance at sacrament meetings, participation in mission trips, involvement in ministries, community religious activities during weekends, or ongoing participation in a youth group as a member or adult volunteer (e.g., Adamczyck & Palmer 2008; Corwyn & Benda 2000; Johnson et al. 2001; Litchfield et al. 1997). Finally, beliefs represent the degree to which one is socialized into the common normative or value system (Hirschi 2002 [1969]). Scholars have argued that religious beliefs and norms represent the conventional moral order (Longest & Vaisey 2008; McIntosh 1981; Tittle & Welch 1983). Socialization into a religious system may also be concomitant with respect for authority and the law (see, e.g., Hirschi & Stark 1969; Tittle & Welch 1983). Individuals who are more integrated into the religious system may be more likely to conform to the normative standards. In other words, the more orthodox and consistent individual religious beliefs are with the prevailing beliefs of the church, the more those individuals are integrated into and bonded to religion. Studies that have examined religious beliefs have found evidence that more traditional beliefs and more strongly held beliefs were inversely related to deviance (Albrecht 1977; Chadwick & Top 1993; Hadaway 1984; Stylianou 2004). Social Learning Learning theories focus on the ways in which individuals’ associations and interactions with others shape their values,

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

20

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

norms, and behaviors (Akers 1992; Sutherland & Cressey 1978). Sutherland explained how association with different groups shaped individuals’ definitions of crime as positive or negative (Sutherland & Cressey 1978). Individuals tend to take on and internalize the value system of those individuals with whom they interact. Akers et al.’s (1979) social learning theory included four key concepts: differential association, definitions, imitation, and differential reinforcement. Individuals differentially associate with individuals who engage in deviance. Exposure to deviant peers shapes individuals’ definitions regarding which behaviors are good or bad. Deviant (or law abiding) peers also serve as models whose behavior individuals imitate. Individuals’ behaviors are then differentially reinforced (i.e., punished or rewarded), which influences whether deviant behaviors persist or abate (Akers et al. 1979). Religion could function as a mechanism that explicitly teaches moral messages and definitions, and provides a group with which individuals interact that reinforces and condemns deviant/criminal behavior (Peek et al. 1979; Tittle & Welch 1983; Cochran 1992). Participation in church exposes one to religious and moral messages, or religious definitions according to Akers et al’s (1979) perspective. Religious norms stress the importance of living in accord with moral virtues, such as honesty, responsibility, and respect for authority (Simons et al. 2004). Religion also speaks to specific criminal acts which are condemned as sins. For example, the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) prohibit murder, theft, bearing false witness, covetousness, and dishonesty. Religion provides teachings and norms about the sinfulness of drugs and other substances, appropriate levels of alcohol use, and immoral sexual behavior (Hill & McCullough 2008; Hill et al. 2009; Hoffman & Bahr 2005). Learning theories would assert that these moral messages guide behavior and structure decisions when individuals internalize and adopt them as their own (Akers 1992; Akers et al. 1979; Longest & Vaisey 2008; Sutherland & Cressey 1978). Differential reinforcement may also be accomplished in religious terms. Internalized religious beliefs may be particularly salient

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

21

for guiding behavior as they may be seen as being ordained by God. Conversely, the violation of religious definitions or norms would likely lead to unhappiness and alienation from God (Simons et al. 2004). Differential reinforcement may also be accomplished through interaction with fellow religious participants. Religious norms may be reinforced through encouragement and punished through shame or ostracism from the congregation (Akers et al. 1979; Simons et al. 2004). To the extent that religious norms are presented and reinforced through sermons, interaction with church members, or religious classes, those who more frequently attend church and participate in church activities should be expected to have internalized these norms to a greater extent than those who receive less consistent exposure to them (Ellison et al. 2008). Finally, religious participation may shape social networks and peer associations. Individuals who frequently participate in religious activities may be more likely to associate with other church members who serve to reinforce religious norms and/or be intolerant of deviance (Bahr et al. 1998). Further, associating with a group of religious peers would insulate individuals from interactions with deviant peers who would provide the motivation and opportunity for deviance (Bahr et al. 1998; Baier & Wright 2001; Burkett & Warren 1987). In other words, religious individuals tend to associate with other religious individuals; they also tend to avoid associating with deviants and trouble-makers. Studies have found support for the notion that religiosity shapes peer groups. For example, Putnam and Campbell (2010) argued that strong friendships and social networks developed within specific congregations once individuals were situated in parishes. They found that these social networks were important for reinforcing beliefs, especially through political values. Other research has demonstrated that religiosity can have an indirect effect on deviance through peer associations (Burkett & Warren 1987; Schreck et al. 2007).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

22

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

General Strain Theory According to general strain theory, religiosity could function as a buffer, or shield, protecting individuals from harmful life events. Agnew (1985; 1992) has outlined the ways in which stressful life events, or “strains” in this theoretical approach, can lead to deviant coping, and the mechanisms that can condition the effect of strains. Religiosity may function as a conditioning factor. Agnew (1992) argued that negative life events, including the failure to achieve goals, the presence of harmful stimuli, or the absence of positive stimuli, create negative affective states – emotional states of anger, frustration, anxiety, depression, etc. These emotions are strongly related to corrective action; when one feels angry or frustrated, one feels driven to do something about those feelings in order to eliminate or neutralize them (Agnew 1992). Individuals, when faced with strain, can resort to deviance in order to correct negative affective states - for example, by abusing drugs or alcohol, punching someone, or breaking something. On the other hand, there may be aspects of persons’ lives that would condition the effect of strain on deviance. For example, individuals with high self-confidence or self-efficacy may understand they do not have to take drugs or hurt someone else in order to deal with their problems (Agnew 1992; Jang & Johnson 2003). Religion as an institution provides a variety of strategies and resources that individuals can access when faced with hardship. Religion can provide adherents with a set of beliefs that help them to cope with stressful situations, process difficult emotions, resolve conflict, and enhance personal well-being (Smith 2003). Religion can also offer a variety of behavioral and cognitive resources that help individuals cope with problems. Behavioral responses to strain may include prayer, meditation, confession, or forgiveness and reconciliation (Smith 2003). Cognitive coping strategies would include religious beliefs and values about responding to problems. For example, religion emphasizes a loving, all-powerful deity in control of life, and teaches that,

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

23

ultimately, good will be rewarded and evil punished (Smith 2003). Religion also teaches that God gives strength to overcome adversity, and divine providence guides one’s steps. Christian teachings and beliefs are especially salient in directing action in times of difficulty. For example, Christianity teaches that God understands and shares in life’s sufferings, and specific New Testament texts are devoted to a Christian’s response to suffering (Smith 2003). Classic texts include: And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose (Romans 8:32).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:6-7). Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light (Matthew 11:28-31). Although there are non-religious coping strategies that individuals can use, religion could expand the range of beliefs and practices that people can draw upon to deal with problems they encounter. Also, the historical tradition and divine nature of religion may provide more significance and depth to religious responses to strain than more secular responses. Smith (2003) notes the following: “For many, ‘nothing can separate you from the love of God’ is somehow more profound and compelling than ‘it’ll all work out in the end.’ Likewise, participating with countless generations of believers in prayer and affirmation by

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

24

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

reciting millennia-year-old liturgy is somehow more meaningful and comforting than reading the various quips in the most recent edition of Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul” (p. 24). A number of studies have provided empirical support for the conditioning impact of religiosity on strain. For example, Jang and Johnson (2003) found that religiosity was related to lower odds of negative affect (loneliness, depression, and anger), drug use, and fighting, and likewise religiosity weakened the effect of negative emotions on deviant forms of coping. Similarly, Johnson et al. (2000b; 2000c) found that frequent church attendance helped to protect inner city, minority youth from participation in illicit drug use and other forms of delinquency.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Life-Course Perspectives and Spiritual Transformation In addition to preventing involvement in deviance, religiosity may also provide an avenue for active offenders to desist from offending. Apart from theories of behavior, spiritual transformations have been assumed from the beginning of prisons to be one of the primary ways for offenders to redirect their lives (Johnson 2011). Those operating under the assumption that spiritual transformations are a solution for offenders view crime as a moral and spiritual problem (Johnson 2011). A religious conversion or spiritual transformation is a process that addresses the root of the problem. Although a strict focus on religious conversions as the source of change in individuals may ignore criminological theories, some scholars have described spiritual transformations as based in developmental processes (see, e.g., Johnson 2011), and many life course theories may provide support for spiritual transformations as mechanisms of desistance. According to Sampson and Laub’s (1993) age-graded theory of social control, social bonds across the life course are the mechanisms that promote conformity. Sampson and Laub (1993) assumed that the duration, timing, and ordering of major life events have consequences for later social development, and that

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

25

the important institutions of social control vary across the life span. For instance, weak social bonds to family and school in childhood and adolescence are the primary influences on the genesis of antisocial behavior, and social bonds in adulthood (e.g., marriage) function to promote change in criminal behavior. Although Sampson and Laub (1993) primarily focused on the social control exerted by a quality marriage or job, religion may also be a source of social control in adulthood that may help to encourage desistance among offenders. Sampson and Laub (1993) referred to life events that can change behavior across the life course as turning points. Specifically, they focused on the capacity of work and marriage to serve as turning points and redirect life paths in a prosocial direction. Sampson and Laub (1993) emphasized the quality and strength of adult social bonds more so than simply the occurrence of events. In other words, having a spouse or a job does not increase social control, but rather strong attachments and close emotional ties to a spouse coupled with commitment to work create a system of obligations, expectations, and interdependent social networks that facilitate social control. The capacity of religion to promote social bonds and exert social control has already been discussed, but spiritual conversions may also serve as “turning points” for individuals engaged in a criminal lifestyle. An active offender who “finds” religion may become integrated into a community of fellow believers and/or individually committed to a personal relationship with the divine. These social bonds may be particularly salient for criminal offenders in that they may feel they have something in religion which they never had before. Religious faiths tend to be welcoming and accepting, and individuals who are more active in religious activities or who have greater levels of religiosity may be more likely to be insulated from their past criminal tendencies. Other life course perspectives focus more on internal processes, such as cognitive maturation or identity shifts, as the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

26

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

means by which the desistance process is accomplished (Giordano et al. 2002; Maruna 2001). For example, Maruna (2001) described ways in which offenders “made good” and put forth “redemption scripts.” Maruna (2001) argued that “making good” is the cognitive process of reinterpretation undertaken by offenders. Offenders’ lives tend to be marked by disadvantage and disappointment, and offenders who “make good” are able to find reason and purpose in their lives despite their adverse circumstances. Maruna (2001) found that, for many offenders, making good involved the production of redemptive scripts -- the narratives that offenders who are trying to desist write in order to convince themselves and others that they have truly changed. Maruna (2001) outlined many commonalities across redemption scripts proffered by offenders. For example, these scripts usually began by establishing the basic goodness and commitment to conventionality of offenders by differentiating themselves from other criminals and casting themselves as victims of society. After individuals became trapped in a life of crime, some outside force helped them escape, and the newly empowered offenders sought to give something back to society. Maruna and colleagues (2006) used religious conversion narratives as examples of narrative identity changes. One of the functions of religious conversions is to replace the secular self with a new religious master status. The newly religious person becomes immersed in a new vocabulary and way of life that is used to reflexively change the self. According to Maruna et al. (2006), the religious conversion narrative accomplishes five functions for prisoners: 1) it creates a new social identity to replace the label of criminal or prisoner; 2) it injects the experience of imprisonment with purpose and meaning; 3) it empowers a powerless individual by turning him into an agent of God; 4) it provides the prisoner with a framework and vocabulary of forgiveness; and, 5) it provides a sense of control over an unknown future (p. 174-175). These functions provide both a means of coping with the imprisonment situation and dealing with a past filled with guilt.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

27

The capacity of religion to provide forgiveness and a sense of control over one’s destiny is of utmost importance for desistance. Christianity provides a stronger foundation for forgiveness than nearly any other framework in Western society (Maruna et al. 2006). When one is saved or born again, his or her past sins are washed clean and a person is considered a new creation. Inmates reported that forgiveness by God was what allowed them to forgive themselves and regain a sense of self-worth. Finally, the conversion narrative can also help reduce the anxiety offenders feel about an uncertain future. Inmates reported feeling confident that God was directing their lives and intervening on their behalf to keep them out of trouble. Maruna et al. (2006) commented that “the conversion narrative can integrate disparate and shameful life events into a coherent, empowering whole, renew prisoners’ sense of their own personal biography, and provide them with hope and a vision for the future. Most of all, conversion narratives make sense because they are widely recognized and respected as legitimate in Western society” (p. 180). Giordano and colleagues (2002) also framed the desistance process in terms of an internal change which they referred to as cognitive shifts/transformations. Cognitive shifts take place, often, in response to environmental opportunities, or hooks for change. Hooks for change, for instance marriage or meaningful work, are insufficient by themselves, but must also co-occur with a change or openness to change in the actor’s cognitive process. Hooks for change motivate the actor to recognize that the new environmental situation is a positive development and is fundamentally incompatible with continued offending (Giordano et al. 2002). Next, the actor constructs a “replacement” self that cognitively fits in the new environment, and discards the old, deviant self. The final step in the cognitive transformation is when the actor no longer sees criminal or deviant behavior as desirable, positive, or personally relevant (Giordano et al. 2003).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

28

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Giordano et al. (2003) found that religious hooks for change were prominent among former juvenile offenders. The authors posited that religious conversions play the role of cognitive transformations, whereby a new self is created that is consistent with religious environments, and the actor is able to move past the old deviant self that would be incompatible with religion. Giordano et al. (2008) examined the impact of religiosity on the desistance process with a sample of serious juvenile delinquents who were interviewed at 13- and 21-year follow-ups. Quantitative analyses failed to find a substantial impact of religiosity on desistance, but qualitative interviews indicated that the respondents found meaning and significance in religion. In explanation, Giordano et al. (2008) argued that the immediacy of disadvantaged neighborhoods and social networks may overwhelm the effects of religiosity. Alternatively, religion itself may be an obstacle in the desistance process for some individuals. Offenders may feel out of place or discouraged in congregations where they must compete for resources (e.g., leadership positions) with individuals who have no criminal record. Fatalistic beliefs sometimes inherent in many theologies may also provide excuses for individuals to continue their bad behavior and attribute it to God’s will or Satan’s temptations. Qualitative findings demonstrated, however, that many individuals constructed meaning around the potential of religion for desistance by making statements such as God helped me to change. Giordano et al. (2008) argued that religion is so attractive to individuals as a hook for change, even if it is not successful, because it is one of the only means of social capital that is readily available to disadvantaged groups (as opposed to a stable job, for example). Similarly, religion is a mechanism for desistance because many of the core values of religion deal directly with offenders’ problem areas such as temptation and forgiveness. Respondents also reported how their faith helped them cope with problems and was a source of encouragement and positive emotions. Finally, religion also helped integrate

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

29

offenders into a prosocial reference group, primarily through the mechanism of church attendance. In sum, much attention has been paid historically to the potential for a religious conversion to facilitate behavior change among offenders. According to life course theories, religious conversions or spiritual transformations may provide social bonds, turning points, and/or changes in the thinking process that allow individuals to overcome their past circumstances.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Moral Communities Although criminological theories have been used to frame the study of religion and deviance, there is also a theoretical perspective that is unique to the religion-deviance relationship -the moral communities hypothesis. Rodney Stark developed the moral communities explanation after he observed mixed findings across several studies of religion and delinquency (Stark 1984; Stark et al. 1982). Stark et al. (1982) observed that those studies that found no relationship between religiosity and delinquency were conducted on the West coast (e.g., Hirschi & Stark 1969; Burkett & White 1974). On the other hand, studies that found a significant inverse relationship used data drawn from areas of the Southeastern U.S., frequently referred to as “the Bible Belt” (e.g., Albrecht et al. 1977; Higgins and Albrecht 1977; Peek et al. 1979). Stark hypothesized that religious effects are not salient through individual-level mechanisms of fear or guilt, but that religion was a group process (Stark et al. 1982; Stark & Bainbridge 1997). Stark et al. (1982) drew heavily upon Durkheim’s ideas pertaining to the integrationist perspective of social control and argued that religion binds people to the moral order only if religious influences permeate the culture and the social interaction among individuals. In contexts where religion is more pervasive in the daily life of a social group, individuals’ propensity to deviate from social norms will be influenced by the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

30

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

degree of their religious commitment. On the other hand, when the religious sanctioning system is less prevalent, the effect of individual religiosity will be weaker (Stark et al. 1982). Religion binds individuals into a moral community, defined as a community integrated by shared religious beliefs which sustain conformity. Moral communities are based on two elements, social and moral integration (Stark 1984). Social integration refers to the density of social networks and the intensity of attachments among group members, while moral integration is the collective conception of norms, and, especially, religious beliefs that legitimate norms (Stark 1984). Sociologists have posited that traditional religious beliefs about authority and morality are more conducive to solidarity and belonging, because traditional beliefs/values emphasize obligation to family and community, and locate moral authority outside of the self (Stroope 2011). Stroope (2011) found that individuals with traditional beliefs (e.g., Biblical literalism) who belonged to congregations with more traditional beliefs reported a greater sense of belonging to the group than individuals with less traditional beliefs or individuals with traditional beliefs in congregations with less traditional beliefs. Putnam and Campbell (2010) found that strong religious social networks were the strongest predictors of a number of outcomes they referred to as “good neighborliness” (e.g., volunteering, donating to charity, participation in civic activities). The number of friends within one’s congregation, participation in small groups within one’s congregation, and frequency of talking about religion with family and friends trumped the effect of secular social networks in the analyses, and reduced the effect of general religiosity to non-significance. Putnam and Campbell (2010) concluded that religion and religiosity influence behavior through the strong relational networks resulting from religious participation. Individual-level religiosity, therefore, may be more relevant as an influence on deviance when individuals are integrated into a “moral community” that can reinforce religious values. For

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

31

those not integrated into a moral community, according to Stark et al. (1982), religiosity will be highly compartmentalized, individualistic, and have less relevance to daily activities outside of church on Sunday morning. On the other hand, living with or near a considerable number of religious people will affect how a religious person behaves. Regnerus (2003b) called this the light switch effect; that is, when a religious individual is located in a context with other religious individuals who share beliefs and practices, the moral community activates the consequential aspect of individuals’ own religious belief system. Thus, the important measure for religion-deviance studies, according to the moral communities hypothesis, is not solely individuals’ religiosity, but the interaction of individual-level religiosity with aggregate-level (county, school, prison, etc.) religiosity (Stark 1996).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS REGARDING RELIGION/RELIGIOSITY AND DEVIANCE Contemporary research on the religiosity-deviance relationship is frequently traced back to Hirschi and Stark (1969), who found no differences between delinquency, respect for the police, or adherence to moral values among adolescents who attended church versus adolescents who did not. These null findings, along with a number of others published shortly after Hirschi and Stark (1969), prompted some scholars to accept the view that religion and religiosity were irrelevant influences on deviant behavior (Johnson 2011). Mixed findings among earlier studies motivated others to carry out additional analyses focused on the potential link between religiosity and deviance. To date, the extant literature offers strong support for an inverse relationship between religiosity and deviance. For instance, Johnson (2011) systematically reviewed 272 studies on religion and crime/delinquency that were published between 1944 and 2010. Of those studies, 90 percent of studies included in the review

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

32

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

(247 out of 272) reported that religion/religiosity had an inverse effect on some measure of crime or delinquency. 4 On the other hand, only nine percent (24 out of 272) reported a null effect of measures of religion/religiosity on crime/delinquency, while only two studies reported that religion/religiosity was positively associated with crime. Although the vast majority of studies have found that religiosity is strongly related to lower odds of deviance, a small minority of studies have found no relationship between religiosity and deviance (see, e.g., Cochran et al. 1994; Corwyn & Benda 2000; Cretacci 2003; Hirschi & Stark 1969; Ross 1994). Scholars have offered several different explanations for the null findings among this small handful of studies. A number of systematic reviews have indicated that studies using smaller, less representative samples are the most likely to find no effects of religiosity on deviant outcomes (Baier & Wright 2001; Johnson et al. 2000a; Johnson 2011; Larson & Johnson 1998). Other researchers have argued that the null findings are the true relationship, and spurious relationships between religiosity and deviance are created through social control or arousal levels. Some researchers have maintained that religiosity may impact only minor forms of deviance, such as substance use. Finally, some have asserted that the level of religiosity in the community in which individuals live conditions the effects of individuallevel religiosity on deviance.

                                                             4

Chapter 5 in Johnson’s (2011) More God, Less Crime presents the narrative results of the systematic review, as well as a tabular representation of all 272 studies. Johnson’s (2011) table contains information on the study design, sample size and type, the measurement of religion/religiosity, and the number of statistical controls. Instead of replicating Johnson’s (2011) exhaustive work on studies of religiosity and crime, readers are referred to his work for a comprehensive and succinct display of the research pertaining to religiosity and crime.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

33

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Spuriousness Researchers have argued that the religiosity-deviance relationship may be spurious. Specifically, scholars have argued that there may be some unconsidered variable that is causing individuals to be more religious, as well as less deviant. For example, Cochran et al. (1994) argued that arousal levels may render the religiosity-deviance relationship spurious. In other words, they maintained that individuals with low arousal levels will tend to find church boring and crime exciting. They found that measures of arousal completely rendered the effect of religiosity on deviant outcomes nonsignificant, with the exception of substance abuse. On the other hand, Regnerus and Smith (2005) included measures of temperament, risk-taking, and social desirability in their multivariate models, and found that religiosity was still a significant predictor of lower odds of delinquency. Other studies have focused on the potential of measures of social control (particularly familial attachment and school involvement) to render the relationship between religiosity and deviance spurious. There is some support in the literature for this hypothesis, particularly among studies examining violence and/or serious crime or delinquency (e.g., Benda & Corwyn 1997b; Cochran et al. 1994; Elifson et al. 1983; Evans et al. 1995a; Evans et al. 1995b; Reisig et al. 2012). On the other hand, the number of studies that have found a direct effect of religiosity on deviance after controlling for indicators of social control is greater than the number of studies that find that religiosity has no effect (e.g., Adamczyk & Palmer 2008; Albrecht et al. 1977; Bahr et al. 1998; Bahr & Hoffman 2008; Benda 1995; Benda 1997; Benda & Corwyn 2001; Benda 2002; Benda & Toombs 2000; Benda & Toombs 2002; Brownfield & Sorenson 1991; Chadwick & Top 1993; Fernquist 1995; Free 1994; Hadaway et al. 1984; Harris 2003; Jang & Johnson 2001;

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

34

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Longest & Vaisey 2008; McIntosh et al. 1981; Regnerus 2003a; Regenerus 2003b; Schrek et al. 2007).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Anti-Ascetic Hypothesis Researchers have found that religiosity has a stronger inverse effect on minor forms of deviance, especially drug and alcohol use, than other forms of deviance (Baier & Wright 2001; Cochran & Akers 1989; Hadaway et al. 1984; Hoffman & Bahr 2005; Reisig et al. 2012; Ulmer et al. 2012). Scholars have explained this difference by pointing to the distinction between secular controls/norms and ascetic controls/norms. Social standards (or secular controls) are those that proscribe actions which are harmful to the social group, such as violence and theft (Middleton & Putney 1962). These controls tend to be shared between religious and non-religious individuals. For instance, both the church and society have standards against theft and violence. These acts would not be condoned in either context. On the other hand, ascetic standards emphasize abstinence from sensual indulges, and generally involve behaviors that, in moderation, do not pose a threat to the social order (Middleton & Putney 1962). Ascetic controls are derived from religious traditions, which emphasize self-control over “worldly” desires. These norms are emphasized in religion and in the church, but tend to have some ambiguity within the larger social sphere. In other words, the social control exerted by the church is only effective when it is unique, and individuals are not experiencing the same controls elsewhere. Burkett and White (1974) noted that “the inability to find a clear relationship between religion and the commission of offenses against persons and property may not mean that the churches are failing to instill a love of neighbor. Rather it may mean that their efforts to produce law-abiding citizens are duplicated by a great many secular influences” (p. 461). This perspective was emphasized in the early years of the study of religion and deviance, especially after the null findings of

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

35

Hirschi and Stark (1969). More recent studies have found ample evidence that religiosity also has a significant impact on more serious forms of crime and delinquency; however, the strength of the effects on drug and alcohol behavior tends to be larger (see, e.g., meta-analysis by Baier & Wright 2001). Regardless, the empirical evidence concerning the magnitude of the relationship between religiosity and substance use indicates that different forms of deviance (e.g., violence, substance use, nonviolent deviance) should be modeled separately as outcomes.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Moral Communities In accordance with the moral communities hypothesis, a number of scholars have examined how community religious context may condition the effect of individual-level religiosity on deviance. Stark and colleagues (1982) used various data to provide support for the moral communities hypothesis. They found across their data, that the correlation between religiosity and delinquency was stronger in religious contexts than in less religious contexts (i.e., cities and schools). Tittle and Welch (1985), on the other hand, argued that religiosity should have strongest effects in secular communities, where the external guides for behavior are weak or ambiguous. They found that the individual-level relationship between religiosity and deviance was stronger in more secular contexts. That is, in “contexts” that were less religious, individuals who attended church more frequently reported significantly fewer intentions to commit a number of delinquent acts than individuals in more religious contexts. This study has been criticized, however, for not being a true test of moral communities, primarily because the “contexts” used by Tittle and Welch (1983) were not ecological contexts. They constructed contexts from sociodemographic information, making the assumption that, for example, “all blacks in our sample constitute a reasonable representation of the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

36

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

characteristics of blacks in each community” (Tittle & Welch 1983, p. 663). Several other studies have not found a significant conditioning effect of aggregate-level religiosity on individuallevel religiosity and deviance (Chadwick & Top 1993; Cochran & Akers 1989; Welch et al. 1991), but each of these studies has serious flaws, some of which call into question whether these studies even test the moral communities hypothesis (Stark 1996). Chadwick and Top (1993) simply compared their correlations to those presented in another study, assuming that the different study settings were appropriate ecological units of comparison (Albrecht et al. 1997). Cochran and Akers (1989) used indicators measured at multiple levels of analysis, but failed to use hierarchal modeling.5 Welch et al. (1991) used multi-level modeling techniques, but modeled self-reported “future intentions” to commit deviance as an outcome, instead of measures of actual deviance. In response to the studies discussed above, Stark (1996) restated his moral communities hypothesis and clarified exactly what would and would not constitute a test of the theory. Stark (1996) examined regional data, and found a significant relationship between religiosity and self-reported trouble with the law in all areas of the country except the Pacific region (arguably the most secular region of the country). Other studies that have analyzed data in accordance with how Stark (1996) proposed his theory have found more support for moral communities (see, e.g., Regnerus 2003b; Wallace et al. 2007). Regnerus (2003b) used multi-level modeling (HLM) to examine                                                             

5

Combining measures from multiple levels of analysis into a singlelevel regression model creates a number of problems for conventional analytical techniques such as ordinary least squares regression. Hierarchical modeling is appropriate for data structures where level-1 units are neatly nested in level-2 aggregates. See chapters 3 and 5 for a more detailed discussion related to the problems associated with pooling data from multiple levels of analysis into a single-level regression model.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion, Religiosity, and Deviance

37

the religious contextual effects of schools and counties on individual-level religiosity. Regnerus (2003b) found that individuals who identified themselves as born again had lower odds of delinquency when they were situated in counties and/or schools with greater proportions of conservative Protestants. Wallace et al. (2007) also found support for the impact of moral communities on substance use. Across their models, both individual- and school-level religiosity were related to significantly less cigarette use, binge drinking, and marijuana use. Also, religious individuals attending schools with a greater number of religious youths had significantly lower odds of binge drinking. Baier and Wright (2001) found evidence in support of the moral communities thesis in their meta-analysis of 60 studies of religiosity and crime. They found that studies using samples that were comprised of more religious individuals produced larger effect sizes than samples that were more religiously diverse. In sum, there are several existing studies that have found evidence that does not support the moral communities hypothesis, but they tend to be methodologically weak. Studies that have followed Stark’s (1996) definition of ecological, religious contexts and used appropriate modeling techniques have revealed consistent support for the supposition that religious contexts activate or strengthen the individual-level relationship between religiosity and deviance. In other words, the more rigorous studies examining the moral communities hypothesis indicate that context matters in terms of moderating the individual-level relationship between religiosity and deviance. CONCLUSION In this chapter, I have reported on findings from empirical studies that have examined the relationship between religiosity and deviance. Most studies have framed the relationship within

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

38

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

control theory, in that religion and religiosity is a form of social control. On the other hand, studies have also examined how religion teaches norms and values condemning deviant behavior, and evidence also exists that religiosity can condition the relationship between strain and deviance (Jang & Johnson 2003; Johnson et al. 2003; Smith 2003). The evidence that religiosity is related to lower odds of deviance is more consistent than is widely recognized (Johnson 2011). The vast majority of studies have found a strong, inverse relationship between religiosity and deviance. Researchers have also offered several plausible explanations why a few studies have failed to find an inverse relationship between religiosity and deviance (e.g., Cochran et al. 1994; Corwyn & Benda 2000; Cretacci 2003; Hirschi & Stark 1969; Ross 1994). For example, religiosity tends to have strongest effects on minor forms of deviance, particularly drug and alcohol use, although there is also evidence that religiosity is successful in reducing the odds of more serious crime and violence (i.e., Benda 2002; Benda & Toombs 2000). It also appears that community contexts have implications for the magnitude of the relationship between religiosity and deviance. Specifically, studies conducted within aggregate-level units comprised of a greater proportion of religious adherents find that the religiosity-deviance relationship is stronger than in more secular ecological units.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Chapter 3

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

“Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account.” Hebrews 13:17 Inmate misconduct is one of the primary outcomes that penologists study. Misconduct is frequently defined as the violation of institutional rules by a prisoner. Inmate misconduct may be an action as simple as possession of contraband or failure to obey the instructions of corrections officers, or it may involve something as serious as an assault on a staff member with a weapon or even the murder of another inmate (Steiner & Wooldredge 2013). The study of inmate misconduct has utility and relevance as an institutional outcome for at least two reasons. First, inmate misconduct may be the primary indicator of order and safety within institutions (Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Wooldredge 1991). Levels of institutional misconduct have direct implications for the safety of staff and inmates (i.e., assaults), as well as the perceived level of safety or insecurity among the inmate population (Wooldredge 1991). Second, misconduct by inmates may also reflect the degree to which individuals have adapted to or are coping with the prison environment (Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Toch et al. 1989). For example, Toch and colleagues (1989) argued that misconduct by 39 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

40

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

inmates demonstrates that they cannot constructively relate to authority and display “disregard for community norms and a deficit of adjustment” (p. xix). Misconduct has typically been explained through three perspectives on inmate behavior.6 Deprivation theory posits that inmate (mis)behavior results from the efforts to cope with the environmental pains or deprivations of imprisonment (Sykes 1958). Subcultural values stemming from the social organization of prisoners facilitate adaptation to the harsh realities of the prison world, and inmate solidarity and opposition to authority is a means of coping with the prison environment (Clemmer 1940; Sykes 1958). In contrast, importation theory posits that a general criminal subculture exists in the outside community and is brought into prison (Irwin & Cressey 1962). In other words, inmate behavior is not unique to the prison environment, but rather is consistent with behavior exhibited prior to incarceration that facilitates survival and success in many lower class neighborhoods (Irwin & Cressey 1962). Finally, management theories focus on the style of governance employed by the institution, and how different styles of management impact inmate behavior (e.g., DiIulio 1987). This chapter provides a theoretical and empirical context for the study of misconduct. First, I discuss the perspectives listed above and outline the different possible sources of institutional misbehavior. Next, I report the results from a systematic review of studies of misconduct over the past decade in order to provide an understanding of the characteristics of inmates and institutions that research has shown to be important in predicting inmate misconduct. I do not address religiosity as a correlate of misconduct within the discussion of important predictors of                                                             

6

Inmate misconduct may also be referred to throughout this chapter as inmate misbehavior. Theories of inmate behavior have been used to explain misconduct. Therefore, in the context of the discussion of the explanations of misconduct, the term misbehavior may be substituted for misconduct in the application of theories of inmate behavior to inmate misconduct.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

41

misconduct contained within this chapter. The effect of religiosity on misconduct is discussed in the next chapter, which is devoted to a discussion of the impact of religion and religiosity within corrections THEORETICAL SOURCES OF INMATE MISCONDUCT

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Environmental Sources Early ethnographic studies of inmate behavior focused on the impact of environmental features of incarceration on confined individuals (i.e., Clemmer 1940; Sykes 1958). These studies revealed the presence of an inmate subculture. The inmate subculture was defined by Clemmer (1940) as the formal and informal social organization and interaction among prisoners that consisted of habits, customs, codes, laws, and rules that guide the inmates’ ideas, attitudes, and behavior. The inmate subculture developed in response to the painful nature of confinement in “total institutions” (Goffman 1961). A total institution is an environment totally isolated from society in which individuals’ behaviors and routines are totally controlled (Adams 1992). These studies of inmates and the origin of the inmate code emphasized the formative influence of institutional life on the social organization of inmates, and how the social organization of inmates impacted the ability of individuals to adapt to imprisonment (Adams 1992). Clemmer (1940) is often credited with being the first to discover the presence of a culture specific to prisons, and he described how the culture developed and how it impacted inmate behavior. According to Clemmer (1940), institutional culture derived from social interactions among inmates and between prisoners and officers. The rigid and authoritarian distinction between officers and inmates provided a sense of loyalty and solidarity among inmates. It also fostered attitudes of opposition and defiance towards prison authority. In addition, Clemmer

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

42

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

(1940) described how the restrictions of freedom inherent to the prison environment and the limited resources available to inmates produced a social system with its own language, social structure, and value system, into which inmates were socialized or “prisonized”. Clemmer (1940) defined the process of prisonization as the adoption of norms and behaviors specific to the general culture of the institution. Inmates come to believe that they owe nothing to the prison and the prison should meet the needs of inmates. The prison cultural economy, then, assists inmates in obtaining items and materials that are unavailable to them or restricted, such as sex, or coveted facility positions such as leadership roles or a good work assignment (Clemmer 1940). Sykes (1958) also discussed the inmate social system as the efforts of inmates to negotiate the “pains of imprisonment.” Sykes described specific “pains of imprisonment” or deprivations inmates suffer upon incarceration, which include liberty, autonomy, security, goods and services, and heterosexual relationships. The inmate social system develops in response to these deprivations in order to meet inmates’ needs. In other words, the rigors of confinement can be mitigated by the patterns of social interaction established among the inmates. The inmate social system facilitates the exchange of goods and services, provides a source of security, and a sense of solidarity against the staff. Inmates also develop argot roles in order to address their individual needs, often at the expense of fellow prisoners. For instance, “gorillas” may take what they want by force and acquire security through toughness and violence. “Wolves” and “punks” address the deprivation of heterosexual contact through coercive sexual relationships, or through sexual relationships in exchange for security or goods and services. Deprivation theory, then, argues that inmate misconduct is a means to satisfy needs and desires that are inaccessible to prisoners because of the nature of confinement. Other examinations of the impact of prison environments on inmate behavior have emphasized the interaction of inmate characteristics with prison environments (Toch 1977). Toch

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

43

(1977) identified aspects of prison environments that differentially impact inmates’ ability to cope with prison. Inmates who may have difficulty adjusting to these environmental features may respond by engaging in misconduct. Toch (1977) argued that the degree of privacy, safety, structure, support, emotional feedback, activity, and freedom perceived by inmates may explain why some inmates misbehave in particular environments. In conjunction with environmental characteristics, Toch (1977) described how individual differences in preferences and perceptions of environmental features across inmates may interact with environmental features to produce different coping or adaptation styles. For example, Toch (1977) portrayed prison environments as being characterized with more or less privacy, safety, etc. Toch (1977) also argued that these are individually perceived conditions, and of relative importance to different individuals. For example, a prison environment does not have much privacy, but some individuals may not hold privacy to be very important to them, while, for others, privacy is of paramount importance. Inmates may also differ in their perceptions of the privacy available given the same objective conditions of confinement. Toch (1977) ultimately produced the Prison Preference Inventory which was one the first individualized classification instrument that attempted to fit inmates to environments. Wright (1985; 1993) also emphasized how inmate differences may affect adaptation to different features of prison environments. Wright (1993) defined social climate as an enduring feature of organizations that affect the participation of individuals in the organization. Wright (1993) relied on Toch’s (1977) environmental features of prison environments (safety, structure, privacy, etc.) to identify important components of the social climate within prisons. Wright (1985) found that inmates who perceived more structure in their prison environments and less support, freedom, and privacy had higher odds of misconduct. Wright (1993) used the structural features of prison

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

44

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

environments developed by Toch (1977) (see, also, Wright 1985) and developed the Prison Environment Inventory, another important classification instrument that measured inmates’ perceptions of prison environments. The work of Toch (1977) and Wright (1985; 1993) contributed to the study of prison environments by examining how inmates’ preferences for and perceptions of environmental features interacted with characteristics of prison environments to influence their adaptation and/or misbehavior. Goodstein et al. (1984) posited that the degree of perceived control inmates have over their environments has implications for institutional behavior. Personal control involves individual efficacy to accomplish goals and plans, the ability to choose a course of action from among a number of options, and the predictability of future events. Imprisonment necessarily entails the reduction of personal control over one’s situation, and some prisons may limit inmates’ personal control more than others. Prisons limit the opportunities for inmates to make choices, and prison life is routinized, monotonous, and predictable. Inmates who have higher or lower perceived levels of control may react to the conditions of confinement differently. For example, MacKenzie et al. (1987) found that inmates who perceived greater control over their environments reported feeling more adjusted, while inmates who felt they had no control responded with withdrawal or rebellion. Rebellious behavior can be manifested through defiance, insubordination, or even physical resistance against prison staff, all of which are frequently considered violations of institutional rules (i.e., misconduct). The perspectives of Toch (1977), Wright (1985), and Goodstein et al. (1984) shifted the focus away from a strict environmental effect on inmates and described how individual differences may interact with characteristics of prison environments to affect inmate behavior. Nonetheless, the stark and primitive nature of confinement in institutions and the impact that it has on the behavior of inmates are prevalent themes in their writings. Research has frequently operationalized

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

45

deprivation theory by measuring structural characteristics of prisons. For example, deprivations may be more severe in higher security level facilities, facilities that are more crowded, or facilities with less availability of programs (Goodstein & Wright 1989; Jiang & Fisher-Giordano 2002; Hochstetler & DeLisi 2005; Wooldredge 1991). Researchers have also examined how the structural features or architectural design of facilities may impact the lifestyles and routines of inmates within facilities (Wooldredge 1998). Finally, inmate-level measures of deprivation have been operationalized through less direct measures such as sentence length or time served (Clemmer 1940; Jiang & Fisher-Giordano 2002; Wooldredge 1991).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Individual Sources Deprivation theory has been criticized for failing to acknowledge the effect of individual pre-prison personal and social characteristics on inmate behavior. For example, Irwin and Cressey (1962) argued that inmate behavioral responses to the pains of imprisonment were not unique to the prison environment, but rather the result of values and norms of prisoners that were imported into the prison from the general criminal subculture on the street. According to Irwin and Cressey (1962), the criminal subculture is not only conducive to a successful criminal career on the street, but also provides norms and information on how to navigate the prison experience with a minimal amount of suffering and pain. Irwin and Cressey (1962) recognized that incarceration presented unique challenges and deprivations; however, they took issue with the argument that inmate behavioral responses to the deprivations were unique to the prison environment. They outlined how the values of loyalty and secrecy among inmates were also instrumental to a general thief subculture. In other words, the inmate culture is not unique to any prison, but resembles lower class culture. The focal concerns of toughness, smartness, and excitement are a means of

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

46

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

earning status, both in lower class neighborhoods and inside prison (Irwin & Cressey 1962). An individual is committed to criminal (or lower class) values, not inmate subcultural values, which impact prison conduct (Irwin & Cressey 1962). Therefore, importation theory would posit that those inmates who more closely adhere to the values and norms of the criminal subculture would be more likely to engage in misconduct in prison. Other writings on importation theory focused on the impact of uncertainty and the breakdown of control within prisons during the transition to a rehabilitative model of corrections throughout late 1960s and early 1970s (Carroll 1974; Goodstein & Wright 1989; Irwin 1980). The inmates’ rights movement of the 1960s worked to ameliorate many of the harsher pains of imprisonment by improving conditions within facilities and reducing much variation between prisons by emphasizing national standards (Jacobs 1980). In conjunction, the increased incarceration of minorities during this time brought attention to individual differences among inmates that may explain variation in inmate misconduct (Carroll 1974; Irwin 1980). These correctional changes highlighted racial and ethnic differences among inmates that had implications for prisoner socialization. During this time period, minorities were incarcerated at increasingly high rates, and the aforementioned changes resulting from the inmates’ rights movement, increased judicial oversight, and shifts in the managerial approach to prisons created increasingly racially polarized inmate populations (Carroll 1974). Irwin (1980) credited the development of the emerging social organization within prisons to the ambiguity in control and purpose in correctional institutions. First, the racial division among prison populations was due to the aforementioned increase in the incarceration of minorities. In addition, the relaxed control in prisons due to the inmates’ rights movement and the new treatment orientation reduced the need for solidarity among inmates against oppressive penal regimes (see, also,

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

47

Carroll 1974). The relaxation of harsh, authoritarian governance functioned to erode the once staunch solidarity among inmates. Inmates no longer felt a need to be collectively unified against the prison and prison staff, and social divisions among inmates began to form along racial lines. Due to discrimination and their disadvantaged position in society, racial solidarity trumped the solidarity among inmates in general (Carroll 1974). Black inmates viewed the interaction and identification between white inmates and white guards as a continuation of the discrimination they faced in the community, and, according to scholars (e.g., Irwin 1980; Jacobs 1977), the hostility between black and white prisoners created a prison environment with higher levels of violence than had previously been documented by researchers (see, Clemmer 1940; Sykes 1958). Inmates distrusted one another and viewed violence and toughness as a primary mechanism of social organization among inmates (Carroll 1974; Irwin 1980). Early ethnographic studies (e.g., Clemmer 1940; Sykes 1958) had documented the importance of violence to the inmate code in previous decades, and the ways in which inmate used violence to gain status in the inmate culture, but Irwin (1980) argued, based on his observations of the California prison system, that levels of violence in prison during the 1960s and 1970s were higher and increasingly interracial. Thus, this time period represented one of the most turbulent and violent periods in the history of American prisons (Irwin 1980). Recent scholarship utilizing importation theory has focused on the relevance of individual differences in pre-prison characteristics such as age, sex, or race for explaining variation in inmate misconduct (e.g., Jiang & Fisher-Giordano 2002). For example, Harer & Steffensmeier (1996) argued that the effect of race on misconduct provides an excellent test of importation theory. According to deprivation theory, there should be few differences between blacks and whites in misconduct rates and violence in prison. On the other hand, structural and cultural influences in African American communities have been tied to

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

48

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

higher rates of violence in those communities. Harer and Steffensmeier (1996) hypothesized that “cultural or importation interpretations of high levels of black violence are supported if, net of statistical controls, blacks have comparatively high rates of prison violence but low rates of other kinds of prison misconduct” (p. 324). Other scholars have argued that the most convincing measure and evidence for importation would be deduced from the effect of criminal history (i.e., arrest history, previous incarceration) (Hochstetler & DeLisi 2005; Wooldredge 1991).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Management Sources Explanations of prison misconduct that have relied exclusively on the social or cultural organization of inmates have been criticized for neglecting the impact that prison governance may have on inmate behavior (DiIulio 1987). Although Sykes (1958) discussed the informal exchange relationship between officers and inmates, early research on inmate behavior emphasized inmate or criminal culture as a source of behavior, and largely failed to examine the ways in which prison culture may be shaped by the administration. Once scholars turned their attention to prison governance, much research was devoted to understanding the ways in which prison control (or lack thereof) contributed to collective violence among inmates (e.g., Colvin 1992; Useem & Kimball 1991). Although the prison management literature primarily emphasizes the effect of administration style on riots, the ideas discussed may be generalizable to individual misconduct and violence. Sykes’ (1958) focus was on the inmate social system, however, he included a discussion of the relationship of prison governance to inmate disturbances in his chapter Crisis and Equilibrium. Sykes (1958) argued that equilibrium in prisons was maintained through a deferential relationship of prison officials to the informal inmate social system. Prison officials would overlook minor infractions and illicit transactions among

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

49

inmates in exchange for inmate cooperation in terms of major disruption and violence. This resulted in a system where inmates reached a point of near self-governance, and the inmate social system informally controlled “job assignments and cell assignment, recreational activities, and the granting of special privileges” (Sykes 1958, p. 123). When the inmate system of control and balance is disrupted by efforts of prison officials to crackdown on minor infractions, the system of informal control among inmates breaks down, and inmates become frustrated, resentful, and rebellious. This sense of frustration builds until it explodes in collective violence. Sykes (1958) referred to this as the powder keg theory, but later scholars have termed it the inmate balance theory. Inmate balance theory asserts that disruptions occur when the administration withdraws licit or illicit privileges that have become a part of the existing informal arrangements between staff and inmates (Useem & Reisig 1999). Colvin’s (1992) analysis of the riot at the Penitentiary of New Mexico (PNM) was consistent with many of Sykes’ (1958) premises about prison administration. Colvin (1992) utilized the distinction between remunerative control and coercive control to explain the riot. Remunerative control involves the manipulation of resources and rewards, and would accommodate inmate needs for treatment, programs, and social positions. According to Colvin (1992) the formal and informal system of remunerative controls worked at PNM in such a way as to provide a balance between inmates and staff. The system accommodated inmates through program participation, administrative positions, and the toleration of drug trafficking (p. 203). Coercive control refers to the use of power and authority to accomplish compliance among inmates, and would include the loss of rewards, the use of official disciplinary procedures, such as solitary confinement and segregation (Colvin 1992, p. 37). Colvin (1992) argued that a purely coercive compliance structure is much less effective than one based on remunerative control and inmate involvement. Colvin (1992) posited that the riot at PNM was sparked by the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

50

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

power vacuum that resulted when prison administrators largely abandoned remunerative controls in favor of a more coercive approach. Although Colvin (1992) focused on the impact of the loss of remunerative controls, he also attributed the riot at PNM to lapses and breakdown in security by prison authorities. Colvin (1992) argued that a history of inconsistent discipline and poor security measures inside the facility (e.g., unlocked doors, irregular checks and counts) facilitated the riot and then failed to contain it. Although Colvin (1992) primarily argued for remunerative controls, he did recognize that coercive controls could also be used to maintain order in institutions. By contrast, DiIulio (1987) argued for a reliance on formal, coercive controls as a means of order maintenance. DiIulio’s (1987) model, which emphasizes discipline exerted by facility administrators, has been termed the administrative control theory of prison governance. DiIulio (1987) conducted an ethnographic study of three prison systems, Texas, Michigan, and California, and classified them according to their approach to inmate governance. DiIulio (1987) termed the Michigan system the responsibility model. The responsibility model holds inmates responsible for their conduct, allows them more freedom, and minimizes the symbols and substance of administrative authority over inmates. DiIulio (1987) was critical of the responsibility model for several reasons. First, he argued that it fostered animosity between corrections officers and administration. Under this model, DiIulio (1987) asserted, line-officers had unclear missions and felt that inmates have more authority in the prison than officers. Second, this model also created more security concerns, as inmates had more freedom and opportunity to hide contraband and plot disturbances, and, it led to inequities among inmates due to lack of uniformity in dress, living accommodations, and so forth. The control model was exemplified in the Texas prison system. The control model emphasized obedience, work, education, and swift and certain punishment of inmate

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

51

misbehavior. DiIulio (1987) summarized the control model by saying that, in the Texas system, “inmate movement was monitored too closely, rules were enforced too tightly, inmates were kept too busy, the punishments for misbehavior were too swift and certain, and the rewards to be earned in sentence reduction and other privileges were too great for inmates to commit many infractions” (p. 108). The consensual model in California was a blend of the responsibility and control model, where inmates enjoyed more freedom and responsibility, but the correctional staff operated in a formal, para-military way. DiIulio (1987) offered evidence in his book that the control model in Texas produced the most orderly and safe institutions. Other ethnographic/case studies of prison disorder and collective violence have supported the contention that a strong administrative approach can quell violence and disorder (see, e.g., Useem & Kimball 1991). Quantitative research, on the other hand, has provided weak support for the administrative control model. For example, Reisig (1998) found that institutions operating according to the responsibility or consensual model had lower levels of perceived misconduct by officials and administrators than facilities operating under the administrative control model. Huebner (2003) examined the impact of remunerative versus coercive controls on inmate violence. She found that facilities with more remunerative controls have lower rates of assaults, while measures of coercive control were not significantly associated with assault rates across facilities. In sum, empirical research provides equivocal evidence regarding the effectiveness of different managerial approaches to controlling inmate misconduct. Scholars have argued, however, that, regardless of the managerial approach, inconsistent discipline can result in inmate misconduct. In addition, when the managerial style is not effectively implemented among the staff, it also can lead to disturbances among inmate populations (Colvin 1992; DiIulio 1987). These similarities underscore the notion that the granting of remunerative controls or the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

52

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

enactment of coercive controls may be less important than the integrity and consistency with which the approach is implemented by staff among the inmate population (see also Bottoms 1999).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Evaluating and Integrating Theories of Inmate Behavior Deprivation, importation, and management theories have all contributed to empirical research on inmate misconduct by assisting scholars in choosing potential predictors of inmate misconduct. Although each perspective by itself may be an inadequate explanation of inmate misconduct, each independently has contributed valuable insights regarding the influence of inmate behavior. Studies suggest that variables from each perspective (deprivation, importation, and management) have relevance for predicting the prevalence and incidence of misconduct among inmates. Accordingly, researchers have attempted to integrate these perspectives into more unified, interactional perspectives on inmate behavior (see, e.g., Thomas 1977). For example, inmates’ coping skills prior to incarceration or their disposition to assert more personal control may affect the way inmates respond to the lack of freedom, security, privacy, and so forth inherent to the incarceration experience (see, e.g., Goodstein et al. 1984; Johnson 2002; MacKenzie et al. 1987; Toch 1977). In addition to these perspectives of inmate behavior unique to the penological literature, scholars have also used existing theories of deviance (such as those described in the previous chapter) to explain inmate misconduct and victimization in prison. For example, Wooldredge (1998) used lifestyle theory to explain patterns of victimization among inmates. Lifestyle theory posits that daily patterns of work and leisure activity place individuals at greater/lesser risk of victimization, and this may also apply to inmate routines (Wooldredge 1998). For example, program participation, work assignments, and structured leisure activity may decrease the odds of physical victimization of

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

53

inmates because these activities are more heavily supervised by corrections officials, but may increase the odds of theft victimization as personal property may be left unguarded while inmates participate in these activities. Wooldredge (1998) found support for the notion that inmate routines and lifestyles alter victimization risk. Research has also focused on how routines and characteristics of inmates provide more social control over their behavior (Wooldredge et al. 2001; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008). For instance, inmates with greater involvement in conventional behaviors such as work prior to and within prison may have lower odds of misconduct in prison.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

MODELS OF INMATE MISCONDUCT In order to determine the empirically relevant predictors of inmate misconduct, I conducted a systematic review of studies of misconduct published between 2000 and 2013. The following journals were searched for studies of inmate misconduct that were published during this time period: Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, Law and Society Review, Criminal Justice and Behavior, The British Journal of Criminology, The Prison Journal, Punishment and Society, American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Social Problems, and Social Forces. In addition to the articles published in these journals, I searched a more exhaustive list of journals for studies of the impact of religiosity on misconduct. However, these studies are discussed in greater detail in the following chapter. In order to tailor the review to the purposes of this book, published studies were included in the review if the outcome modeled was a measure of the prevalence or incidence of misconduct within adult correctional institutions. Studies were

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

54

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

only included if they contained multivariate models of individual- or facility-level misconduct; riots or collective disturbances were not considered misconduct. There is very little quantitative research regarding prison riots (but see, Useem & Reisig 1999); as a result, little is known about the similarities/differences between the predictors of individual misconduct and riots. In addition, most of the research on prison riots involves specific case studies (see, Colvin 1992; Useem & Kimball 1991). While there are some similarities to be noted across these narratives, these studies have not been variablebased explanations of riots; many of the suppositions derived from these studies about causes of riots are difficult to measure in empirical studies of riots. Studies of self-reported inmate victimization or other behaviors consistent with misconduct (arguing and fighting with other inmates) perpetrated by other inmates were included (e.g., Kerley et al. 2005; Kerley et al. 2006). These search criteria resulted in a total number of 220 different multivariate models of inmate misconduct across 60 separate studies, each of which are described in Appendix A. The appendix is organized first by the unit(s) of analysis(es), followed by year of publication. Researchers have modeled the relationships between misconduct and inmate-level predictors and/or the relationships between misconduct rates and facilitylevel predictors. Regarding studies that have included inmateand facility-level predictors in the same model, some studies have used pooled regression techniques, while others have utilized hierarchical modeling to address the potential problems associated with modeling nested data structures appropriately (i.e., inmates nested in facilities) (Raudenbush & Bryk 2002; Wooldredge et al. 2001). The narrative portion of the review is organized to present the important inmate-level predictors, followed by a discussion of the important facility-level predictors.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

55

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inmate-Level Predictors of Misconduct Individual-level predictors of inmate misconduct can be classified broadly into pre-prison characteristics and behaviors and incarceration experiences. This dichotomy is similar to the importation/deprivation distinction. Studies have demonstrated that imported characteristics of individuals and their behaviors prior to coming to prison are important determinants of involvement in prison misconduct. Aspects of confinement for individuals also have relevance for behavior in prison, which is a proposition consistent with deprivation theory. Age is one of the most consistent predictors of misconduct in prison. Numerous studies in the review demonstrated that younger inmates have higher odds of committing misconduct than their older counterparts (e.g., Cunningham & Sorensen 2006; FElson et al. 2012; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Houser 2012; Leigey & Hodge 2013; Meade & Steiner 2013; Morris et al. 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2013). There is sparse information in the research literature regarding the relative effects of sex on misconduct; most studies only involve male or female samples. The overwhelming majority of studies have focused exclusively on male inmates. Those studies that have analyzed male and female inmates in the same model have typically found sex to be a non-significant predictor of misconduct (e.g., Andia et al. 2005; Drury & DeLisi 2010; Meade & Steiner 2013; Wood 2013). Studies that have analyzed different models based on sex have uncovered similar predictors of misconduct for both male and female inmates (e.g., Harer & Langan 2001; Houser 2012). The effects of race/ethnicity on misconduct have been mixed across studies (Sorensen & Cunningham 2007). A number of studies do suggest, however, that race may be an important predictor of violent forms of misconduct, in that African Americans have higher odds of engaging in assaults in prison (Camp et al. 2003; Houser 2012; Meade & Steiner 2013; Morris

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

56

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

et al. 2010; Sorensen et al. 2011; Steiner & Wooldredge 2013). More recent studies have begun including measures of Hispanic ethnicity in models of misconduct, with findings similar to the pattern demonstrated for African Americans (Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Meade & Steiner 2013; Morris et al. 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b; Steiner & Wooldredge 2013). In sum, race/ethnicity may be relevant in terms of predicting only a subset of conceptually distinct behaviors in prison, but may be less important for general measures of misconduct. Criminal history and measures of a history of antisocial behavior have also been shown to predict higher odds of misconduct with some consistency. Measures of the presence or number of prior arrest(s) (Andia et al. 2005; Houser et al. 2012; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b; Wooldredge et al. 2001) or commitments to prison(s) (Andia et al. 2005; Berg & DeLisi 2006; Chamberlain 2012; Cunningham & Sorensen 2006; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008) have been consistently associated with misconduct. In addition, self-reported measures of a history of involvement in violence (see, e.g., Harer & Langan 2001) and drug use prior to prison have been associated with misconduct across studies (Drury & DeLisi 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). In regard to the effect of drug use, proximity of use may be more relevant than simply drug use. For example, in a number of recent studies by Steiner and Wooldredge (2008; 2009a; 2009b; 2013; Wooldredge and Steiner 2009), a measure of drug use in the month before arrest was a consistent significant predictor of misconduct across models. Studies have also demonstrated that gang affiliation prior to prison and within prison is related to increased odds of various forms of misconduct (Andia et al. 2005; Berk et al. 2006; Drury & DeLisi 2008; Gaes et al. 2002; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Worrall & Morris 2012). Much less consistent, however, is the effect of committing offense type on misconduct. There is a great degree of variability across studies in terms of the significance as well

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

57

as the type of committing offense (i.e., violent, property, drug, public order, etc.) in models of inmate misconduct (Drury & DeLisi 2008; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Morris et al. 2012; Sorenson & Proctor 2001; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Wood 2013; Wooldredge et al. 2001). Sorensen and Cunningham (2010) recently found, however, that inmates convicted of property, drug, or public order offenses had higher odds of violent misconduct in prison than inmates incarcerated for violent offenses. The studies reviewed indicate that involvement in conventional activities may, depending on the measure used, have relevance for reducing inmates’ odds of prison misconduct. Most frequently, researchers have examined whether factors such as formal education, marital status, and employment history prior to admission have affected misconduct, but the results of these predictor variables have been somewhat inconsistent. Studies have found mixed effects for education level (Andia et al. 2005; Houser 2012; Huebner 2003; Kerley et al. 2005; Kuanling et al. 2008; Leigey & Hodge 2013; Meade & Steiner 2013; Morris et al. 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Wood 2013; Wolff et al. 2007; Worrall & Morris 2012), marital status (Jiang & Winfree 2006; O’Connor & Perryclear 2002; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b; Walters & Crawford 2013) and employment history (Houser 2012; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). Nonetheless, pre-prison conventional behaviors may be important to consider in models of inmate misconduct. Religiosity may also represent a form of conventional behavior that has implications for individuals’ odds of misconduct. However, a review of the literature concerning religiosity and misconduct will be presented in the next chapter. In addition to pre-prison characteristics of inmates, studies of misconduct have also revealed the importance of aspects of incarceration as well as inmate routines during incarceration.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

58

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Most frequently, researchers have modeled the effect of sentence length and/or time served. Across studies, the principal findings regarding the effect of sentence length have been mixed (Berk et al. 2006; Gover et al. 2008; Griffin & Hepburn; Jiang 2005; Kerley et al. 2006; Morris 2010; Worrall & Morris 2012). Sentence length may also be an indicator of inmates’ criminal history and severity of the committing offense, which are also frequently included in models with sentence length. The inclusion of these variables in models along with sentence length may explain the mixed findings regarding the effect of sentence length on misconduct. The amount of time inmates have served in prison has been examined more frequently in studies of misconduct. The relationship between time served and misconduct has also been more consistent across studies; inmates who have served more time are more likely to engage in misconduct (Drury & DeLisi 2008; Gover et al. 2008; Meade & Steiner 2013; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredeg 2009b; Wood 2013). This finding may have to do with the time frame of study periods, however. If inmates have differential time at risk (more time served in prison), then individuals with longer lengths of stay in prison would have higher odds of committing infractions, as well as having their infractions detected. It is also possible that inmates who commit misconduct extend their time served through the loss of good time credits. Inmate routines in prison which might reflect a greater commitment to conventional pursuits have also been associated with lower odds of misconduct. The most relevant predictors include institutional work assignments and involvement in prison programs. Although the evidence from the reviewed studies is mixed, a number of studies suggest that inmates who work in prison and inmates who participate in treatment programs may be less likely to commit rule violations (Meade & Steiner 2013; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; 2009a; 2009b; 2009c; 2013; Wooldredge & Steiner 2012). It may also be that eligibility criteria for programs restrict access to only those inmates who

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

59

have behaved in prison. Therefore participation in programs may be a proxy for some other unmeasured characteristics of inmates that may be related to good behavior in prison. Nonetheless, it may be important to model indicators of these facility routines.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Facility-Level Predictors of Misconduct Facility-level predictors can be tied to deprivation and management theories of inmate behavior, although the same predictors are often linked to both theories across different studies. For example, security level can be tied to management theories as a means by which prisons control inmates’ movements, routines, and behaviors, but higher security prisons may increase the deprivations associated with imprisonment (see, Morris et al. 2012). Few studies have examined facility-level predictors relative to the number of studies that have examined inmate-level predictors of misconduct. Those studies that do exist have also been carried out using different analytical methods. First, only a few studies have been conducted at the facility-level exclusively. Many studies, however, have simply pooled inmate- and facilitylevel measures into a single-level regression model, but this may contribute to biased results for several reasons. For example, standard errors may be inflated as a result of heteroskedasticity because facility-level measures are often based on the number of inmates within prisons, which often varies across facilities in these studies (Raudenbush & Bryk 2002; Wooldredge et al. 2001). Also, null hypothesis tests may be biased in pooled regression models because facility-level hypothesis tests are based on the number of inmates rather than facilities, which would make it more likely to reject the facility-level null hypotheses. To overcome these, and other, potential analytical problems posed by hierarchical data structures, scholars have begun utilizing multi-level modeling techniques. These more sophisticated modeling techniques address each of the problems

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

60

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

mentioned above, as well as others such as the dependence between inmates confined in the same prison (Raudenbush & Bryk 2002; Wooldredge et al. 2001). Regarding the effects of facility-level predictors, facility security level has been the most consistently predictive institutional-level variable across studies. Higher security institutions consistently have higher rates of rule violations and assaults as opposed to facilities classified at lower levels of security (Dhami et al. 2007; Gover et al. 2008; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Griffin & Hepburn 2013; Huebner 2003; Steiner 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge 2013; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Wooldredge & Steiner 2012). Institutional crowding has been another consistent facility-level predictor that has been examined; however, the findings regarding the effect of crowding on misconduct rates across prisons have been mixed (Camp et al. 2003; Gillespie 2005; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Wooldredge and Steiner 2009; Wooldredge et al. 2001). Wooldredge and Steiner (2009) have recently offered evidence that the different ways in which crowding has been measured across studies (average daily population, design capacity, etc.) may explain why the documented effects of crowding have remained inconsistent. Some studies have examined facility-level measures designed to tap different management styles (e.g., the distinction between coercive and remunerative controls). For instance, measures that operationalize remunerative controls (percent with work assignment) have tended to be more predictive than indicators of coercive controls (percent lost work assignment, percent in solitary confinement) when included in the same model (Huebner 2003), but other studies have indicated that coercive controls may be related to reduced misconduct rates across facilities (i.e., Steiner 2009). Studies have also frequently included measures of the composition of inmate populations as facility-level measures (e.g., average age, percent inmates incarcerated for a violent offense, percent inmates participating in treatment programs)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Inmate Misconduct: Theory and Evidence

61

(Camp et al. 2003; Griffin & Hepburn 2013; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009c). These measures may be relevant, but their effects have been inconsistent across studies, and so further study of these variables is warranted. Many studies have also included measures of the racial composition of inmate populations. The effects of racial composition of inmate populations on misconduct rates have been mixed across studies. Some studies suggest that the proportion of a facility’s population that is African American may be related to higher rates of violent forms of misconduct, but may be irrelevant for predicting other forms of misconduct (Chamberlain 2012; Jiang & Winfree 2006; Reisig 2002; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009c). Finally, there is some evidence to indicate that both inmate and staff racial heterogeneity (related to, but distinct from racial composition) may provide a context for reduced rates of misconduct. For example, a more heterogeneous inmate population may coalesce in common pursuit of an orderly facility due to equal status (i.e., prisoners) among racial groups (Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). In addition, a racially heterogeneous staff may provide an incarceration experience whereby inmates of different races can relate to and identify with corrections officers of their own race (Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). Steiner and Wooldredge (2009b) discovered that both inmate and staff heterogeneity were related to lower rates of violent and nonviolent misconduct rates across facilities, but it is clear that more research is needed on these predictors (Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). In sum, facility-level predictors of inmate misconduct thus far have been largely understudied, but with the recent advances in multi-level modeling techniques scholars have begun examining prison-level effects with more frequency. Due to the limited nature of facility-level studies, there is not a large degree of consensus regarding the most important facility-level predictors, with the sole exception of security level. Thus, multi-

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

62

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

level models should carefully consider the most theoretically relevant facility-level predictors for their purposes, coupled with data-driven approaches for selecting prison-level variables to include in models of misconduct.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Theories of inmate misconduct have focused on a variety of explanations for inmate behavior. Scholars have argued that the social organization of inmates developing from adaptations to the pains of imprisonment shape inmate behavior, and, conversely, that inmates import their behavioral repertoire from the community into prison. In addition, recent scholarship has argued that the way in which prison administrators govern their “captives” is the primary influence on misbehavior within institutions. These perspectives have provided theoretical frameworks that have informed the selection of potential predictors of inmate misconduct. The findings from the systematic review presented in this chapter highlight the important determinants of inmate behavior which should be taken into account when modeling prison misconduct as an outcome. The findings from this review of studies published over the past decade are largely consistent with previous published reviews of studies of inmate misconduct (see, e.g., Adams 1992; Gendreau et al. 1997; Wooldredge 1991). The contribution of this review involves the more recent time frame examined, particularly in light of the expansion of studies including the examination of facility characteristics on misconduct. Although many of the facility-level effects differed across the studies presented in this review, a number of studies that have been published over the last several years have contributed to our understanding of the relevance of prison characteristics and the impacts they have on inmate behavior (see, e.g., Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; 2009a; 2009b; Wooldredge & Steiner 2009).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Chapter 4

Religion and Corrections

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17 This chapter includes a discussion of the role and influence of religion in corrections. Religion has been closely intertwined with American prisons since they were first instituted; consequently, the first portion of this chapter overviews the historical significance of religion in the development of prisons in the U.S. The rest of the chapter focuses on the effects of religiosity among inmates. First, I discuss the reasons that often lead inmates to become involved in religion, and identify the benefits they may glean from engagement with religion. Next, I discuss the literature concerning the effects of religiosity on offender behavior (e.g., misconduct, recidivism). I also integrate a discussion of the effects of faith-based programs on misconduct and recidivism. Although this book is not an examination of faith-based programs, participation in faith-based programs may represent one noteworthy form of religiosity (and an explicit goal of most faith-based programs is to create or further develop religiosity among offenders). Further, the goal of some faith-based programs is to create religious environments within prisons, and

63 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

64

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

so these studies are relevant to an examination of religiosity on inmate misconduct and the moral communities hypothesis.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

THE HISTORICAL INFLUENCE OF RELIGION IN AMERICAN PRISONS Religion was probably first introduced into prisons and jails through the incarceration of religious men. One of the more profound narratives concerning religion in prison can be found in the Old Testament and involves the incarceration of Joseph in Egypt. Joseph was imprisoned based on false accusations, and The Holy Bible tells how Joseph gained a position of responsibility and favor in the prison, and was ultimately released because of his assistance in the interpretation of the dreams of his fellow inmates, and eventually those of the Pharaoh. According to the New Testament, the Apostle Paul wrote at least four of his Epistles while imprisoned in Rome. Additionally, several Biblical texts encourage the remembrance and visitation of prisoners (e.g., Hebrews 13:3). During the Middle Ages, criminals who would have otherwise been executed were granted asylum and placed in church prisons. Church officials also had the power to imprison individuals who violated the laws of the Church (Dammer 2002). Prior to the Enlightenment period, the dominant view of the church and society was that crime was a result of evil and demonic forces, and criminals deserved to be severely punished for their sins (Miller et al. 2008). The Church was influential in passing laws during the Middle Ages, particularly laws against heresy and the practice of pagan religions. The Church was also responsible for carrying out brutal punishments for violations of these laws (Welch 2004). Early colonial Americans also held to the viewpoint that crime was a result of sin and demonic forces. The Puritan settlers in Massachusetts based law and punishment primarily upon the Bible and the Calvinistic/Puritanical views of humans as inherently evil (Welch 2004). According to the Puritan

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

65

viewpoint, crime was equated with sin, and criminals were harshly punished by means of heavy fines, corporal punishments (including whipping, stocks, and pillory), banishment, and death (Dammer 2000; Welch 2004). The Quakers, who settled in Pennsylvania, held a more positive view of humanity and believed in a benevolent penal philosophy. They believed that all humans were deserving of respect because of the belief that God resides in everyone (Stohr & Walsh 2012). William Penn actually served time in an English prison for his religious beliefs (Johnston 2009). A number of years after his release, Penn became Governor of the Pennsylvania colony. His new position allowed him to institute changes he perceived as needed. One of these reforms was the Great Law, which was based on Quaker principles, and substituted fines and jail time for corporal punishment (Johnston 2009; Stohr & Walsh 2012). The Quakers instituted a system of incarceration as punishment for offenses, and believed that incarceration could bring about a spiritual conversion among criminals that would restore them to an honest, crime-free lifestyle (O’Connor 2002). Isolation from other criminals and interaction with clergy could encourage inmates to repent for their sins, or become penitent. Consequently, these prisons were called “penitentiaries” (Dammer 2002). The system of incarceration instituted by the Quakers was termed the Pennsylvania system; that system emphasized the total solitary confinement of prisoners and the performance of hard labor within their cells. The isolation from corrupting influences and harsh labor were theorized to promote reflection and discipline, and allow inmates to get in touch with the divine in themselves by silencing all other influences (Dammer 2000; Stohr & Walsh 2012). The Pennsylvania system was typified in the approach to confinement at the Walnut Street Jail and, later, Eastern State Penitentiary (Clear et al. 2006; Dammer 2002). In the early 19th century, New York State experimented with a different approach to incarceration, which was subsequently

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

66

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

termed the congregate or Auburn system (Clear et al. 2006; Johnston 2009; Welch 2004). The Auburn system retained solitary cell confinement at night, but required inmates to work for private contractors during the day. Inmates under the Auburn system, however, were required to remain silent while they congregated, even during mealtime and work (Dammer 2000; Dammer 2002; Johnston 2009). After the American Civil War, society became interested an alternative approach to punishment. According to Pisciotta (1994), the societal change was due largely to perceived increases in crime, violence, and disorder in cities, which were experiencing rapid urbanization. In addition, criticisms began to emerge of the previous harsh penal regimes. Prisons were criticized for inflicting mental and physical harms through solitary confinement and harsh labor. In 1870, the National Prison Association (NPA) met in Cincinnati and produced its Declaration of Principles (Clear et al. 2006).7 That declaration stated, among other things, that prisons should be operated on a philosophy of inmate change and that sentences should be indeterminate with proof of reformation rather than lapse of time, determining when a prisoner was released. At the same time that most penologists were arguing for reform, a political movement known as the Progressives became concerned with the poor state of the emerging urban and technological society, and placed their faith in the state to address the social problems related to rapid industrialization, mass immigration, and widespread urbanization (Clear et al. 2006; Pisciotta 1994; Rothman 1980). The Progressives believed that criminals could be reformed through individualized treatment. The efforts of the Progressives resulted in the transformation of the penitentiary into the reformatory, where inmates were to be reformed through treatment to meet their social, economic, psychological, biological, and moral deficits. This approach was first introduced at the Elmira Reformatory in                                                             

7

The NPA was subsequently renamed the American Prison Association and in 1954, the American Correctional Association.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

67

New York. New York had passed an indeterminate sentencing law, and the superintendent of the Elmira Reformatory, Zebulon Brockway, had attended the NPA meeting in Cincinnati. Brockway implemented many of the reforms outlined in the Declaration of Principles (e.g., classification, parole). According to Pisciotta (1994), this “prison science” attempted to “instill youthful offenders with the Protestant ethic and American values; habits of order, discipline, self-control, cheerful submission to authority, as well as respect for God, law, country, and the principles of capitalism and democracy” (p. 4). In fact, Brockway often stated it was his goal to instill inmates with Christian character and transform them into proper Christian gentlemen (Pisciotta 1994). In the 1930s, serious attempts were made to implement a more treatment-oriented approach based on the progressive reforms; this approach became known as the medical model of corrections (Clear et al. 2006). Offenders were to be diagnosed and efforts were made to treat individuals’ social, medical, and psychological deficits (Rothman 1980). An increased emphasis was placed on education as a means of reform, which coincided with the increase in individual religious influences within prisons because, primarily for economic reasons, chaplains were usually the primary educators in many prisons (Dammer 2002). During most of the 20th century, social science replaced religion as the official guiding approach to the treatment of offenders, although chaplains retained a large role in the counseling and delivery of instruction to prisoners. The Progressive ideals related to the importance of social science and scientific rationales for the administration of prisons and the goal of reforming inmates remained in place (Rothman 1980). According to O’Connor (2002), “this viewpoint, which tended to rely on reason alone, helped to change ‘penitentiaries’ first to ‘reformatories’ and then to ‘correctional institutions’ that relied on a varying mixture of punishment and treatment programs to bring about rehabilitation” (p. 2).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

68

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

In the 1960s, the inmate rights movement was heavily influenced by inmates’ religious practices (Jacobs 1980). Prior to the 1960s, courts had taken a “hands off” approach in regards to inmate issues. The courts held the view that they should be minimally involved in disputes about the rights of inmates for a number of reasons, including protecting the system of federalism and separation of powers since correctional facilities were administered under the executive branch (Dammer 2000; Jacobs 1980). Courts also maintained that they lacked the expertise in the administration of prisons, and believed that judicial involvement could undermine the security and safety of institutions (Jacobs 1980). The Supreme Court case Cooper v. Pate (1964) was one of the landmark cases that marked the end of the hands off doctrine. Inmate Cooper claimed that Illinois state prison officials denied Muslim prisoners access to The Koran and equal access to worship services. The Court ruled in Cooper that inmates could sue corrections officials if they believed their constitutional rights had been violated. Cruz v. Beto (1972) was another important case involving inmates’ right to religious practice. Cruz was a Buddhist inmate who claimed that he was not allowed to use the prison chapel, was prohibited from writing to his religious advisor, and placed in solitary confinement for sharing religious materials with other inmates. The Court held that Buddhist inmates were denied the same right to participate in their faith that other prisoners of the Christian and Jewish faith enjoyed. The Court ruled that inmates must be granted reasonable opportunities to practice their faith, and required correctional officials to recognize non-conventional religions. In the late 1960s and 1970s, increases in crime rates, coupled with the publication of Robert Martinson’s (1974) review of the lack of effectiveness of correctional treatment programs, motivated another shift in correctional thinking (Clear et al. 2006). Martinson (1974) had reached the conclusion that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

69

recidivism” (p. 25). This finding, when considered alongside rising crime rates, and liberals’ concerns related to the arbitrary use of discretion in the correctional system, stimulated the shift to the “crime control era” in corrections. Society largely abandoned rehabilitation as a goal and focused on the punishment and incapacitation of prisoners (Garland 2001; Simon 2007). The time period from mid-1970s through at least the 1990s represented an approach to corrections where inmates were simply “warehoused” in prisons, with little focus or concern about the impact of imprisonment on inmates or the quality of life inmates experienced while incarcerated (Irwin 2007; Irwin & Austin 2001). In the 1990s, however, Congress took an active role in providing inmates access to religion and religious freedom. In 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed. The RFRA required the government to demonstrate a compelling interest before placing restrictions on the practice of religion by prisoners (Dammer 2000). The Supreme Court ruled the RFRA unconstitutional in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), declaring that it violated the separation of powers within the federal government. Congress responded in 2000 by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA), which prohibited the government from restricting the practice of a sincerely held religious belief without a compelling governmental interest. The RLUIPA applied to any institution that housed inmates. The RLUIPA has faced many of the criticisms and challenges of the RFRA (e.g., unconstitutionality), but remains in effect. Recently, a renewed emphasis on religion as an influence on correctional policy has emerged. For example, the creation of the Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships was designed to increase the capability of local faith-based programs to provide social services through federal funding (DiIulio 2011; Dodson et al. 2011). As a result, faith-based organizations have been able to increase the services offered to various groups, including prison inmates. Minority religious groups have

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

70

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

increased their representation in prisons, including those of Islam, Native American spirituality, and Buddhism (O’Connor 2002). A number of states have implemented faith-based prisons or prison units within large facilities. As of 2005, 18 states and the federal government operated a residential faith-based program in prison, and two more state agencies reported they had programs in development (National Institute of Corrections 2005). From the very beginning of the penitentiary in America to the recent resurgence of religion in corrections, the assumption has been that religion is a force for good for the prisoner and ultimately a means of changing criminal tendencies. Many studies have even framed their discussion of the impacts of religion on prisoners in terms of spiritual conversion instead of strict theoretical explanations (O’Connor & Perryclear 2002). Religion has the potential not only to have positive behavioral consequences for inmates, but it can also be a valuable asset in terms of coping with the conditions of confinement.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

THE BENEFITS OF RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT FOR INMATES Researchers have found that the practice of religion inside prison is important to inmates (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002; O’Connor & Perryclear 2002). Most institutions provide facilities for inmates to practice their religion and religious personnel to assist inmates with the practice of their faith (O’Connor & Perryclear 2002; Sundt 2002). Studies have revealed that approximately 32 percent of prisoners regularly participate in worship services, and nearly 50 percent of inmates report experiencing a spiritual conversion during their incarceration (Dammer 2002; Johnson & Larson 1997; O’Connor & Perryclear 2002). For many inmates, religion can be a positive experience while incarcerated, and inmates do participate in religion for a variety of reasons. Inmates who become involved with religion in prison may experience a religious conversion or a spiritual transformation.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

71

Spiritual transformations have the potential to assist in the rehabilitation process and place inmates in a state of mind to change or seek help (Maruna et al. 2006). Spiritual transformations can be framed within life course theories and may serve as a turning point, social bond, or cognitive shift, which research has shown to be related to desistance (see chapter 2). Desistance, then, may be one of the most potentially beneficial aspects of religious involvement for inmates. Johnson (2011) highlighted elements from various life course perspectives on desistance among narratives of inmates describing their own spiritual transformation. He noted that spiritual transformations resulted in moral development, spiritual growth, and a change in thinking that helped facilitate the rehabilitation process for inmates. He identified themes related to spiritual transformation that either corresponded to or provided motivation for the development of characteristics and attributes associated with prisoner rehabilitation. Theme 1 was a recognition by offenders that “I’m not who I used to be.” This theme allowed offenders to move beyond their troubled past, condemn their unacceptable behavior, and embrace prosocial behavior. Theme 2 was related to some form of “spiritual growth.” Offenders acknowledged that they were a work in progress, and staff and volunteers were able to reinforce the development of offenders and encourage further growth. Johnson (2011) related the beginning of spiritual growth (becoming born again) to Sampson and Laub’s (1993) conception of turning points in their age-graded theory of social control. Theme 3 was related to “God vs. the prison code,” and Johnson (2011) described how religiosity and religious environments separated inmates from the prison code and allowed them to counteract the influences of prison culture. Spiritual transformations allowed inmates to develop trust among each other, display affection for one another, and hold each other accountable for misbehavior. These actions are in

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

72

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

opposition to the prison code of mistrusting other prisoners and staff, displaying toughness, and not “snitching” on other prisoners (see Irwin, 1980; Sykes 1958). According to theme 4, spiritual transformations helped offenders develop “a positive outlook on life.” This was important because it countered the fatalistic beliefs held by many offenders that their behavior was due to circumstances beyond their control. Also, when offenders faced disappointments or became discouraged when they encountered difficulties during their rehabilitation process, a positive outlook helped them to interpret these difficulties and remain “resilient in the face of adversity” (Johnson 2011, p. 132). This is because they believed that God loved them and that staff and mentors believed in them. Johnson (2011) related this theme to Maruna’s (2001) redemption scripts and his finding that persisters had pessimistic and fatalistic outlooks on life. Finally, “the need to give back to society” also resulted from spiritual transformations, and helped inmates overcome the common notion that society was to blame for their problems. Inmates who experienced a spiritual conversion recognized that they were able to overcome their imposing negative circumstances when they become convinced that someone cared about them and helped them. These individuals felt the need to give back, often repaying the kindness shown to them by helping others who faced similar circumstances. Other qualitative studies have examined the benefits of involvement in religion for inmates (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002; Johnson & Larson 2003). Religiosity may also serve a more immediate function, in addition to desistance, in that it may assist inmates with meeting or satisfying needs while incarcerated. Inmates have consistently reported that their faith helps them cope with the emotional and material deprivations of prison (see, e.g., Sykes 1958). Clear et al. (2000) divided the role of religion and religiosity for inmates in prison into intrinsic and extrinsic functions. Intrinsic religious motivation implies that religious beliefs and purposes shape individuals’ master

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

73

motives. Extrinsic religiosity means that religion provides some instrumental or utilitarian benefit for inmates (Clear et al. 2000). In terms of intrinsic motivations, religiosity helps inmates cope with the loss of autonomy and freedom. The experience of incarceration in a correctional facility has implications for the identity and self-worth of inmates (Clear et al. 2000; Kerley & Copes 2009; Maruna et al. 2006; Sykes 1958). Individuals who are isolated from society in prison struggle with self-esteem issues (Maruna et al. 2006). Religion allowed inmates to develop a new identity of self-worth and start over with a clean slate (Santos & Lane 2014). Religious inmates reinterpreted their incarceration as the will of God, and religious inmates reported feeling a sense of peace and acceptance of the difficulties of prison (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002). Religiosity can also help inmates deal with their guilt and find forgiveness for their crimes (Clear et al. 2000). Clear and colleagues (2000) found that religious inmates admitted the wrongfulness of their acts and accepted responsibility for their behavior. Inmate narratives collected by Johnson and Larson (2003) indicated that inmates felt a need to give back to the community and make a positive contribution to society. Finally, religiosity helped inmates deal with the loss of freedom in prison (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002). Inmates reported feeling a sense of peace of mind and acceptance of their incarceration (Dammer 2002). One respondent in Clear et al.’s (2000) sample stated “It is not the prison that incarcerates us, it is a man’s mind. I am able to live a normal life and uphold my character with dignity. It takes your self-esteem, your dignity, and everything about you. Religion has helped me to regain this” (p. 62). Another inmate commented that “The only thing that is lacking in here is freedom of movement and women, but that is only a state of mind. I’ve seen some guys who don’t really realize they are in prison because it is not the prison that they see, it is the walk with God. Prison doesn’t bother them anymore” (Clear et al. 2000, p. 62).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

74

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Prisoners also find value in religion for extrinsic or instrumental reasons (Clear et al., 2000). One of the extrinsic benefits inmates may glean from participation in religion is safety (Sykes 1958). Individuals who might be more vulnerable within prisons (e.g., homosexuals, sex offenders, AIDS patients) can often find a safe haven in the prison chapel since religions tend to be welcoming (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002). Dammer (2000) noted that Muslim groups especially were engaged in the protection of their affiliates. Clear et al. (2000) found that when religious leaders of inmate groups were able to intervene on behalf of an inmate and resolve conflict, they garnered respect among the inmate population which in time helped to further their efforts toward protecting the safety of group members. Religious participation may also provide inmates access to goods, materials, and outside visitors (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002; Sykes 1958). Clear et al. (2000) observed that having religious volunteers from outside prisons take an interest in inmates helped to alleviate inmates’ sense of forsakenness by outside society. Also, many inmates commented on the fact that a high proportion of religious volunteers were women, and having access to women from the outside was an added advantage of religious participation (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002; Sykes 1958). Religious services and volunteers also provided access to goods that were otherwise sparse in the prison environment, things that would be taken for granted outside of prison. For example, inmates reported being drawn to religious services for cookies, chips, and other snacks (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002). The chapel also provided opportunities for inmates to access services that were otherwise unavailable, like making calls on the chaplain’s telephone (Clear et al. 2000). Inmates also reported being drawn to religious services to simply enjoy the music (Dammer 2000). Finally, inmates often reported how participation in religion facilitated socialization with fellow inmates (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002). Chapel services may allow inmates the opportunity to socialize with others from

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

75

across the prison. Some inmates reported that participation in religious services even allowed them to visit with old friends who were from the same neighborhood (Clear et al. 2000). Belonging to a religious group or organization implies that the prisoner is different from the rest of inmate population, which can promote a sense of solidarity among religious group participants (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002). Findings from these qualitative studies demonstrate that religiosity provides multiple benefits to many prisoners. Religiosity may help some inmates cope with the difficulties of adjusting to prison and provide access to materials and services that may be otherwise unavailable or difficult to obtain in prison. Only a few quantitative studies have examined the impact of religiosity on adjustment. Clear and Myhre (1995) found no relationship between religiosity and adjustment in their work, but Clear and Sumter (2002), using the same data, found that religiosity was significantly associated with lower levels of depression and higher levels of self-esteem and self-mastery among inmates. Although the quantitative study of the impact of religiosity on adjustment is rather limited, the qualitative findings underscore the potential that religiosity may have for helping a good number of prisoners cope with the nature of confinement for a variety of reasons. A greater number of studies have examined the impact of religiosity on misconduct (an indicator of adjustment) and upon recidivism. RELIGIOSITY AND MISCONDUCT Inmate misconduct represents a form of deviance (see chapter 3). In chapter 2, I reviewed the theoretical reasons to expect religiosity to be associated with lower odds of deviance, and, for similar reasons, religiosity may be inversely related to inmates’ odds of misconduct. Misconduct has also been cast frequently by researchers as an indicator of “maladaptation” to prison (see, e.g. Clear & Sumter 2002; Toch et al. 1989). Thus, for reasons

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

76

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

discussed above, religiosity may also affect inmate misconduct by facilitating adaptation to prison. Table 4.1 displays the results of studies of the effect of religiosity on inmate misconduct.8 The table includes a description of the outcome measure(s) and the measure(s) of religiosity, as well as the control variables included in the respective multivariate models. Studies included in the table represent analyses of religiosity and misconduct located based on the search criteria described in chapter 3 as well as all other studies, published and unpublished alike, that I was able to locate. I searched the same list of journals described in chapter 3 for the time frame from 2000 to 2013. In addition, I also searched online databases and retrieved studies from references cited in the studies I located through the search process described in more detail above. Table 4.1 reports the results from 19 multivariate models of the observed effect of religiosity on misconduct across 10 separate studies. Approximately 68% (13) of the models found a significant, inverse relationship between religiosity and misconduct, while the effect of religiosity on misconduct was non-significant in six models (32%). Some studies found that religiosity was related to lower odds of serious misconduct or assaults (Kerley et al. 2006; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Sturgis 2010). Most of the studies, however, analyzed a composite measure of misconduct and did not analyze separate conceptual categories of misconduct (i.e., assaults, drug/alcohol, nonviolent misconduct).                                                             

8

Table 4.1 only includes studies of organic religiosity, and does not contain evaluations of faith-based programs that have utilized misconduct as an outcome. Organic religiosity refers to the natural life-course development of religiosity over time, while programmatic religiosity refers to the intentional introduction of services or programs designed to foster or encourage religiosity (Johnson 2004). As this book is not an evaluation of a faith-based program, the table includes only those studies that are most directly related to the analyses included in this study.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion and Corrections

77

Table 4.1 – Studies of the effect of organic religiosity on inmate misconduct through 2013 Study

Sample

Measure of

Measure of

Control

Impact of

Misconduct

Religiosity

Variables

Religiosity

Johnson

782

Days in

Index of self-

race, age,

(1987)

inmates

disciplinary

reported

maximum

released

confinement

religiosity,

sentence

from a

chaplain

length,

single

perceptions of

class of

prison in

inmate

felony

FL

religiosity,

between

index of

1978-

church

1982

attendance,

No effect

church affiliation, religious

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

conversion Clear &

769

Number of

Prisoner

Myhre

inmates

self-reported

Values Survey person,

(1995)

housed in

institutional

Age, theft,

Inverse effect

priors

20 prisons infractions across 12 states Pass

345

Whether

Importance of

Black,

(1999)

inmates

inmate

religion,

Hispanic,

from a

received self-

external

white, age,

facility in

reported

religious

education

NY State

infraction in

motivation,

level

the past three

religious

months

affiliation

No effect

(Muslim, Protestant, no religion, Catholic, other)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

78

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Table 4.1 – Studies of the effect of organic religiosity on inmate misconduct through 2013 (continued) Study

Sample

Measure of

Measure of

Control

Impact of

Misconduct

Religiosity

Variables

Religiosity

Clear &

769

Number of self- Prisoner

Priors,

Inverse

Sumter

inmates

reported

person, age,

effect

(2002)

housed

institutional

in 20

infractions

values survey

theft

prisons across 12 states Theft, O’Connor

1,579

Whether inmate Rate of

&

inmates

had been found

Perryclear

housed

guilty of official participation

(2002)

in prison infraction

(Number of

in SC in

programs

1996

involved

religious

Inverse

priors, age

effect

age, ever

Inverse

married,

effect

time served in days

in/number of Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

programs available) Kerley et

386

Whether argued Religious

Black,

Inverse

al. (2005)

inmates

with other

conversion,

education,

effect

housed

inmates at least

belief in

number of

in a

once a month

higher power,

arrests,

facility

right and

number of

in MS in

wrong should

times in

2002

be based on

prison,

God’s laws,

length of

attendance at

sentence,

religious

medium/

services

maximum security

Whether fought See above

See above

No effect

with other inmates at least once a month

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion and Corrections

79

Table 4.1 – Studies of the effect of organic religiosity on inmate misconduct through 2013 (continued) Study

Sample

Measure of

Measure of

Control

Impact of

Misconduct

Religiosity

Variables

Religiosity

Kerley

386

Whether

Religious

Black,

Inverse

et al.

inmates

inmate

conversion,

education,

effect

(2006)

housed

reported

belief in

number of

in a

arguing with

higher power, arrests,

Southeas

other

right and

number of

t prison

inmates at

wrong should

times in

in 2002

least once a

be based on

prison, length

month

God’s laws,

of sentence,

attendance at

medium/

religious

maximum

services,

security

attendance at Operation

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Starting Line Steiner

9,828

Whether

Participated in Age, race,

No effect

&

inmates

inmate

religious

married,

(1991);

Wool-

in

reported

activities in

education,

Inverse

dredge

institutio

assault

past week

employed,

effect (1997)

(2008)

ns

misconduct

across

physically abused, in

the U.S.

prison for

in 1991

violent or drug

and

offense, prior

10,022

prison, used

in 1997

drugs in month before arrest, sentence, time served, participated in program, hours at work assignment

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

80

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Table 4.1 – Studies of the effect of organic religiosity on inmate misconduct through 2013 (continued)

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Study

Sample

Measure of

Measure of

Control

Impact of

Misconduct

Religiosity

Variables

Religiosity

Whether inmate

Participated

reported

in religious

effect

drug/alcohol

activities in

(1991;

misconduct

past week

Whether inmate

Participated

reported other

in religious

effect

nonviolent

activities in

(1991;

misconduct

past week

Sturgis 11,789

Number of self-

Religious

Male, age,

(2010)

inmates

reported

activities in

black,

housed in

misconducts since past week

Hispanic,

275 state

admission

married, time

See above

Inverse

1997) See above

Inverse

1997)

prisons

served, violent

included in

recidivist,

the 1997

nonviolent

Survey of

recidivism,

Inmates in

education,

State and

income,

Federal

security level,

Correctional

Northeast,

Facilities

Midwest,

No effect

South, crowding, mean crowding Number of self-

Religious

reported minor

activities in

misconducts

past week

Number of self-

Religious

reported serious

activities in

misconducts

past week

See above

See above

No effect

Inverse effect`

 

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion and Corrections

81

Table 4.1 – Studies of the effect of organic religiosity on inmate misconduct through 2013 (continued) Study

Sample

Measure of

Measure of

Control

Impact of

Misconduct

Religiosity

Variables

Religiosity

Kerley

208 male

Number of self-

Frequency

Age of onset,

Inverse

et al.

parolees

reported acts of

of private

number of

effect

(2011)

released

destroying

prayer,

prior arrests,

from state

property, physical watching

number of

prison in the fights, possession

religious

times in

previous 6 of weapon, and

television,

disciplinary

months

time in

attendance

confinement,

disciplinary unit

at religious

age, race,

classes

education, self-

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

control

Models of religiosity and deviance in the general population have been criticized for not including measures of social control, as social control may account for the effects of religiosity (see chapter 2). Steiner and Wooldredge (2008) and Sturgis (2010) included control variables tapping social control (married, income, etc.), but the results across these two studies were mixed. Finally, few studies used samples drawn across multiple prisons. According to moral communities, religiosity would have a weak effect on misconduct in facilities with fewer religious inmates. Mixed findings across studies may represent the contextual effect of facility-level religiosity within the prison sampled. Steiner and Wooldredge (2008) used data from multiple prisons and found an effect of religiosity on misconduct. Sturgis (2010), however, explicitly tested the contextual effect of religiosity and discovered that facility-level collective religiosity was largely unrelated to misconduct. One implication that can be consistently drawn across these studies is that more research with better samples, more refined measures, and more sophisticated analytical techniques are needed. Although most of the extant studies suggest that there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and misconduct,

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

82

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

researchers have observed that a potential threat to the validity of these findings is selection bias (Camp et al. 2006; Daggett et al. 2008). Selection bias occurs when there is an unmeasured variable(s) that may be causally related to both the independent and dependent variables under consideration (Shadish et al. 2002). In other words, there may be some other factor both increasing/decreasing religiosity and lowering/raising odds of misconduct. For example, inmates with higher self-esteem, selfefficacy, or intrinsic motivation may be more likely to be religious, as well as have lower odds of misconduct. Thus, the relationship between religiosity and misconduct may be spurious. Studies of religiosity and inmate misconduct have largely failed to address this potential criticism adequately. I return to a more detailed discussion of the selection bias issue later on in this chapter. Very few studies have examined the effect of facility-level religiosity on misconduct, but at least one study indicates that it may be an important predictor of misconduct rates across prisons. Clear and Sumter (2002) found that facility-level religiosity was correlated with lower misconduct rates in some facilities, but not in others. In addition to the potential macrolevel effects of religiosity on misconduct rates, the moral communities hypothesis argues that aggregate-level religiosity moderates the inverse effect of individual-level religiosity, such that religious individuals within religious communities will have lower odds of deviance than religious individuals in less religious contexts (Stark 1987; Stark & Bainbridge 1997; Stark et al. 1983). For instance, Johnson (2011) described how the Innerchange Freedom Initiative, which featured a religious housing unit within a prison, had many elements of a traditional congregation. The environment of the religious housing unit was open, positive, supportive, and nurturing. The environment in the religious housing unit also insulated and protected inmates from the influences of the general inmate culture, and in turn, promoted rehabilitation (see Putnam and Cambell, 2010, for a related discussion of the relevance of religious environments in

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

83

the general population). Therefore, prison environments with higher levels of religiosity may strengthen and reinforce individual, inmate-level religiosity. To date, only one study has examined the moral communities hypothesis in prisons. Sturgis (2010) used the 1997 wave of the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities and discovered that religiosity was not associated with the incidence of all misconduct or minor misconduct, but he did find that religiosity was associated with fewer serious misconducts. Sturgis (2010) did not find a relationship between facility-level religiosity and misconduct rates across prisons, nor did he find evidence that facility-level religiosity conditioned the effect of inmate-level religiosity on misconduct (i.e., the relationship between religiosity and misconduct was neither weaker nor stronger in facilities with greater proportions of religious inmates), although he did find that the effect of religiosity did vary across facilities. Unfortunately, there are a number of limitations concerning Sturgis’s (2010) study. First, Sturgis (2010) only examined the incidence of misconduct; he did not examine the effect of religiosity on the prevalence of misconduct. The majority of misconduct studies have used the prevalence of misconduct as an outcome (see, e.g., Camp et al. 2003; Harer & Langan 2001; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Wooldredge et al. 2001, and Appendix A). The prevalence of misconduct may be an important outcome specifically for the moral communities hypothesis because some scholars have argued that religiosity may have no effect unless an individual lives in a moral community (e.g., Regnerus’ (2003b) reference to a “light switch effect”). Further, Sturgis (2010) examined minor and serious misconduct rather than different types of misconduct (e.g., violent, drug, and other nonviolent). Steiner and Wooldredge (2013) demonstrated that modeling different forms of misconduct is important; they found that some predictors were related to some measures of misconduct and not related to

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

84

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

others. Additionally, Sturgis (2010) did find that religiosity was related to serious misconduct, which would support treating different forms of misconduct as distinct in related models. Modeling different types of misconduct is also important based on the anti-ascetic hypothesis which argues that religiosity has stronger effects on minor forms of deviance, such as substance use. All told, the literature indicates that religiosity has benefits and behavioral consequences for inmates during their incarceration. The primary goal of this book is to add to the existing knowledge concerning the effects of religiosity on inmate behavior while incarcerated. Other studies of the effects of religiosity in correctional institutions have examined whether these effects are retained once inmates are released (e.g., whether religiosity has an effect on recidivism). Although a few studies have examined the impact of religiosity on the reentry process and related outcomes such as recidivism, most of the analyses of the effect of religiosity on recidivism have been evaluations of faith-based prison programs. The discussion regarding faithbased programs is important to the study of the effects of religiosity on prison misconduct because the study of the effects of faith-based programs on recidivism bridges the gap between prisons and communities, and examines whether religious effects among inmates are retained in the community. Recidivism parallels misconduct, as they are both forms of deviant behavior (e.g., misconduct entails the violation of rules in prison, and recidivism represents the violation of the law or rules of supervision in the community). Further, some studies of faithbased programs also examine their impact on misconduct while in prison. In addition, programmatic religiosity, as well as organic religiosity, represents a form of religiosity for inmates. Thus, studies of the effects of faith-based programs on behavioral outcomes may shed light on the effects of religiosity on inmate behavior.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Religion and Corrections

85

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

THE EFFECTS OF FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS ON DEVIANCE There is some ambiguity as to what actually may be considered a faith-based program (Mears et al. 2007). Some faith-based programs in the criminal justice system may not have an obvious faith-focus, but rather are general services (e.g., shelter, job training, mentoring) that are simply provided by outwardly religious individuals and/or religious organizations (Mears 2007; Mears et al. 2006). On the other hand, many faith-based programs are centered around faith, promoting a particular religious belief, and providing some combination of worship services, Bible study, religious seminars, and retreats. In other programs, some activities may be faith-oriented and some may not. Scholars have made a distinction between organic religion and intentional or programmatic religion (Johnson 2004). Organic religion is the influence of religion as it is practiced and developed over time. Programmatic religion, on the other hand, is a religious intervention introduced intentionally that is designed to address some problem area or meet some need (e.g., drug treatment, conversion-based rehabilitation, church-based gang intervention) (Johnson 2004). Studies that have evaluated the impact of programmatic religiosity, or faith-based programs, on inmate misconduct have revealed mixed results. An evaluation of Prison Fellowship conducted by Johnson et al. (1997) found no differences in the relative odds of misconduct between those inmates participating in the program and a matched comparison group. Hercick (2005) found that inmates who participated in a religious study program in prison had lower rates of misconduct than inmates in the general population, but there were no differences between program participants and a group of inmates eligible for participation. The treatment group did, however, spend significantly less time in disciplinary segregation than both of the other comparison groups.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

86

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Evaluations of the effects of faith-based programs on recidivism have also produced mixed results. Young and colleagues (1995) found that program participants had lower odds of rearrest and parole violations than a comparison group (matched on age, race, gender, age at release, and criminal history). Program participants also maintained a longer survival time than the matched comparison group. Johnson and colleagues (1997) found no differences between program participants and a group of non-participants (matched on age, race, religious affiliation, county of residence, military discharge, and security classification) in the odds of rearrest one year after release. Johnson et al. (1997) did find that those inmates who were classified as high-level participants in the program were less likely than low-level participants and nonparticipants to be rearrested within one year. An eight year follow-up revealed similar results (Johnson 2004). Johnson (2002) also examined rearrest rates of prisoners released from a faith-based prison in Brazil, compared with inmates released from a non-faith-based prison. Although the inmates released from the faith-based prison were classified as higher risk, they had lower recidivism rates than the comparison group (Johnson 2002). Johnson and Larson (2003) also evaluated the Inner Change Freedom Initiative (IFI), a Prison Fellowship pre-release program, by comparing program participants to a group of eligible participants who did not volunteer for the program and a group of inmates who volunteered but were not selected. The comparison groups were matched to the treatment group on age, race, offense type, and criminal history risk score. Johnson and Larson (2003) found no differences in odds of rearrest or reincarceration among the groups. They did find, however, that program graduates had significantly lower odds of recidivism than either of the comparison groups. A more recent study of IFI demonstrated that program participants had significantly lower odds of rearrest, reconvictions, and reincarceration (Duwe & King 2013). Duwe and King (2013) posited that their results may have demonstrated more conclusive

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

87

reductions in recidivism than previous evaluations of the same program (e.g., Johnson & Larson 2003) because of changes to the program that incorporated “evidence-based” approaches to treatment (e.g., targeting criminogenic needs). LaVigne and colleagues (2007) compared reincarceration rates between female inmates released from a faith-based prison in Florida with female inmates released from the general population. They found that the women released from the faith-based prison had significantly lower odds of reincarceration at six months after release, but found no differences between comparison groups at one year after release. The majority of findings from evaluations of faith-based programs indicate that faith-based programs created few discernible differences between those who participate and those who do not; however, a number of studies have found that program graduates or those who participated in the programs to a higher degree were less likely to recidivate (i.e., Johnson 2004; Johnson & Larson 2003; Johnson et al. 1997). Some scholars have questioned whether these findings could be attributed to selection bias (e.g., Camp et al. 2006). First, the findings may represent the fact that individuals who excel in faith-based programs have higher levels of intrinsic motivation or faith inclinations (Camp et al. 2006, Mears 2006), and there is some evidence that program volunteers are significantly different from those who do not volunteer, and program completers are significantly different from those who do not complete programs (Camp et al. 2006; Daggett et al. 2008). For instance, Camp and colleagues (2006) compared participants in a faith-based program to a group of inmates who did not volunteer to be considered for the program on a number of religiosity, selfworth, and motivation measures. They found that inmates who were more likely to read scripture and attend religious services were more likely to volunteer for the program. Inmates who scored significantly higher on the motivation scale were also more likely to volunteer for the program. Similarly, Daggett et

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

88

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

al. (2008) compared a group of faith-based program participants who completed the program to those who did not complete the program and found that inmates who read scripture and who scored higher on a self-worth scale, motivation scale, and general well-being scale were significantly more likely to complete the program. Based on these findings, studies on religiosity effects should attempt to account for key characteristics of inmates – for example, a history of conventional behavior that may predispose inmates to greater success in faith-based programs and to better behavior in prison. On the other hand, the mixed findings reported may also reflect the idea that many inmates volunteer for religious programs or utilize religiosity for instrumental, extrinsic reasons. Findings from the qualitative studies discussed above demonstrated that inmates may take advantage of religiosity for reasons besides their faith or an interest in faith. For example, inmates may use the opportunity of chapel services to pass contraband, have contact with individuals of the opposite sex, or access food and snacks brought in from outside the prison (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002; O’Connor & Perryclear 2002). Participation in faith-based programs or religiosity may also be seen as a way to impress prison/parole officials, or obtain a transfer to a more desirable facility or location closer to home (see, e.g., Fields 2005 for a legal evaluation of benefits inmates in faith-based prisons or units may receive). Scholars have failed to recognize or acknowledge this potential selection effect into religiosity or faith-based programs, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it may very well occur (B.R. Johnson, personal communication, Feb 1, 2012). The alternative interpretation of the pattern of findings across faith-based programs may indicate that those who graduate or participate to a high degree represent those who are truly religious and have benefited from the program, while many of the participants who selected into faithbased programs for extrinsic reasons did not benefit from the program content or ultimately chose to drop out before completion. Thus, it may be just as important to include

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

89

measures of risk, such as prior antisocial behavior, criminal history risk, or committing offense type in analyses in order to account for selection bias in the study of the link between religiosity and inmate behavior. Some researchers have matched participants in faith-based programs to control groups on key covariates (e.g., Johnson & Larsen 1993). This strategy is rarely used due to the problem of dimensionality; the more covariates a researcher attempts to match, the more difficult it becomes to find an equivalent control case (Guo & Fraser 2010). Thus, most researchers who have evaluated the effects of religiosity on misconduct or the effects of faith-based programs on misconduct or recidivism have relied on multivariate regression techniques to control for potentially confounding covariates. There are a number of problems with using conventional regression techniques to adjust for differences between treatment and control cases, and these problems are discussed further in chapter 5. To date, only two studies have attempted to address selection bias through more advanced methods (Camp et al. 2008; Duwe & King 2013). Camp et al. (2008) used propensity score matching to create statistically equivalent groups of program participants and nonparticipants on a number of important variables, including basic demographic and criminal history variables and measures of selfesteem and motivation.9 Camp et al. (2008) found that there were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups in total misconduct, but the inmates who participated in the faith-based program had significantly fewer reports of serious misconduct. Duwe and King (2013) also matched program participants to non-participants on a number of important covariates using propensity score matching. They found that program participants had significantly lower odds of rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration than non-participants.                                                              9

See chapter 5 for a discussion of propensity score matching and its strengths and weaknesses as an analytical method for addressing selection bias.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

90

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Overall, the findings regarding faith-based programs and their effectiveness have been mixed. Selection bias may be an explanation for the pattern of mixed findings, and more recent studies utilizing advanced methods for controlling selection bias (Camp et al., Duwe & King 2013) have revealed more promising results for the effectiveness of faith-based programs for reducing recidivism. Studies of organic religiosity and misconduct have also produced mixed findings, however, these studies have yet to incorporate techniques that may address the threat of selection bias. Therefore, based on the literature on faith-based program, researchers may wish to use more rigorous methods to examine the effect of religiosity on inmate misconduct.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, I overviewed the role of religion in corrections and the benefits and effects of religiosity for inmates. I reported on the evidence concerning the benefits, both intrinsic and extrinsic, that inmates may receive through involvement with religion. Most importantly, a religious conversion may promote spiritual change that helps offenders with the rehabilitation process. In the last section of the chapter, I described the pattern of mixed findings that exist in the literature concerning the study of religiosity on inmate behavioral outcomes. The purpose of this book most broadly stated is to estimate the effect of religiosity on inmate misconduct. Studies in the general population have revealed a strong and consistent inverse relationship between religiosity and deviance (Johnson 2011), but the evidence concerning the relationship between religiosity and inmate misconduct has been mixed across the handful of studies that have examined this issue systematically. Some studies have revealed an inverse effect of religiosity on misconduct (e.g., Clear & Myrhe 1995; Clear & Sumter 2002; Kerley et al. 2006), while other studies have observed no effect (Pass 1999; Sturgis 2010). Scholars have not publicly considered or discussed the reasons for this mixed pattern of findings

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion and Corrections

91

regarding religiosity and misconduct in light of the consistent effects of religiosity to deter unlawful conduct in the community. Evaluations of the effects of faith-based programs on misconduct and recidivism that have accounted for potential internal validity threats related to selection bias (i.e., inmates who select into faith-based programs are already less deviant for some other reason) have revealed an inverse relationship between participation in a faith-based program and misconduct or recidivism (e.g., Camp et al. 2008; Duwe & King 2013). To date, however, these techniques have not been applied in studies of organic religiosity and misconduct. As a part of this book, I use propensity score matching to match religious inmates to nonreligious inmates on a number of covariates that may account for predispositions among religious inmates to lower odds of prison misconduct (e.g., conventional behaviors) or higher odds of misconduct (e.g., criminal history risk). The effects of religiosity on misconduct for these statistically equivalent groups are then estimated. The existing studies of the religiosity-inmate misconduct relationship have primarily examined the impact of individuallevel religiosity on misconduct. Researchers have only begun to examine facility-level religiosity and its effect on misconduct (see, e.g., Clear & Sumter 2002; Sturgis 2010), and evidence concerning this relationship is mixed. Studies from the general population have revealed that religious contexts strengthen the individual-level relationship between religiosity and deviance (Rengerus 2003b; Stark 1996; Wallace et al. 2007). This is an important line of research for the study of religiosity and corrections, as prisons with stronger religious environments may reinforce individual-level religiosity and its effects on deviant outcomes. As a part of this book, I examine the effect of facility-level religiosity on rates of misconduct across facilities, as well as the potential conditioning effect of facility-level religiosity on the inmate-level religiosity-misconduct relationship (based on the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

92

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

moral communities hypothesis). Although Sturgis (2010) also examined the moral communities hypothesis with inmates in prisons, I move beyond his study in several important ways. First, I estimate the effect of facility-level religiosity on both the prevalence and incidence of misconduct, while Sturgis (2010) only examined the incidence of misconduct as an outcome in his study. Second, in this study, I use measures of different forms of misconduct, including assault, drug/alcohol, and nonviolent misconduct; Sturgis (2010) used a general incidence measure of all misconduct in some of his models, and another measure of serious and non-serious misconduct. Finally, I use more recent data than used by Sturgis (2010). Studies have found that religiosity tends to have effects on more serious forms of misconduct, as opposed to less serious forms (Camp et al. 2008; Sturgis 2010). These findings mirror the findings from general population studies that religiosity may affect different forms of deviance in different ways, although general population studies of religiosity find that the relationship is stronger between religiosity and minor forms of deviance. Studies of the religiosity-inmate misconduct relationship have largely failed, however, to estimate the effect of religiosity on different conceptual forms of misconduct, such as assaults, drug/alcohol violations, and nonviolent misconduct.10 Perhaps consistent with the anti-ascetic hypothesis, religiosity may have greater relevance in predicting a subset of behaviors that would be considered misconduct rather than a simple dichotomy between serious/non-serious misconduct (Sturgis 2010). This study will address this issue by utilizing different measures of misconduct for assaults, drug and alcohol violations, and a combined category of misconduct for all other violations.                                                             

10

Steiner & Wooldredge (2008) included a measure of religious activities in the past week (the same measure used in these studies, however with a previous wave of the data) on assault, drug/alcohol, and nonviolent misconduct and found that it was inversely related to these measures. Religiosity was not a focus of their analyses, however, and was only included as a statistical control.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Chapter 5

Studying the Relationship between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In this chapter I describe the methodology used to estimate the individual, aggregate, and cross-level moderating effects of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of inmate misconduct. The study is designed to answer the following particular research questions: 1. Within facilities, what is the relative effect of inmatelevel religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of inmate misconduct? 2. Across facilities, what is the relative effect of facilitylevel religiosity on the prevalence and incidence rates of inmate misconduct? 3. Does the individual-level effect of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of misconduct vary across facilities – and if so, is that relationship moderated by facility-level religiosity? The methodology proposed below encompasses two separate, yet related studies. First, I examine the individual-level effect of religiosity on inmate misconduct. In order to address concerns related to selection bias, I utilize propensity score matching to create a matched sample of religious and nonreligious inmates. Second, I test the moral communities 93 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

94

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

hypothesis in prison. The data, sample, and the procedures used to merge the two data sets are described first, followed by a description of the measures used in the study. Then, I describe the proposed analytic strategies for the two studies. DATA AND MEASURES

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The data used in this study come from two different sources: The 2000 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (Census) and the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities (Survey). The two datasets were merged for this study in order to create a multi-level data set. Information in the 2004 Survey was used to identify the facility in which inmates were housed.11 Facility-level information was obtained from the Census, and I also aggregated some individual-level measures contained in the Survey to the facilitylevel to create facility-level measures.

                                                            

11

The Survey contained information on the population size of the facility which was also provided in the Census. The Census was used as the sampling frame for the inmate data. This provided an identical variable in both data sets that allowed the identification of the facility in which inmates in the Survey were incarcerated. The state of arrest, included in the Survey, also facilitated the identification of appropriate facilities in situations where two facilities had the same population size. One facility sampled in the 2004 Survey was opened after the 2000 Census was completed. Relevant facility-level measures for this facility were retrieved from the 2005 Census. The state of arrest and facility population size of the missing facility opened after 2000 allowed the facility to be identified in the 2005 wave of the Census and a record was created in the facility-level data for this facility using data from the 2005 Census.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

95

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Sample Participants The analyses were restricted to male inmates housed in state confinement institutions. Federal facilities were not included in the sample for this study because of the potential for unmeasured differences between state and federal inmates that may be difficult to account for in multivariate models. Facilities classified as community facilities or boot camps were also excluded from the sample for this study. Facilities were classified as community-based facilities by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Census if 50 percent or more of the residents were regularly permitted to leave the facility unaccompanied by staff for work or study.12 These facilities included halfway houses, restitution, pre-release, work release, and study release centers. Due to the potential differences in inmate populations, facility operations, procedures, and other characteristics, there may be substantial differences between inmates housed in secure facilities and those housed in community facilities or boot camps that may be difficult to bring under control. Finally, facilities housing female inmates were removed from the sample. Again, there may be many unmeasured structural and cultural differences between facilities for men versus those for women. Sampling Procedures The 2000 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities13, was the sixth enumeration of state facilities. The                                                             

12

The designation of a facility as a community facility if more than half of the population was allowed to leave unaccompanied by staff was made by BJS in the collection/publication of the data. 13 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. CENSUS OF STATE AND FEDERAL ADULT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 2000 [Computer file]. Conducted by U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

96

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Census was sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census collected information on the facility, operation of the facility, size and characteristics of inmate population and staff, security and disturbances within the facility, and the health of the inmate population. Facilities were included in the Census if they: 1) were staffed with Federal, State, local or private employees; 2) housed primarily State or Federal prisoners; 3) were functionally and administratively separate from other facilities; and 4) were in operation on June 30, 2000. Questionnaires were mailed to respondents during the last week of June, 2000. Follow-up mailings, telephone calls, and emails resulted in a final response rate of 100 percent. The 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities14 provides information on nationally representative samples of inmates housed in both State and Federal facilities in 2004. In-person interviews with randomly selected inmates resulted in data regarding each inmate’s current offense and sentence, criminal history, family background and personal characteristics, prior drug and alcohol use, and prison activities, programs and services. The Survey was also conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The sample of inmates housed in state prisons for the 2004 Survey was selected in a two-stage process. The 2000 Census, which contained 1,549 state facilities as enumerated on June 30, 2000, provided the sampling frame for the universe file of facilities. In addition, the BJS created a separate file to use for                                                                                                                         Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 2004. doi:10.3886/ICPSR04021. 14 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. SURVEY OF INMATES IN STATE AND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 2004 [Computer file]. ICPSR04572-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 2007-02-28. doi:10.3886/ICPSR04572.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

97

sampling purposes that listed facilities opened between the collection of data for the 2000 Census and April 1, 2003. The final sampling frame contained 1,401 facilities for males. The 14 largest prisons were selected with certainty. The remaining prisons were stratified into eight strata based on Census region which included Texas, Florida, California, New York, Northeast except New York, Midwest, South except Florida and Texas, and West except California. Facilities were ordered by size within each stratum and selected based on probability proportional to size using a random start and a sampling interval. The final sample selection resulted in 222 facilities. In the second stage of the sampling design, inmates were randomly selected from a list of all inmates using a bed the previous night. In total, this two-stage process resulted in the selection of 13,098 male inmates confined within 222 stateoperated facilities. The interview process resulted in a nonresponse rate of 10.23%, for a final count of 11,569 completed interviews. The sample was determined to be representative of the target population by the Bureau of Justice staff. The deletion of boot camps and community-based facilities (N=37) and those inmates not sentenced to serve time left a sample size of 9,841 inmates housed in 194 separate facilities. Missing data was dealt with by listwise deletion of cases with missing values on variables that were included in the analyses. This resulted in the deletion of 234 cases, and left a final sample size of 9,607 inmates housed in 194 facilities. Comparisons between the descriptive statistics generated from the full sample and the final sample (with missing cases deleted) revealed no systematic differences between the two samples with regard to demographic characteristics of the inmates. The Survey provided a sampling weight based on the inverse of each inmate’s odds of selection into the sample. All analyses were weighted. For the analyses described below, these weights were normalized for the restricted sample size (removal of federally operated facilities,

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

98

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

community facilities, boot camps, female inmates, and missing data).

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Variables and Measures The outcome measures are described in Table 5.1, and include measures of the prevalence and incidence of assaults on inmates or staff, drug/alcohol offenses, and all other nonviolent misconduct (e.g., possession of stolen property, possession of other unauthorized items, being out of place, disobeying orders). The prevalence of misconduct refers to whether or not an inmate ever reported involvement in misconduct, while the incidence of misconduct refers to the number of times inmates reported committing an instance of misconduct. Research in prisons has examined both the prevalence of misconduct and the incidence of misconduct as outcomes, but rarely together (see, Appendix A). For this study, both the prevalence and incidence of misconduct will be examined as some predictors may have more influence upon whether inmates ever engage in misconduct, while others may be more relevant for the frequency of misconduct. Research suggests it is better to estimate different models for assaults, drug/alcohol offenses, and other nonviolent offenses instead of a general measure of all forms of misconduct (Steiner & Wooldredge 2013). For example, Steiner and Wooldredge (2013) found that some predictors were related to some forms of misconduct, but not to other forms (e.g., race, committing offense type). In addition, according to the antiascetic hypothesis, religiosity may have stronger effects on minor forms of misconduct, particularly drug/alcohol violations. All misconduct questions in the survey were worded in such a way as to ask “since admission, have you ever been written up or found guilty” or “since admission, how many times have you ever been written up or found guilty” of a particular form of misconduct. The outcome variables for this study are technically selfreport indicators, although it is important to note that inmates

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

99

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

were asked about official detection of misconduct events. Therefore, the wording of the questions may subject the measures to the limitations of both self-report and official measures of misconduct. The limitations of self-report data are widely recognized, and include poor memory/recall and unwillingness to admit deviant acts (Hindelang et al. 1979). Official measures of misconduct, on the other hand, have also been criticized in terms of their validity and reliability as a measure of misconduct. Critics of this measure note that there are potential biases resulting from correctional officer discretion, under detection of events, and differences in definitions of misconduct across jurisdiction (Light 1990). Keeping these limitations in mind, studies comparing official misconduct and self-reported misconduct have found both types of data to be generally valid and reliable indicators of inmate misconduct (see, e.g., Hewitt et al. 1984; Van Voorhis 1994). Table 5.1: Description of misconduct outcomes Mean Prevalence Assault .22 Drug/alcohol .08 Other nonviolent .49 Incidence Assault .71 Drug/alcohol .17 Other nonviolent 2.31 9,607 N=

(SD) (.41) (.28) (.50) (2.23) (.81) (5.90)

The primary independent variable of interest, religiosity, was measured using the survey item “in the past week, have you engaged in any religious activities, such as religious services, private prayer or meditation, or Bible reading or studying?” The religiosity measure taps important dimensions of religiosity discussed in chapter 2. For example, the measure includes

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

100

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

attendance at religious services and individual activities, such as prayer and Bible study that other researchers of the subject have used (see, e.g., Evans et al. 1995; Johnson et al. 2000b; Stark 1996; Kerley et al. 2011). The wording of the question, however, prohibits the decomposition of these different dimensions of religiosity. The facility-level measure of religiosity was an aggregation of inmate-level religiosity to the facility level. The Census does not contain population-based measures of religiosity or availability of religious programs across facilities; therefore, the facility-level measure of religiosity was derived from the individual-level measure.15 Table 5.2 contains a description of the measures of religiosity, as well as the inmate- and facility-level control variables selected for the study. Table 5.2 also presents the estimation of balance in each of the individual-level covariates between religious and non-religious inmates. Balance for a covariate means that there are no significant differences in the distribution of that covariate between religious and non-religious inmates.16 The Inmate Survey and Prison Census provided the opportunity to consider a multitude of variables at both levels of analysis. The inmate- and facility-level predictors included in the final models were chosen based on their theoretical relevance, as detailed in chapter 3, and the empirical findings derived from studies included in the systematic review of the research on inmate misconduct (also discussed in chapter 3). In terms of theoretical relevance, the inmate-level predictors can almost                                                             

15

Although the facility-level measure was aggregated from the individual-level measure of religiosity, there is a good deal of variation in facility-level religiosity. Within the facility with the greatest mean level of religiosity, 89% of inmates reported engaging in religious activities in the past week; in the facility with the lowest mean level of religiosity, 25% of inmates reported engaging in religious activities in the past week. 16 See the discussion related to propensity scores for further description of covariate balance, pp. 109-113.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

101

Table 5.2: Description of inmate sample and covariates

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mean Inmate-level predictors Religiosity Age Whitea Black Hispanic Other race/ethnicity Incarcerated for violent offensea Incarcerated for drug offense Incarcerated for property offense Incarcerated for public order offense Prior incarceration Used drugs in month before arrest Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Child(ren) Conventional behaviors Lived with both parents growing up Natural log time served (in months) Natural log hours at work assignment (past week) N= Facility-level predictors Religiosity Administrative control Commitment to convention Design capacity Proportion incarcerated for violent offense N=

(SD)

SBS1

.54 (.50) ----35.72 (10.69) 24.08 .35 (.48) -23.15 .41 (.49) 18.36 .18 (.39) .00 .06 (.23) 4.25 .55 (.50) 8.00 .17 (.38) -0.07 .19 (.39) -5.06 .09 (.29) .00 .59 (.49) -12.12 .56 (.50) -8.08 .59 (.49) -10.10 .65 1.21 .45 3.35 1.78

(.48) (.80) (.50) (1.41) (1.59)

12.50 27.50 2.00 3.56 10.06

9,607 .54 (.17) .00 (1.00) .00 (1.00) 1554.8 (962.10 4 ) .55 (.19) 194

a

Reference category

1

Based on comparisons between the descriptive statistics for religious inmates (n1 =

5,185) and nonreligious inmates (n2 = 4,422); SBS ≥ │20│ indicates significant difference

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

102

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

exclusively be tied to importation theory. Recall that importation theory argues that pre-prison characteristics associated with offending are imported into the prison (Irwin & Cressey 1962). In other words, individual-level variables associated with offending outside of prison would also predict deviant behavior inside prison. Thus, age, race, committing offense type, and a history of antisocial and prosocial behavior prior to incarceration should be theoretically relevant to misconduct in prison. The facility-level predictors represent variables from both environmental theories and theories of inmate governance. Environmental theories focus on the deprivations of imprisonment and assert that inmate misbehavior is an indicator of maladaptive strategies to cope with the pains of imprisonment (Clemmer 1940; Sykes 1958; Toch 1977). Theories of prison management, particularly DiIulio’s (1987) administrative control theory would argue that tight security and control would reduce inmate misbehavior. From a deprivation theory perspective, tight security (administrative control) and large prison populations (design capacity) would increase the pains of imprisonment, and thereby increase facility rates of misconduct. From an administrative control perspective, higher security would reduce rates of misconduct. Regardless of the direction of the theoretical relationship between environmental conditions and misconduct, it is incumbent upon researchers to attempt to measure the sparseness and/or security/control of prison environments. The data sets often provided several possible measures of the same concept. For example, criminal history could be measured through questions asking inmates: 1) if they had ever been arrested; 2) the number of times they had been arrested; 3) if they had ever been on probation; 4) if they had ever been previously incarcerated; or, 4) the number of times they had been previously incarcerated. In situations such as this, the magnitude of the bivariate relationships between these theoretically overlapping measures and misconduct were examined and used to select the best measure with the goal of providing the most rigorous test of the effect of religiosity on misconduct. The

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

103

measures that were considered for inclusion in the final models as inmate- and facility-level controls are described in more detail in Appendices B and C. Age represents inmates’ ages in years. Race was measured through a series of dichotomous indicators of whether an inmate was Black, Hispanic, or of other race/ethnicity. White inmates served as the reference category. Three dummy variables were used to measure committing offense type and included whether an inmate was incarcerated for a drug offense, property offense, or public order offense. Incarceration for a violent offense was used as the reference category. Measures of criminal history and/or prior antisocial behaviors included whether inmates had a prior incarceration, whether inmates reported that they had used drugs in the month before arrest, and whether inmates reported they had associated with an antisocial peer group before arrest. The measure associating with an antisocial peer group before arrest was derived from a series of questions that asked inmates if they had friends growing up who had engaged in a number of criminal activities ranging from using drugs and vandalism to armed robbery. Measures of social control or stakes in conformity included whether inmates had child(ren), a composite measure of conventional behaviors, and whether inmates reported they had lived with both parents growing up. The measure of conventional behaviors is an additive scale computed from the dichotomous measures that indicate whether inmates were currently married, had > high school diploma, and had a job or business in the month prior to their arrest. Finally, measures of time served and the number of hours at a work assignment were included in the models.17 The distributions of both measures were skewed, and so the natural log of each measure was taken.                                                              17

Apart from the theoretical importance of time served, it is necessary to control for the effects of time served in all models because of the measurement of the outcome. Inmates were asked about misconduct since admission to prison, and inmates who have served longer terms

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

104

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Facility-level predictor variables included administrative control, commitment to convention, design capacity, and proportion inmates incarcerated for a violent offense. The measure of administrative control was created via a factor analysis of the following items: the proportion of inmates housed in maximum security confinement, the proportion of inmates in disciplinary housing, and the ratio of corrections officers to inmates. These items all loaded on a single factor (KMO = .57) that explained approximately 56 percent of the variation in the three items.18 Commitment to convention was also created via a factor analysis of the proportion of inmates married, proportion of inmates with > high school degree, and the proportion of inmates with a job or business before arrest. These items loaded on a single factor (KMO = .55) that explained 41 percent of the variation in these items.19 The measures included in the commitment to convention scale and the proportion of inmates incarcerated for a violent offense were aggregated from the inmate-level data.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Study 1: The Effect of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct As discussed in chapter 4, the relationship between religiosity and misconduct may be confounded by selection bias. In other words, there may be differences between religious inmates and non-religious inmates that predispose them to better or worse                                                                                                                         of confinement have greater probability of committing misconduct, as well as having their misconduct detected by prison authorities. 18 Component loadings for each variable within the factor were as follows: proportion of inmates classified into maximum security = .84; proportion in disciplinary housing = .60; and ratio of corrections officers to inmates = .79. 19 Component loadings for each variable within the factor were as follows: proportion married = .66; proportion with a high school degree = .64; and proportion with job/business prior to arrest = .61.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

105

behavior in prison, regardless of their religiosity. Ultimately, the question of the impact of religiosity on inmate misconduct is a question of causality, and the difficulties of estimating causal relationships using observational data are rather broadly recognized (Berk 2004; Shadish et al. 2002). The ideal means of estimating causal effects is the establishment of a true counterfactual. A true counterfactual would occur if researchers could study how the same person would behave both in the presence and absence of the treatment (Guo & Fraser 2010; Shadish et al. 2002). In other words, a true counterfactual would establish how Person A would behave if he/she was religious, and then how Person A would behave if he/she were not religious. Since a true counterfactual is improbable (e.g., adding and removing the effects of religiosity), researchers must attempt to construct an equivalent comparison group. Experimental designs using random assignment are considered the “gold standard” for establishing a counterfactual and examining questions of causality (Shadish et al. 2002). In theory, random assignment produces statistically equivalent experimental and control groups, rules out internal validity threats, and ensures that groups being compared are “balanced” on all unobserved covariates (Shadish et al. 2002). Since it is improbable to assign individuals to conditions of religiosity and non-religiosity, other means of addressing the problem are required. As discussed in chapter 4, researchers have typically used multivariate regression to estimate the relationship between religiosity and misconduct. Multivariate regression techniques demonstrate how the distribution of the outcome variable varies for different values of a predictor variable while holding all other variables included in the model constant (Berk 2004). Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with estimating causal effects using conventional regression models. First, a researcher must identify and measure all of the relevant covariates of both the treatment (religiosity) and outcome (misconduct). Even if this demanding task is

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

106

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

accomplished, the inclusion of more and more covariates in a regression model simultaneously increases the odds of introducing multicollinearity into the statistical analysis (Yanovitzy et al. 2005; Zanutto et al. 2005). In addition, regression models require assumptions about the functional form of the relationship between the outcome and covariates, and if these often unmet assumptions are not satisfied, additional nonrandom error may be introduced into the model (Yanovitzy et al. 2005; Zanutto et al. 2005). Finally, estimates derived from mean-based statistics such as conventional regression techniques are often based on extrapolations of the available data, potentially masking important differences among study subjects and rendering causal inferences invalid (Berk 2004; Oakes & Johnson, 2006). In other words, the results of regression models may be based on comparisons between very different subjects. A better method of balancing the differences on observed covariates between a treatment and control group is propensity score matching (PSM). A propensity score is the conditional probability of receiving a treatment given a set of observed covariates (Guo & Fraser 2010). In other words, a propensity score is a balancing score that should ensure that the distribution of the observed covariates is the same for the treatment and control group. A propensity score, then, removes differences in any measured covariates between treatment and control groups (D’Agostino 1998; Guo & Fraser 2010). PSM has several advantages over multivariate regression. First, the estimation of a propensity score is not susceptible to collinearity because covariate parsimony is not a concern. Therefore, a propensity score can balance out a large number of covariates in group comparison (Guo & Fraser 2010; Yanovitzy et al. 2005; Zanutto et al. 2005). Also, propensity scores are not affected by violations of the assumptions regarding the functional form of the relationship between covariates and the outcome (Yanovitzy et al. 2005; Zanutto et al. 2005). Finally, PSM matches individuals as close as possible on the estimated propensity score, making the comparison between treatment and control

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

107

cases appropriate. Unfortunately, PSM does have two primary weaknesses. First, similar to regression methods, PSM can only balance out measured covariates, and so studies that rely on PSM are susceptible to the criticism of potentially omitting relevant covariates. Also, PSM often reduces a larger sample by making one-to-one matches of treated with control cases (Guo & Fraser 2010). This may result in a reduced analytical sample that may not be generalizable to the original larger population because the sample would necessarily be more likely to reflect the treated group (in this study, religious inmates). The basic procedure of PSM to be utilized here will involve matching religious inmates to non-religious inmates on a number of observed covariates that may be correlated with both religiosity and misconduct, then estimating the effect of religiosity on misconduct using the matched sample. The first step in the PSM analysis involves choosing relevant covariates to be balanced by the matching analysis. Recall, covariates must be chosen such that they precede both the treatment and the outcome in time. Since the religiosity measures and misconduct measures were all based on questions that inquired about the entire period of incarceration, covariates chosen for the PSM analysis must be measured in such a way as to reflect preincarceration characteristics or documented behaviors. Preincarceration variables described in table 5.2 that are relevant for the PSM analysis include age, race, committing offense type, prior incarceration, drug use in month before arrest, association with antisocial peer group, child(ren), conventional behaviors, and having lived with both parents growing up. It is important to note there may some measurement error in some of these variables relating to the timing of the individual measurements. For example, it may be possible under some conditions for an inmate to father a child while he is incarcerated. Nonetheless, it is probable that most of these variables involve pre-incarceration experiences exclusively (with the possible exception of married and children).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

108

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

The covariates described in table 5.2 were checked for balance across religious and non-religious inmates prior to matching using the standardized bias statistic (Rosenbaum & Rubin 1985). The standardized bias statistics reported in the last column of table 5.2 represent an estimation of the balance in covariates between religious and non-religious inmates. An absolute value greater than 20 would indicate imbalance, or, in other words, that religious inmates are significantly different from non-religious inmates in terms of that covariate. The only covariates unbalanced between religious inmates and nonreligious inmates were age, white, and conventional behaviors. Religious inmates were significantly older and were involved in significantly more conventional behaviors prior to their incarceration than non-religious inmates, and non-religious inmates were more likely to be white than religious inmates. After the initial estimation of balance among covariates, the next step in the analysis involved estimating the propensity score. Logistic regression was used to estimate a propensity score for the treatment (religious inmates) and comparison (non-religious inmates) groups utilizing all of the pre-incarceration predictor variables identified in table 5.2 in order to increase the odds of achieving covariate balance, since model parsimony is not a problem with propensity scores (Rubin & Thomas 1996; Yanovitzky et al. 2005; Zanutto et al. 2005). Cases were matched with a one-to-one nearest neighbor matching algorithm. This matching procedure compares the distance between the propensity score of a randomly selected treatment case with all the potential control cases and selects the control case with the smallest difference between propensity scores (Guo & Fraser 2010). In the data, treatment cases (religious inmates, n= 5,185) outnumbered control cases (non-religious inmates, n= 4,422); consequently it was necessary to match with replacement. Matching with replacement allows each treated unit to be matched to the nearest comparison unit (smallest difference in estimated propensity score) even if the comparison unit has

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

109

already been matched. Matching with replacement has the added advantage of increasing the average quality of matching and decreasing bias across groups (Caliendo & Kopeining 2008; Dehejia & Wahba 2002; Zhao 2008). The drawback to matching with replacement is that although bias is decreased, the variance and standard errors increase and the precision of estimates decrease (Caliendo & Kopeining 2008; Zhao 2008). Matching with replacement allowed all treatment cases (religious inmates) to be retained for analysis. Also, in order to reduce bias in the matching process and ensure that treatment cases were being matched with appropriate comparison cases, a caliper restriction was imposed. Rosenbaum and Rubin (1985) suggest that 90% of the bias in matching can be removed by imposing a caliper restriction of .25σp, where σp = the standard deviation of the estimated propensity scores of the sample (see also Guo & Fraser 2010). Rosenbaum and Rubin’s (1985) recommendations were followed here. After the matching process, the sample was checked again for balance on the included covariates. The initial matching process successfully balanced the treatment and control groups on all of the observed covariates.20 Effects of religiosity on misconduct were then estimated using hierarchical Bernoulli regression for the dichotomous outcomes and hierarchical Poisson regression with a correction for overdispersion (see table 5.1 for means and standard deviations) for the limited count outcomes. Hierarchical regression techniques with a dichotomous indicator for treatment (religiosity) were used to estimate the effects of religiosity in order to control for the covariates related to the incarceration experience (time served and hours worked at work assignment in past week) and unmeasured facility-level effects related to differences between the facilities in which these inmates were confined (Gue &                                                              20

See chapter 6 for further discussion of matching results and balance in covariates after matching.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

110

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Fraser 2010).21 The effects of religiosity on misconduct were also estimated using conventional hierarchical regression techniques to control for the effects of all of the covariates. Results from the naïve regression analysis and the analysis involving PSM were then compared.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Study 2: Moral Communities and Misconduct Once the effects of religiosity were estimated on misconduct in the PSM analysis, I proceeded with a test of the moral communities hypothesis. Hierarchical modeling provides the best analytical approach for estimating the individual and aggregate-level effects of religiosity on misconduct. Bi-level models of both the prevalence and incidence of misconduct were estimated using the software package HLM version 6.08 (Raudenbush et al. 2004). Multi-level modeling is suited to simultaneously estimating both inmate- and facility-level effects and it also addresses the statistical problems that result from pooling data from multiple levels of analysis into a single-level regression model. First, multi-level modeling adjusts for correlated error among inmates nested within the same facility. For example, inmates within a prison may not be truly independent of each other; they may share characteristics or similarities in behavior dictated by facility rules or institutional culture (Wooldredge et al. 2001). Second, multi-level modeling adjusts for heteroskedasticity at the facility-level that may arise due to differences in the number of level-1 units within the level-2 units. For instance, smaller numbers of inmates within a prison could result in greater error variance around the regression line than facilities with larger numbers of inmates (Wooldredge et al. 2001). Also, multi-level modeling adjusts for collinearity that might exist between individual and aggregate level variables,                                                             

21

See the discussion in the next section related to multi-level modeling techniques.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Relationship Between Religiosity and Inmate Misconduct

111

because inmates are not distributed randomly across facilities. For example, more serious offenders are placed in higher custody facilities. Finally, multi-level modeling bases aggregate level null hypothesis tests on the appropriate sample size (number of facilities versus number of inmates) (see also Raudenbush & Bryk 2002). Hierarchical Bernoulli regression (comparable to logistic regression) was used to estimate models of the prevalence of misconduct (dichotomous outcomes). Hierarchical Poisson regression with the correction for overdispersion (see table 5.1 for means and standard deviations of incidence outcomes) was used for the incidence of misconduct because of the restricted range of the count of misconduct. The covariates listed in table 5.2 were examined for multicollinearity prior to the estimation of models; based on the conventional diagnostics used to test for multicollinearity, I determined that multicollinearity was not a problem here. The multi-level modeling process involved several steps. First I estimated unconditional models for each outcome. An unconditional model allows for the estimation of the proportion of variance at each level of analysis and tests whether there is significant variation in the outcome across facilities. Significant variation in all outcomes across facilities indicated the necessity of using multi-level modeling. Next, the inmate-level predictor variables were entered and random coefficient models of misconduct were estimated. Random coefficient models not only assess the effects of the predictor variables on the outcomes, but also examine whether those effects vary across facilities. Significant between-facility variation in individual-level coefficients indicates that the effects of predictor variables are stronger in some facilities versus others. Establishing significant variation in the effect of predictor variables is a necessary pre-requisite to examining cross-level interactions (i.e., to examine whether differences in the level-1 effects across facilities might correspond with differences in the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

112

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

characteristics of those facilities). Predictors that did not vary significantly across facilities were treated as fixed for the final level-1 models. All of the inmate-level predictors were group mean centered in order to remove between-facility variation in inmate characteristics that might have corresponded with differences in misconduct levels across facilities. The third step involved the estimation of “intercepts as outcomes” models which estimate the main effects of facilitylevel variables on the facility-level outcomes (the prevalence and incidence rates of misconduct). Finally, “slopes as outcomes” models were estimated. Slopes as outcomes models test for significant cross-level interactions, or, in other words, whether the level-1 relationship between a predictor and the outcome are moderated by characteristics of level-2 units. The cross-level interaction, then, provides the most appropriate test of the moral communities hypothesis. For example, a significant cross-level interaction between the inmate-level religiosity-misconduct relationship and facility-level religiosity would indicate that the effect of inmate-level religiosity on misconduct was either stronger or weaker in facilities with higher proportions of religious inmates.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Chapter 6

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

In this chapter, I present the findings from the two studies. The results from the analyses of the effect of religiosity on misconduct are discussed first, followed by the results from the multi-level analysis of the moral communities hypothesis.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

STUDY 1 RESULTS: THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOSITY ON INMATE MISCONDUCT Tables 6.1 and 6.2 contain the results from the conventional hierarchal regression analyses of the full sample. Table 6.1 displays the models of the effects of religiosity and the control variables on the prevalence of each type of misconduct. The models of the effects of religiosity and the control variables on the incidence of each type of prison misconduct are contained in table 6.2. Religiosity was not related to the prevalence of any type of misconduct (assaults, drug/alcohol offenses, other nonviolent offenses).22 Religiosity was inversely related to the                                                             

22

The effects of the other variables on the prevalence and incidence of misconduct, random effects across facilities, and the model fit statistics are discussed along with the results of study 2.

113 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

114

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Table 6.1:  Inmate‐level effects on the prevalence of misconduct  – full sample  Intercept Religiosity Age Black Hispanic Other race/ethnicity

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Incarcerated for drug offense Incarcerated for property offense Incarcerated for public order offense Prior incarceration Used drugs in month before arrest Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Child(ren) Conventional behaviors Lived with both parents growing up Natural log) time served (in months Natural log hours at work assignment (past week) N= Proportion of variation within facilities Proportion of variation within facilities explained

Assaults b eb ** .19 -1.65 (.06) -.08 .92 (.06) -.05** .95 (.01) .09 1.09 (.07) -.07 .93 (.09) -.15 .86 (.12) -.26* .77 (.09) -.23* .80 (.08) -.14 .86 (.13) .29** 1.34 (.06) .21* 1.24 (.07) .38** 1.47 (.07) -.17* .84 (.06) -.08 .92 (.04) -.10 .90 (.07) .73** 2.07 (.04) -.14** .87 (.02) 9,607

Drug/alcohol b eb ** -3.29 .04 (.09) -.02 .98 (.09) -.04** .96 (.01) -.21 .80 (.12) -.20 .82 (.15) -.04 .96 (.17) -.28 .75 (.13) -.31* .73 (.12) -.12 .89 (.19) .42** 1.52 (.09) .94** 2.56 (.10) .43** 1.54 (.10) .11 1.12 (.10) .01 1.00 (.05) -.04 .97 (.10) 1.13** 3.10 (.07) -.09* .91 (.03) 9,607

Other nonviolent b eb ** -.10 .90 (.07) .05 1.04 (.05) -.05** .96 (.01) -.02 .98 (.06) -.22** .80 (.07) .11 1.12 (.12) -.19* .83 (.07) -.03 .97 (.07) -.04 .96 (.10) .26** 1.29 (.05) .21** 1.23 (.05) .47** 1.60 (.06) -.15* .86 (.05) -.08 .93 (.03) .02 1.02 (.05) .71** 2.03 (.03) -.07** .93 (.02) 9,607

.88

.85

.87

.29

.43

.29

Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses); **

p ≤ .001, *p ≤. 01

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

115

Table 6.2: Inmate-level effects on the incidence of misconduct – full sample Intercept Religiosity Age Black Hispanic Other race/ethnicity

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Incarcerated for drug offense Incarcerated for property offense Incarcerated for public order offense Prior incarceration Used drugs in month before arrest Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Child(ren) Conventional behaviors

Assaults b eb .23 -1.45** (.07) -.17* .84 (.06) -.05** .95 (.01) .18* 1.20 (.07) -.17 .84 (.08) -.01 .99 (.12) -.32* .73 (.10) -.21* .81 (.09) -.21 .81 (.13) .26** 1.30 (.06) .26** 1.30 (.07) .41** 1.50 (.07) -.23** .79 (.06) -.03 .97 (.04) -.14 .87 (.07) .83** 2.30 (.04) -.11* .89 (.02) 9,607

Drug/alcohol b eb -4.70** .01 (.12) -.11 .89 (.11) -.06** .95 (.01) -.22 .80 (.15) -.36 .70 (.20) -.40 .67 (.27) -.34 .71 (.18) -.57** .57 (.16) -.59 .56 (.30) .53** 1.71 (.13) 1.10** 2.99 (.15) .83** 2.30 (.13) .16 1.18 (.12) -.04 .96 (.07) .14 1.15 (.12) 1.47** 4.36 (.08) -.10* .91 (.03) 9,607

Other nonviolent b eb -.02** .98 (.06) -.03 .97 (.04) -.05** .95 (.01) -.08 .92 (.05) -.29** .75 (.07) -.13 .88 (.09) -.28** .76 (.07) -.13 .88 (.06) -.14 .87 (.09) .20** 1.22 (.04) .23** 1.26 (.05) .38** 1.46 (.05) -.14* .87 (.05) -.08* .93 (.03) -.13* .88 (.04) .77** 2.16 (.03) -.06** .94 (.02) 9,607

Lived with both parents growing up Natural log) time served (in months Natural log hours at work assignment (past week) N= Proportion of variation within facilities .90 .74 .96 Proportion of variation within facilities explained .69 .84 .69 Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses); ** * p ≤ .001, p ≤. 01

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

116

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

incidence of assaults, but not associated with the incidence of drug/alcohol violations or other nonviolent misconduct. On average, it was shown that religious inmates committed .10 fewer assaults than comparable nonreligious inmates.23 Next, the effects of religiosity generated from the conventional hierarchical regression analyses were compared to those derived from analyses of the matched (via propensity score matching) sample of religious and nonreligious inmates. Descriptions of the two samples and the results of the matching process are presented in table 6.3. Each treatment (religiosity) case (n= 5,185) was able to be matched with a comparison case within the caliper restriction. Of the 4,422 non-religious inmates in the full sample, 3,823 (86%) were selected as matches. Of the comparison cases selected as matches, 968 (25%) were matched to multiple treatment cases (based on the matching with replacement process), while the remaining cases were matched to one treatment case. The number of times comparison cases were used as matches ranged from one to seven, although 71 percent of the cases that were matched more than once were only used twice, and 26 percent were used three times. Only 4 percent (n = 32) of the cases matched to more than one treatment case were used more than three times. Table 6.3 reveals the matching process achieved balance across the covariates that were initially unbalanced between religious and non-religious inmates (age, white, and conventional behaviors). The other covariates also remained balanced after the matching process. Table 6.4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis of the prevalence of misconduct using the matched sample, controlling for time served and hours spent at a facility work assignment. Religiosity was associated with lower odds of assault, but religiosity was not related to an inmate’s odds of committing a drug/alcohol offense or other nonviolent misconduct.                                                              23

The coefficient estimates for significant religiosity effects on the incidence of misconduct were used to calculate predicted counts of each outcome. For these calculations, all of the other predictor variables in the models were held constant at their means (see Long 1997).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

117

Table 6.3: Description of religious and nonreligious samples and balance after matching on propensity scores Nonreligious

Religious

Inmates

Inmates Mean

SBS1

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

36.90

(10.45)

35.21

(10.96)

15.78

White

.30

(.46)

.37

(.48)

-14.89

Black

.45

(.50)

.39

(.49)

12.12

Hispanic

.18

(.39)

.19

(.39)

-2.56

Other race/ethnicity

.06

(.25)

.05

(.23)

4.16

Incarcerated

.57

(.50)

.55

(.50)

4.00

.16

(.37)

.17

(.38)

-2.67

.18

(.39)

.19

(.39)

-2.56

.09

(.28)

.09

(.28)

.00

Prior incarceration

.56

(.50)

.60

(.49)

-8.08

Used drugs

.54

(.50)

.56

(.50)

-4.04

.57

(.50)

.60

(.50)

-6.00

Age

for violent offense Incarcerated for drug offense Incarcerated Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

for property offense Incarcerated for public order offense

in month before arrest Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Child(ren) Conventional behaviors Lived with both

.68

(.47)

.64

(.48)

8.42

1.31

(.81)

1.17

(.78)

17.61

.45

(.50)

.44

(.50)

2.00

parents growing up N= 1

5,185

3,823

Based on comparisons between the descriptive statistics for religious inmates and

nonreligious inmates; SBS > │20│ indicates significant difference (Rosenbaum & Rubin 1985).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

118

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

The significant effect of religiosity on inmates’ odds of committing an assault differs from the null effect of religiosity on the prevalence of assaults generated from the conventional hierarchical regression analysis of the full sample reported earlier. Compared to non-religious inmates, religious inmates had a four percent lower probability of committing an assault. Table 6.4: Inmate-level effects on the prevalence of misconduct – matched sample Drug/ eb

b Intercept

-1.54

**

.21

(.06) Religiosity

-.17* .57**

time served (in months)

(.03)

Natural log hours at

-.17**

eb

b -2.99

**

.05

(.09) .84

(.06) Natural log

Other nonviolent

alcohol

Assaults

-.06 .93**

.94

-.11

.91

-.08

.93

(.06) 2.54

(.05) .85

-.09

eb

(.06)

(.08) 1.78

b

.59**

1.80

(.03) .90

-.09**

.91

work Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

assignment (past week ) N=

(.02)

(.03)

(.02)

9,008

9,008

9,008

.88

.85

.87

.20

.32

.21

Proportion of variation within facilities Proportion of variation within facilities explained Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses); Italicized coefficients indicate relationship varies across facilities (p < .05). **

p ≤ .001, *p ≤. 01

Table 6.5 presents the results from the models of the incidence of misconduct based on the matched sample. Consistent with the findings from the analysis of the full sample, religiosity was inversely related to the incidence of assaults. Also consistent with the analysis of the full sample, the analysis of the matched sample revealed that religiosity was not related to

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

119

the incidence of drug/alcohol violations or other nonviolent misconduct. Based on the predicted counts, religious inmates committed .59 fewer assaults than non-religious inmates. The difference in the predicted counts between the analyses of the full sample and the matched sample was .49, suggesting that the effect of religiosity generated from the analysis based on the matched sample was stronger than the effect of religiosity derived from the analysis of the full sample. Table 6.5: Inmate-level effects on the incidence of misconduct – matched sample Drug/ b Intercept

-.89**

eb .41

(.07) Religiosity

-.26**

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Natural log

.62** (.03)

Natural log hours at

-.14**

b -2.81**

eb .06

(.09) .77

(.07) time served (in months)

Other nonviolent

alcohol

Assaults

-.13 .98**

.88

-.08

.33**

1.39

-.12

.89

(.05) 2.67

(.05) .87

eb

(.06)

(.08) 1.87

b

.59**

1.80

(.02) .92

-.10**

.91

work assignment (past week ) N=

(.02)

(.03)

(.02)

9,008

9,008

9,008

.90

.74

.96

.36

.49

.38

Proportion of variation within facilities Proportion of variation within facilities explained Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses); Italicized coefficients indicate relationship varies across facilities (p < .05). **

p ≤ .001, *p ≤. 01

In sum, religiosity was significantly related to the prevalence and incidence of assaults in the analysis of the matched sample, but only the incidence of assaults in the analysis of the full

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

120

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

sample. The magnitudes of the effects of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of assaults generated from the analysis involving the matched sample were also greater than the magnitude of the effects of religiosity resulting from the conventional hierarchical regression. Religiosity was not related to the prevalence or incidence of drug/alcohol or nonviolent misconduct in either analysis. Thus, even though a few differences in the significance and magnitude of the effects of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of assaults emerged across the two analyses, there were few substantive differences between the results of the analyses of the full and matched samples. Thus, the effects of religiosity generated from a conventional regression analysis may not be substantially biased. I now turn to the examination of the moral communities hypothesis.

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

STUDY 2 RESULTS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND MISCONDUCT IN CONTEXT The following section presents the findings from multi-level analyses of religiosity on inmate misconduct controlling for important individual- and facility-level predictors of misconduct. The results are presented by the type of misconduct. First, I discuss the findings from the inmate-level models of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of assault, followed by the results of the analyses of the prevalence and incidence of drug/alcohol violations, and finally the findings from the models of the prevalence and incidence of other nonviolent misconduct. Finally, I present the results from tests for cross-level interactions – the effects of the facility-level predictor variables on the slopes depicting the relationships between religiosity and misconduct that varied across facilities. Table 6.6 contains the findings from the individual-level model of the effect of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of assaults. It is worth noting that 88 percent of the variation in prevalence of assaults to be explained was at the inmate-level, while

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

121

Table 6.6: Inmate-level effects on assaults Intercept Religiosity Age Black Hispanic Other race/ethnicity Incarcerated for drug offense Incarcerated for property offense Incarcerated for public order offense Prior incarceration

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Used drugs in month before arrest Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Child(ren) Conventional behaviors Lived with both parents growing up Natural log time served (in months) Natural log hours at work assignment (past week) N= Proportion of variation within facilities Proportion of variation within facilities explained

Prevalence b eb .19 -1.65** (.06)

Incidence b eb -1.45** .23 (.07)

-.08 (.06) -.05** (.01) .09 (.07) -.07 (.09) -.15 (.12) -.26* (.09) -.23* (.08) -.14 (.13) .29** (.06) .21* (.07) .38** (.07) -.17* (.06) -.08 (.04) -.10 (.07) .73** (.04) -.14** (.02) 9,607 .88 .29

-.17* (.06) -.05** (.01) .18* (.07) -.17 (.08) -.01 (.12) -.32* (.10) -.21* (.09) -.21 (.13) .26** (.06) .26** (.07) .41** (.07) -.23** (.06) -.03 (.04) -.14 (.07) .83** (.04) -.11** (.02) 9,607 .90 .69

.92 .95 1.09 .93 .86 .77 .80 .86 1.34 1.24 1.47 .84 .92 .90 2.07 .87

.84 .95 1.20 .84 .99 .73 .81 .81 1.30 1.30 1.50 .79 .97 .87 2.30 .89

Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses); italicized coefficients indicate relationship varies across facilities (p < .05). **

p ≤ .001, *p ≤. 01

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

122

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

12 percent of the variation was at the facility-level. For the incidence of assaults, 90 percent of the variation to be explained was at the inmate-level, and 10 percent of the variation was at the facility-level. The analyses contained in table 6.6 revealed that religiosity was not related to the prevalence of assaults, but religiosity was inversely related to the incidence of assaults. The relationship between religiosity and the prevalence of assaults did not vary across facilities, but the effect of religiosity on the incidence of assaults did. Thus, religious inmates committed fewer assaults than nonreligious inmates, and the strength of this relationship differed across facilities. Regarding the effects of the other predictor variables in the models, incarceration for a drug offense, incarceration for a property offense, having child(ren), and spending more hours at a facility work assignment were inversely associated with both the prevalence and incidence of assaults. In contrast, inmates with a prior incarceration, those who used drugs in the month before arrest, inmates who associated with an antisocial peer group before their incarceration, and inmates who had served more time were more likely to commit an assault and committed a higher number of assaults. Younger inmates had significantly lower odds of assault, but age was not related to the incidence of assaults. Compared to white inmates, black inmates were no more likely to commit an assault, although black inmates did commit a higher number of assaults than white inmates. The coefficient estimates for Hispanic, other race/ethnicity, incarcerated for a public order offense, conventional behaviors, and lived with both parents growing up were not significantly related to either the prevalence or incidence of assaults. The effect of time served on the prevalence of assaults varied across facilities, as did the effects of all the predictor variables on the incidence of assaults. The significant inmate-level predictors in the models explained 29 percent of the within-facility variation in the prevalence of assaults and 69 percent of the within-facility variation in the incidence of assaults.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

123

Table 6.7 depicts the facility-level effects on the assault rates (prevalence and incidence). Facility-level religiosity was not related to the prevalence or incidence rate of assaults. The other facility-level effects on assaults were the same for both the rates of prevalence and incidence. Facilities with greater commitment to convention among their inmate population had lower rates of assaults. Larger facilities and facilities with a greater proportion of inmates incarcerated for violent offenses had higher rates of assaults. Administrative control was not related to assault rates. The significant facility-level predictor variables explained 63 percent of the between-facility variation in the prevalence of assaults and 54 percent of the between-facility variation in the incidence of assaults. Table 6.7: Facility-level effects on rates of assaults Prevalence Intercept

-3.06

Incidence eb

b **

.05

(.27)

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religiosity

-.50 .05

.61

-.23**

1.06

.0002**

-.17

.79

.10

1.11

-.26**

.77

(.05) 1.00

(.00004)

.0002**

1.00

(.00004)

Proportion incarcerated

2.43**

for violent offense

(.26)

(.27)

N=

194

194

.12

.10

.63

.54

Proportion of variation

.84

(.05)

(.05) Design capacity

.04

(.38)

(.05) Commitment to convention

-3.31

**

(.25)

(.42) Administrative control

eb

b

11.41

2.87**

17.59

between facilities Proportion of variation between facilities explained

Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses). ***

p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, ap ≤. 05 (level-2 only)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

124

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

The inmate- and facility-level effects on the prevalence and incidence of drug/alcohol misconduct are presented in tables 6.8 and 6.9, respectively. The unconditional model revealed that 85 percent of the variation in the prevalence of drug/alcohol misconduct to be explained was at the inmate-level, and 15 percent of the variation was at the facility-level, whereas 74 percent of the variation in the incidence of drug/alcohol offenses to be explained was at the inmatelevel, while 26 percent of the variation was at the facility-level. Religiosity was not associated with the odds of drug/alcohol misconduct, and the coefficient did not vary across facilities. Religiosity was not related to the incidence of drug/alcohol misconduct, but the effect of religiosity on the incidence of misconduct did vary across facilities. Thus, the effect of religiosity on the incidence of drug/alcohol violations was stronger in some facilities than in others. With regard to the effects of the other variables in the models, the results from the analysis of the prevalence and incidence of drug/alcohol offenses were identical. Age, incarcerated for a property offense, and hours worked at a facility work assignment were inversely related to this type of prison misconduct. Inmates who had previously been incarcerated, inmates who used drugs in the month before their arrest, inmates who associated with an antisocial peer group before their incarceration, and inmates who served more time were more likely to commit a drug/alcohol infraction and committed a higher number of this type of infraction. None of the other variables in the models were related to either the prevalence or the incidence of drug/alcohol misconduct. None of the inmate-level effects on the prevalence of drug/alcohol violations varied across facilities, but, with the exception of the effect of incarcerated for a public order offense, all of the coefficient estimates generated from the analysis of the incidence of drug/alcohol violations varied across facilities. The significant inmate-level predictors explained 43 percent of the within-facility variation in the prevalence of drug/alcohol violations and 85 percent of the within-facility variation in the incidence of drug/alcohol misconduct.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

125

Table 6.8: Inmate-level effects on drug/alcohol misconduct Intercept Religiosity Age Black Hispanic Other race/ethnicity Incarcerated for drug offense Incarcerated for property offense Incarcerated for public order offense Prior incarceration

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Used drugs in month before arrest Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Child(ren) Conventional behaviors Lived with both parents growing up Natural log time served (in months) Natural log hours at work assignment (past week) N= Proportion of variation within facilities Proportion of variation within facilities explained

Prevalence b eb .04 -3.29** (.09) -.02 .98 (.09) -.04** .96 (.01) -.21 .80 (.12) -.20 .82 (.15) -.04 .96 (.17) -.28 .75 (.13) -.31* .73 (.12) -.12 .89 (.19) .42** 1.52 (.09) .94** 2.56 (.10) .43** 1.54 (.10) .11 1.12 (.10) .003 1.00 (.05) -.03 .97 (.10) 1.13** 3.10 (.07) -.09* .91 (.03) 9,607 .85 .43

Incidence b eb -4.70** .009 (.12) -.11 .89 (.11) -.06** .94 (.01) -.22 .80 (.15) -.36 .70 (.20) -.40 .67 (.27) -.34 .71 (.18) -.57** .57 (.16) -.59 .56 (.30) .53** 1.71 (.13) 1.10** 2.99 (.15) .83** 2.30 (.13) .16 1.17 (.12) -.04 .96 (.07) .14 1.15 (.12) 1.47** 4.36 (.09) -.09* .91 (.04) 9,607 .74 .84

Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses); italicized coefficients indicate relationship varies across facilities (p < .05). **

p ≤ .001, *p ≤. 01

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

126

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Table 6.9: Facility-level effects on rates of drug/alcohol misconduct Prevalence Intercept

-4.73

Incidence eb

b **

.01

(.41) Religiosity

-.78 .14

.46

-.19a

1.15

-.00003

-.60

.55

.22a

1.25

(.10) .82

(.08) Design capacity

.00

(.79)

(.07) Commitment to convention

-6.61

**

(.50)

(.63) Administrative control

eb

b

-.24a

.79

(.10) 1.00

(.0001)

-.0001

1.00

(.0001)

Proportion incarcerated

3.28**

for violent offense

(.42)

(.51)

N=

194

194

.15

.26

.40

.13

3.28

3.93**

50.97

Proportion of variation between facilities Proportion of variation between facilities explained Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses). ***

p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, ap ≤. 05 (level-2 only)

Turning to the facility-level analyses (table 6.9), facilitylevel religiosity was not associated with either the prevalence rate or the incidence rate of drug/alcohol violations in prison. Administrative control was related to higher incidence rates of drug/alcohol misconduct, but not prevalence rates. Commitment to convention was associated with lower rates of both the prevalence and incidence of drug/alcohol violations, while facilities that had higher concentrations of inmates incarcerated for violent offenses also had higher prevalence and incidence rates of drug/alcohol violations. Facility size was not related to rates of drug/alcohol misconduct. The significant facility-level predictors explained 40 percent of the between-facility variation in the prevalence of drug/alcohol violations and 13 percent of the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

127

between-facility variation in the incidence of drug/alcohol misconduct. The results from the inmate-level models of the effect of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of other nonviolent misconduct are contained in table 6.10. Approximately 87 percent of the variation in the prevalence of nonviolent misconduct to be explained was between inmates, while 13 percent of the variation was between facilities. Nearly all of the variation in the incidence of misconduct to be explained was at the inmate-level (96%); only four percent of the variation was at the facility-level. Religiosity was not related to the prevalence or incidence of other nonviolent misconduct, but the coefficients depicting the effect of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of this type of misconduct did vary across facilities. These findings suggest that although the overall effect of religiosity was insignificant, the effect of religiosity on nonviolent misconduct (other than drug/alcohol violations) was stronger in some prison environments than in others. Turning to the effects of the other predictor variables, inmates who were younger, Hispanic, incarcerated for a drug offense, had children, or spent more hours at a facility work assignment were less likely to commit nonviolent infractions (other than drug/alcohol offenses) and committed fewer nonviolent infractions. Inmates who had been previously incarcerated, used drugs in the month before arrest, associated with antisocial peers before incarceration, or had served more time in prison had higher odds of engaging in nonviolent misconduct and committed a higher number of nonviolent infractions. Neither an inmate’s race (black or other race/ethnicity) nor his incarcerating offense type (property or public order) had an effect on his odds or rate of nonviolent misconduct. Involvement in conventional behaviors before incarceration and living with both parents growing up were both associated with a lower incidence of nonviolent forms of misconduct, but not associated with an inmate’s odds of nonviolent misconduct.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

128

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Table 6.10: Inmate-level effects on other nonviolent misconduct Intercept Religiosity Age Black Hispanic Other race/ethnicity Incarcerated for drug offense Incarcerated for property offense Incarcerated for public order offense Prior incarceration

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Used drugs in month before arrest Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Child(ren) Conventional behaviors Lived with both parents growing up Natural log time served (in months) Natural log hours at work assignment (past week) N= Proportion of variation within facilities Proportion of variation within facilities explained

Prevalence b eb .90 -.10** (.07) .05 1.05 (.05) -.04** .96 (.01) -.02 .98 (.06) -.22** .80 (.07) .11 1.12 (.12) -.19* .83 (.07) -.03 .97 (.07) -.04 .96 (.10) .26** 1.29 (.05) .21** 1.23 (.05) .47** 1.60 (.05) -.15* .86 (.05) -.08 .93 (.03) .02 1.02 (.05) .71** 2.03 (.03) -.07** .93 (.02) 9,607 .87 .29

Incidence b eb -.02** .98 (.06) -.03 .97 (.04) -.05** .95 (.01) -.08 .92 (.05) -.29** .75 (.07) -.13 .88 (.09) -.28** .76 (.07) -.13 .88 (.06) -.14 .87 (.09) .20** 1.21 (.04) .23** 1.26 (.05) .38** 1.46 (.05) -.14* .87 (.05) -.08* .93 (.03) -.13* .88 (.04) .77** 2.16 (.03) -.06** .94 (.02) 9,607 .96 .69

Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses); italicized coefficients indicate relationship varies across facilities (p < .05). **

p ≤ .001, *p ≤. 01

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

129

Table 6.11: Facility-level effects on the rates of other nonviolent misconduct Prevalence Incidence b eb b eb ** ** .25 -1.31 .27 Intercept -1.39 (.33) (.25) Religiosity .01 1.01 .03 1.02 (.54) (.44) Administrative control -.06 .94 -.002 1.00 (.05) (.05) Commitment to -.16* .85 -.19** .83 convention (.05) (.05) Design capacity -.00002 1.00 -.0001 1.00 (.0001) (.0001) Proportion incarcerated 2.42** 11.3 2.45** 11.63 2 for violent offense (.32) (.25) 194 194 N= Proportion of variation .13 .04 between facilities .31 .41 Proportion of variation -1.39** .25 -1.31** .27 between facilities (.33) (.25) explained Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses). ***

p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, ap ≤. 05 (level-2 only)

The effect of time served on the prevalence of nonviolent misconduct varied across facilities, and, with the exception of the effect of prior incarceration, all of the inmate-level coefficients generated from the analysis of the incidence of nonviolent misconduct varied across facilities. The significant inmate-level effects explained 29 and 69 percent of the withinfacility variation in the prevalence and incidence of nonviolent misconduct, respectively.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

130

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

The facility-level analyses (table 6.11) revealed that facilitylevel religiosity was not associated with either the prevalence or the incidence rate of nonviolent misconduct. Facilities with a greater commitment to convention among their inmate population had lower rates of nonviolent misconduct (prevalence and incidence alike), while facilities with greater densities of inmates incarcerated for violent offenses had higher rates of nonviolent misconduct (both prevalence and incidence). Neither administrative control nor facility size (design capacity) were related to this outcome. The significant facility-level effects explained 31 percent of the between-facility variation in the prevalence rate of nonviolent misconduct, and 41 percent of the between-facility variation in the incidence rate of nonviolent misconduct. Table 6.12 presents the results of the cross-level interactions estimated between the facility-level predictor variables and the inmate-level slopes depicting the relationship between inmatelevel religiosity and misconduct. Recall that the inmate-level relationships between religiosity and the incidence of assaults and drug/alcohol violations, as well as the prevalence and incidence of other nonviolent misconduct, varied across facilities. The intercepts and slopes as outcomes models revealed that facility-level religiosity did not condition the effect of inmate-level religiosity on any of these outcomes. These findings run counter to the moral communities hypothesis. Administrative control and commitment to convention moderated the inmate-level relationship between religiosity and the incidence of drug/alcohol violations. That is, the inverse effect of religiosity on the incidence of drug/alcohol misconduct was stronger in facilities with less administrative control or a lower level of commitment to convention among the inmate population. Design capacity moderated the inmate-level relationship between religiosity and the prevalence of nonviolent misconduct, indicating the inverse level-1 effect of religiosity was stronger in smaller facilities. None of the other tests for cross-level effects were significant.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

The Effects of Religiosity on Inmate Misconduct

131

Table 6.12: Facility-level effects on religiosity-misconduct slopes

Level-1 religiosity slope as outcome Religiosity Administrative control Commitment to convention Design capacity

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Proportion incarcerated for violent offense

Level-1 religiosity slope as outcome Religiosity Administrative control Commitment to convention Design capacity Proportion incarcerated for violent offense

Incidence assault b eb -.36 .34 (.34) -.23 .55 (.55) .04 .06 (.06) -.03 .06 (.06) -.001 .00 (.001) .67 .35 (.35)

Incidence drug/ alcohol b eb -.96 .38 (.68) 1.82 6.18 (1.14) .21a 1.23 (.10) .25a 1.28 (.12) -.001 1.00 (.001) -.05 .95 (.66)

Prevalence other nonviolent b eb -.07 .93 (.29) .16 1.17 (.46) .11 1.11 (.06) .09 1.09 (.05) .001a 1.00 (.001) -.19 .83 (.32) 194

Incidence other nonviolent b eb -.08 .92 (.20) -.02 .98 (.34) .03 1.03 (.04) .005 1.00 (.04) -.001 1.00 (.001) .18 1.19 (.22) 194

Notes: 1Maximum likelihood coefficients reported (with standard errors in parentheses). ***

p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, ap ≤ 05 (level-2 only)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

132

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION This chapter presented the findings from both studies. Across all of the analyses, religiosity was rarely a significant predictor of misconduct, although I did observe a relatively consistent inverse relationship between religiosity and violent forms of prison misconduct. Study 1 revealed religious inmates had lower odds of committing an assault and committed fewer assaults than nonreligious inmates. Study 1 also revealed that, compared to results from a conventional hierarchical regression analysis, the magnitude of the effect of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of assaults was slightly larger once religious inmates were compared to statistically equivalent nonreligious inmates. The results of study 2 did not provide empirical support for the moral communities hypothesis. Facility-level religiosity was not associated with either the prevalence or the incidence rates of any type of misconduct. Moreover, facility-level religiosity did not condition the individual-level effect of religiosity on misconduct, although the religiosity-misconduct relationship did vary across facilities in four of the six analyses. The effects of the control variables on misconduct across models were generally consistent with the findings from previous studies reviewed in chapter 3. These findings relating to the predictors of misconduct, along with the findings pertaining to the effects of religiosity on misconduct, are discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Chapter 7

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

The analyses presented in the preceding chapter involved estimating the effect of religiosity on inmate misconduct. Findings derived from these analyses of a nationally representative sample of inmates and prisons revealed that religiosity had little effect on misconduct. In this chapter, I discuss these findings in the context of the extant literature on the relationship between religiosity and inmate misconduct and religiosity and deviance. I also discuss the other findings derived from this study within the context of the broader literature on the causes/correlates of inmate deviance. The first research question involved determining the individual-level effect of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of misconduct. In order to adjust for the confounding influence of other potential correlates of religiosity and misconduct, I utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to create a matched sample of religious and nonreligious inmates. I then performed hierarchical regression analyses of the matched sample to determine the effect of religiosity on various forms of misconduct (e.g., drug/alcohol violations), controlling for the impact of facility environments and other post-incarceration correlates of misconduct. These results were then compared to those derived from a conventional hierarchical regression analysis of the full sample. The findings from the two analyses largely mirrored one another. Religious inmates committed fewer assaults than nonreligious inmates, but religiosity did not 133

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

134

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

affect inmates’ odds or rates of drug/alcohol violations or other nonviolent misconduct. The findings from the analysis of the matched sample also revealed that religious inmates had lower odds of committing an assault than non-religious inmates; results from the conventional regression analyses revealed no relationship between religiosity and the prevalence of assaults. Comparisons between the results from the analysis of the matched sample to those generated from the conventional regression analysis of the full sample revealed that the effects of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence of assaults were more pronounced than the effects of religiosity generated from the conventional regression analysis of the full sample. The findings from this study indicate that estimates of the relationship between religiosity and assaults generated from conventional regression analyses may be affected by selection bias; the effect of religiosity on assaults may be stronger than these estimates suggest. It could be that inmates participate in religious activities for reasons other than expressing religiosity; inmates may have something extrinsic to gain from participation in religion. For example, as noted in chapter 4, inmates can get food, talk to women, hang out with other inmates, impress prison/parole officials, or even get transferred to a facility closer to home by faithfully participating in religious activities or faithbased programs (Clear et al. 2000; Dammer 2002). If inmates participate in religious opportunities solely for these extrinsic reasons, then it is also possible that these seemingly manipulative or deviant inmates also have higher odds of perpetrating misconduct. The findings of this study indicate that this may be the case. The findings reported in this study also run counter to some researchers’ assertions regarding the direction of the potential selection bias associated with estimating the religiosity-inmate deviance relationship. Specifically, some researchers have argued that inmates who select into religious programs or participate in more religious activities are also the inmates who are more committed to convention or have higher self-control

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

135

and/or self-efficacy. These inmates are also predisposed to better behavior in prison (see, e.g., Camp et al. 2008). Yet, the findings from this study suggest that, compared to the effects derived from a comparison of statistically equivalent groups of religious inmates and nonreligious inmates, the effects of religiosity on violent misconduct were weaker when religious inmates were compared to a nonequivalent group of nonreligious inmates. In other words, religious inmates in this nationally representative sample of inmates were not really less deviant as a group than the other inmates in the sample. Given the discrepancies in the findings across studies, future research should examine which inmates select into religious activities in greater detail. For example, research is needed to identify the behavioral or attitudinal characteristics of inmates that may motivate extrinsic, as well as intrinsic, selection into religiosity or faith-based programs. Regardless, the findings from this study suggest that, compared to nonreligious inmates, religious inmates are less likely to commit assaults and commit fewer assaults. The finding that religiosity was related to assaults in this study, but not to other forms of misconduct is consistent with a few other findings regarding religiosity and misconduct, but inconsistent with findings reported in studies of the general population samples. Studies have found that religiosity is related to lower odds of violent behavior among prison inmates (e.g., Camp et al. 2008; Kerley et al. 2011; Sturgis 2010). For example, Kerley et al. (2006) found that religiosity was related to lower odds of arguing with other inmates. They also found that arguing with other inmates precipitated assaults, and that religiosity indirectly affected violent behavior through its effect on arguing with other inmates. Steiner and Wooldredge (2008) also found that religiosity was related to lower odds of violent misconduct; however, these authors also found that religiosity was related to lower odds of substance abuse and nonviolent

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

136

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

misconduct. This study found no effect of religiosity on either substance use violations or nonviolent misconduct. A few studies from the general population have shown that religiosity is related to lower odds of violent behavior (e.g., Benda & Toombs 2000; Ellison et al. 2007; Jang & Johnson 2005), but the effects of religiosity on substance use among general population studies have been much stronger (Baier & Wright 2001; Cochran & Akers 1989; Hadaway et al. 1984; Hoffman & Bahr 2005). The findings from this study of religiosity and misconduct run in opposition to those findings related to substance use in general population studies, and particularly to the anti-ascetic hypothesis (Baier & Wright 2001; Cochran & Akers 1994; Hadaway et al. 1984; Hoffman & Bahr 2005). Recall, the anti-ascetic hypothesis holds that religiosity will have stronger effects on minor forms of deviance, such as alcohol or drug use than on more serious offenses (Middleton & Putney 1962). On the other hand, it is possible that the inverse relationship between religiosity and assaults among prison inmates is consistent with the theoretical assumptions which underlie the anti-ascetic hypothesis. The anti-ascetic hypothesis holds that the reason that religiosity has stronger effects on substance use is because of the increased emphasis among religions regarding abstinence from substance use, while the norms regarding alcohol and drug use are not equally emphasized in the larger social sphere (Burkett & White 1974). In contrast, religion and secular social norms both condemn the use of violence as a general rule. In other words, the social control upon alcohol and drugs in the church is much stronger than the social control on drugs and alcohol in the secular community, but the social control on violence is not unique to religious systems (Burkett & White 1974). This same theoretical process may be at work in prisons, but instead of a disjunction in norms related to substance use, there may be a disjunction in norms concerning violent behavior between religious inmates or groups within prisons and the larger inmate subculture. Scholars have observed that

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

137

toughness and violence are integral components to the inmate subculture, and inmate social status is derived from the ability of inmates to protect themselves through force (Johnson 2002; Sykes 1958). Therefore, religious inmates may be faced with a conflict between norms advocating violence in the prison culture, and religious norms that condemn violence. Religion may have unique effects on prisoners by counteracting the norms of the inmate subculture, or providing an alternative set of norms that can guide inmate conduct and control violent behavior. Given the theoretical assumptions of the anti-ascetic hypothesis, religion in the prison context may have stronger effects on violent behavior than anti-ascetic behavior specifically, although the same underlying process may be at work. If religious staff and faith-based program volunteers deliver messages and sermons condemning violence and do not emphasize anti-ascetic behaviors in the way religious leaders would do in the general population, it may also explain why religiosity did not affect drug/alcohol and other nonviolent misconduct in this study. Most inmates are incarcerated for violent behavior (see table 5.2). Reducing violent behavior and assaults is also a major concern among custodial staff. If religious staff mirror the concerns of custodial staff, religious leaders may devote many of their messages to violence, and may neglect topics concerning drug or alcohol use. Substance use may not be seen as a priority for religious instructors in prison, as it may not be a visible problem. For example, in this study, only eight percent of inmates had committed a drug/alcohol violation. Pastors and teachers may devote their time to instructing inmates concerning problems they see as more directly related to difficulties inmates’ encounter in prison (such as violence), not to mention the behavior that led to their incarceration. Similarly, the items comprising the nonviolent misconduct category primarily involved disruptions to the orderly maintenance of facility routines, such as being out of place, disobeying orders, or having unauthorized items.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

138

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Independently, many of these behaviors may not directly violate religious precepts (with the broader exception of being submissive and obedient to authority). Thus, these types of violations may not fall under the purview of religious norms and social control. The discussion above aside, the null effects of religiosity on prison drug/alcohol violations and other nonviolent misconduct derived from this study are counterintuitive when considered alongside a large body of literature that reports inverse effects of religiosity on many types of deviant behavior. A possible explanation for the largely insignificant findings pertaining to the effects of religiosity in this study may relate to the measurement of religiosity. Larson and Johnson (1998) have identified six dimensions of measures of religiosity. Attendance refers to the frequency of attendance at religious services. Salience is generally operationalized as the self-reported importance of God or religion in one’s life. Religious or denominational affiliation has also been a frequent measure of religiosity. Finally, the frequency of prayer, scripture reading/study, and religious activities are also considered dimensions of religiosity. Larson and Johnson (1998) conducted a systematic review of religiositydelinquency studies, and one of their primary objectives was to understand the ways in which the measurement of religiosity impacted the findings across studies. Larson and Johnson (1998) found that all studies using measures comprised of four or more dimensions of religiosity found strong, inverse effects of religiosity on delinquency, but the effects of religiosity were mixed across studies using three or fewer dimensions to measure religiosity. In other words, they suggested that some of the mixed findings across studies may be due researchers’ use of a single-item measure of religiosity (see, also, Johnson et al. 2000). Larson and Johnson (1998) suggested the best measure of religiosity would involve multiple items that tap most, if not all, of the six dimensions outlined above. The measure of religiosity used in this study does tap several of the dimensions identified by Larson and Johnson (1998). For

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

139

example, the single-item question from the Survey includes attendance at services, prayer, scripture study/reading, and other religious activities. These dimensions of the measure of religiosity are frequently used across studies. For example, attendance at religious services is probably the most frequent approach to measuring religiosity (Burkett 1974; Cochran 1989; Cretacci 2003; Evans 1995a; Hirschi 1969; Jang 2005; Johnson 1987; Kerley et al. 2005; Regnerus 2003a; Stark 1996). Other studies have included measures of prayer and scripture reading (Elifson 1983; Hadaway et al. 1984; Jang & Johnson 2003; Johnson 1997; Kerley et al. 2011; Longest & Vaisey 2008; O’Connor 2002; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Sturgis 2010) and participation in other religious activities (Adamczyk & Palmer 2008; Grasmick et al. 1991; Hirschi 1969; O’Connor & Perryclear 2002; Regnerus 2003a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Sturgis 2010). However, the measure used in this study is a dichotomous, composite measure and does not allow the decomposition of these different dimensions. Further, most measures of religiosity include the frequency of these specific items, allowing for the assessment of variation across those inmates who report involvement in religion or religious activities. It could be that the measure used in this study simply failed to adequately distinguish truly religious inmates from nonreligious inmates, which may have contributed to the null effects of religiosity on drug/alcohol violations and other nonviolent misconduct. For example, the activities included in this measure of religiosity may not represent intrinsic religiosity – a deep, sincere faith in one’s religious system. One may attend religious services or pray in times in of distress, as patterns of socialized behavior, or ritual, because of religious upbringing or cultural expectation, but may be no more religious than the next person. It is important to note, however, that two studies using either the wave of the Inmate Survey used in this study (Sturgis 2010) or the previous (1997) wave have modeled the same measure of religiosity, with similar findings. For example, Sturgis (2010)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

140

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

found that the measure of religiosity was associated with more serious forms of misconduct, but not less serious forms. On the other hand, Steiner and Wooldredge (2008), using the previous wave of the data with the same measure of religiosity, found that religiosity was related to reduced odds of all forms of misconduct. Consequently, the limitations of the measure of religiosity may not fully explain the pattern of mixed findings within this study. Related to the measurement of religiosity, an increase in faith-based programs in prison over the past decade may have increased the difficulty in differentiating truly religious inmates from non-religious inmates. For example, Steiner and Wooldredge (2008) used the two previous waves of the Survey (1991 and 1997), and found that the same measure of religiosity was significantly related to lower odds of drug/alcohol and nonviolent misconduct. They also found that the number of religious inmates engaging in religious activities increased from 32 percent in 1991 to 44 percent in 1997. In this study, based on data collected in 2004, approximately 54 percent of inmates reported engaging in religious activities. Thus, the relative proportion of inmates engaging in religious activities has dramatically increased across the last three waves of the data. If a growing number of inmates have begun participating in faithbased programs in order to impress prison/parole officials, gain transfers, and so forth, engaging in religious activities, or even the number of hours inmates engage in religious activities, may not be a valid indicator of religiosity. For example, based on the measure used here, an inmate who participates in a faith-based program for a few hours per week in order to get a transfer to a different facility may have the same level of religiosity as a devout inmate who spends several hours per week alone in his cell praying, meditating, or studying scripture. This would necessitate that researchers use more valid and reliable measures of intrinsic religiosity or religious salience. Religious salience (i.e., how important is God or religion to your life, does your faith influence your daily decisions) was not a dimension of

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

141

religiosity that was captured in the measure of religiosity used in this study, but has been a frequent measure of religiosity in studies of the religiosity-deviance relationship (e.g., Benda 1995; Clear & Sumter 2002; Free 1994; Johnson et al. 2001; Pass 1999; Regnerus 2003b). An additional limitation of the measure of religiosity in this study that may have implications for the findings is related to the issue of temporal ordering. The misconduct questions asked inmates about misconduct since their incarceration, but the religiosity question only asked about religious activities in the past week. It is plausible that inmates committed misconduct prior to becoming involved in religious programs or experiencing a conversion or spiritual transformation. After becoming religious, however, inmates’ odds of misconduct may have decreased. Thus, based on the time frame differences in the measures, there is no way to detect whether inmates may have committed misconduct either before or after they became involved in religion. On a related note, it is also a possibility that engaging in misconduct may have restricted the opportunities for inmates to engage in religious activities. For example, some faith-based programs may have eligibility criteria for participation and inmates with behavioral problems may be excluded from these programs. On the other hand, the measure was not directly a measure of program participation, and even inmates who have engaged in misconduct may individually engage in religious activities listed in the survey item such as reading the scriptures or praying. It is also possible that chaplains may seek out troubled inmates in order to provide them with individualized services. There is no way to detect either possibility, however, given the restrictions of the measure of religiosity. These issues may have confounded the results regarding the relationship between religiosity and misconduct, but there is no way to account for this possibility, with the measures available in these data. Therefore, the

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

142

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

limitation of time ordering may explain why religiosity was largely unrelated to some types of misconduct. Research question two concerned the facility-level effect of religiosity on the prevalence and incidence rates of misconduct. I found that facility-level religiosity was not related to any form of misconduct. Very little research has examined facility-level effects of religiosity (but see Sturgis 2010), although the evidence to date, in conjunction with the findings from this study, suggest that facility-level religiosity does not have a main effect on misconduct rates. The third research question involved the relative strength of the individual-level relationship between religiosity and misconduct across facilities and the potential conditioning effect of facility-level religiosity on that relationship. In most of the analyses, the relationship between religiosity and misconduct did vary across facilities. Specifically, the relationship between religiosity and the incidence of assaults, incidence of drug/alcohol violations, and both the prevalence and incidence of other nonviolent misconduct varied across facilities, while the effect of religiosity on the prevalence of assaults and the prevalence of drug/alcohol misconduct did not vary across facilities. In other words, the relationship between religiosity and the prevalence of nonviolent misconduct and the incidence of all forms of misconduct was stronger in some facilities versus others. The moral communities hypothesis predicts that the reason the religiosity-deviance relationship varies across ecological units (in this case prisons) is because aggregate-level religiosity strengthens and reinforces individual-level religiosity (Stark 1987a; Stark 1987b; Stark & Bainbridge 1997; Stark et al. 1982). The findings from this study did not support the moral communities hypothesis. I found that the effect of individuallevel religiosity did not differ according to the level of religiosity among the inmate populations in these facilities. In other words, though the magnitude of the relationship between individuallevel religiosity and misconduct varied, it was not conditioned by

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

143

facility-level religiosity. Sturgis (2010) found similar results related to the moral communities hypothesis in prisons. If the individual-level findings presented in this study were influenced by the quality of the measure of religiosity, then the facility-level findings may also have been influenced by the use of this measure since the measure of facility-level religiosity was simply an aggregation of the individual-level measure. Therefore, if the individual-level measure does not adequately distinguish between religious and non-religious inmates, then the facility-level measure may not represent the true proportion of religious inmates between facilities. In other words, the proportion of religious inmates within a facility captured in this study may be comprised of truly religious individuals as well as those inmates who engage in religious activities for extrinsic purposes, such as impressing prison officials. Facilities with greater proportions of truly religious inmates may have lower rates of misconduct, but without valid measures of the proportion of truly religious inmates between facilities, it would be difficult to assess the relationship between facility-level religiosity and misconduct rates. As a limited attempt to validate the facility-level measure of religiosity, I contacted chaplains and program coordinators at three facilities represented in the data to inquire about the availability of religious programs and opportunities and to elicit general observations about the religiosity of inmate populations within these facilities. The facilities selected represented the facility with the highest religiosity score, the lowest religiosity score, and a facility that represented the mean religiosity score. All three facilities reported a variety of religious programs and opportunities. All of the facilities reported providing opportunities for a multitude of different faiths to engage in religious practices. In addition, all three facilities reported delivering some faith-based rehabilitation programs. The facility with the lowest religiosity score schedules multiple faith-based programs every day of the week. The facility with the highest

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

144

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

religiosity score also reported multiple faith-based programs and opportunities that have been in operation for over 30 years. Likewise, the facility with the mean facility-level religiosity score reported a robust number of opportunities and faith-based programs, especially catered to non-Christian religions. From these anecdotal reports, it would seem that facilitylevel religiosity may not be related to the number of programs and opportunities provided by the prison, but rather may be a reflection/aggregation of individual private practices of religiosity. For example, within the facility with the highest religiosity score, 89 percent of inmates reported engaging in religious activities in the past week. The chaplain from this facility, however, reported that only ten to 20 percent of inmates regularly attend religious services. If the facility-level measure represents more private, individual forms of religiosity (as opposed to collective participation in religious services or faithbased programs), the findings from this study related to the moral communities hypothesis may make sense. Stark (1987a; 1987b) argued that private religiosity would have little effect on deviance unless reinforced by a moral community. It could be that moral communities do not form at the facility-level or in prison at all; thus, viewed through the lens of this perspective, religiosity should not be expected to have large effects on individual-level deviant behavior or rates of facility-level misconduct.24                                                              24

In addition to the analyses reported in Chapter 6, I re-estimated the analyses of the study using only the 34 largest facilities (facilities with populations greater or equal to 3,186). The findings from these largest facilities mirrored the results reported in Chapter 6. Facilitylevel religiosity had no effect on facility-level misconduct rates of any form. In addition, facility-level religiosity across all models failed to have a significant moderating effect on the individual-level religiosity-misconduct relationship. The absence of effects across the largest facilities, in conjunction with the finding that facility size (as measured through design capacity) also failed to moderate the religiosity-misconduct relationship in the reported analyses may

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

145

It is also possible that facilities may not be the most appropriate ecological unit to examine aggregate-level effects of religiosity on misconduct. Studies in the general population have examined a variety of ecological units, including schools, Catholic parishes, metropolitan areas, counties, and regions of the country (Bainbridge 1989; Olson 1990; Stark 1996; Wallace et al. 2007; Welch et al. 1991). Research and theory have not fully specified the most appropriate ecological unit at which to expect religious effects to be salient or strongest. Prisoners are segregated into dormitories or pods, housing units, etc., and aggregate-level religiosity may work within these smaller macrounits of analysis, as opposed to an entire facility. Consideration of the appropriate unit of analysis within prisons may also have implications for tests of the moral communities hypothesis. This study did not reveal a conditioning effect of facility-level religiosity on the relationship between individual-level religiosity and misconduct. It may be that the facility does not approximate a moral community. Inmates have closer interactions with individuals within their own pod, housing unit, etc., while contact and interaction among inmates across entire facilities may be limited or restricted. Johnson (2011) described how inmates’ interactions in a faith-based program were similar to the interactions one would observe in a religious congregation in the general population. The atmosphere was supportive, positive, and open, and inmates expressed affection for one another and for staff/volunteers with hugs, handshakes, and so forth. However, inmates in the program had limited contact with inmates in the general population. It may be more likely, then, for a moral community of inmates to form at the housing unit                                                                                                                        reiterate the conclusions above. In sum, the facility-level measure of religiosity may be limited and lack a strong degree of validity, or facility-level religiosity does not have a great influence on facilitylevel misconduct or on the individual-level religiosity-misconduct relationship.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

146

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

level, or within the context of a faith-based program or dormitory, rather than across an entire prison. The individual-level effects of religiosity on most types of misconduct did vary across facilities (with the exception of the prevalence of assaults and drug/alcohol misconduct). Clearly, some characteristics of facilities affect the relationship between religiosity and misconduct. For example, I did find that the effect of religiosity on drug/alcohol violations was weaker in facilities with more administrative control and a higher level of commitment to convention. In other words, religious inmates committed more drug/alcohol misconduct in facilities with more administrative control or greater commitment to convention among the inmate population than religious inmates in facilities with less administrative control or commitment to convention among the inmate population. Given the inconsistent effects in the cross-level interactions across outcomes, however, future researchers may wish to devote more theorizing and study to the characteristics of facilities that may condition the individuallevel relationships between religiosity and misconduct. In addition to the findings pertaining to the effects of religiosity on misconduct, this study also yielded noteworthy findings regarding the other potential predictors of misconduct. Many of these findings were consistent with those derived from the extant studies of inmate deviance discussed in chapter 3. Younger inmates had higher odds and rates of each type of misconduct. Age has been one of the most consistent predictors of prison misconduct across studies (e.g., Cunningham & Sorensen 2006; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Morris et al. 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2013). The effects of race on misconduct were dependent on the type of misconduct examined, which is consistent with much of the misconduct literature. Studies have suggested that black inmates may have higher odds of assault, but have found that race (black) does not affect inmates’ odds of committing other forms of misconduct such as nonviolent misconduct (Camp et al. 2003; Morris et al. 2010; Sorensen et al. 2011).

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

147

In this study, black inmates had higher incidence of assaults, but the coefficient estimate for black inmates did not reach statistical significance in any of the other models. Studies have only recently begun examining the odds/rates of misconduct among Hispanic inmates, and findings in this area have been mixed across these studies (see, e.g., Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Morris et al. 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). The findings from this study revealed that an inmate’s ethnicity (Hispanic) was associated with lower odds of nonviolent misconduct (excluding drug/alcohol offenses) and fewer nonviolent offenses, but Hispanic ethnicity was unrelated to the prevalence or incidence of assaults or drug/alcohol violations. The findings derived from this study revealed inconsistent effects regarding indicators of inmates’ committing offense type on misconduct, findings that are consistent with previous research. A recent study found that inmates who were incarcerated for violent offenses had lower odds of misconduct than inmates incarcerated for other offenses (Sorensen & Cunningham 2010). Yet, I found that inmates incarcerated for drug offenses committed fewer assaults and nonviolent misconducts than inmates incarcerated for violent offenses. Inmates incarcerated for property offenses also committed fewer assaults and drug/alcohol misconducts than those inmates incarcerated for violent offenses. Inmates who had been previously incarcerated, who used drugs prior to their incarceration, and who had been involved with antisocial peers while growing up had higher odds of all three types of misconduct and committed more misconducts (also regardless of type). These results are consistent with findings from other studies, underscoring that there is a good deal of continuity in antisocial behavior among inmates (Andia et al. 2005; Berg & DeLisi 2006; Berk et al. 2006; Cunningham & Sorensen 2006; Gaes et al. 2002; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Houser et al. 2012;

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

148

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Meade & Steiner 2013; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). The findings regarding involvement in conventional activities or having stakes in conformity were mixed. Inmates with child(ren) were less likely to commit assaults or other nonviolent misconduct, and committed fewer assaults and nonviolent misconduct. Yet having children had no effect on inmates’ odds of drug/alcohol offenses or the number of drug/alcohol violations inmates committed. Having children has been found to be associated with lower odds of misconduct among female inmates (see, e.g., Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a), but the relationship between having children and misconduct has been understudied among male inmates. Jiang and FisherGiordano (2002) found that male inmates with children had higher odds of violence, and some studies have found that having child(ren) was not significantly related to misconduct among males (Gover et al. 2008; Jiang & Winfree 2006). The findings from this study of male inmates suggest that having children is a reason that inmates do not commit misconduct. Given the mixed findings across studies, then, the effect of children on male inmates is well worthy of additional study. Involvement in conventional behaviors (married, > high school degree, earning income from a job or business) before incarceration was only related to the incidence of nonviolent misconduct. In other studies, similar measures have produced mixed findings (Andia et al 2005; Huebner 2003; Jiang & Winfree 2006; Kerley et al. 2005; Kuanling et al. 2008; Leigey & Hodge 2013; Morris et al. 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Walters & Crawford 2013; Wolff et al. 2007; Wood 2013). Inmates who lived with both parents growing up committed fewer assaults, but living with both parents growing up was not associated with other forms of misconduct. Studies have not examined the effect of family structure during childhood on misconduct, and the relative insignificance of the findings presented here suggest such a measure may not be worthy of future consideration.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

149

Finally, at the inmate-level, the institutional variables (time served, hours worked at facility work assignment) were significantly related to misconduct. Inmates who served more time in prison had higher prevalence and incidence rates of all forms of misconduct. This finding is consistent with the misconduct literature, and studies have shown that time served has previously been positively related to assaults, drug/alcohol, and other nonviolent misconduct (Drury & DeLisi 2008; Gover et al. 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009a; Steiner & Wooldredge 2009b). Time served also may have been an important predictor because of the measurement of the outcome variables used here. Inmates were asked about misconduct for the entire time frame covering their current incarceration. Inmates who have been incarcerated for longer periods of time have a higher probability of committing misconduct, as well as having their infractions officially detected. Although controlling for time served may have adjusted for this situation with respect to the effects of the other variables in the models, it is important for readers to keep this limitation in mind when considering the findings pertaining to the effect of time served. Inmates who worked a greater number of hours at a facility work assignment committed fewer misconducts (of any type). Other studies have uncovered similar findings (Huebner 2003; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; 2009a; 2009b), and so it seems that involvement in a facility work assignment may demonstrate that inmates are committed to some conventional pursuits, or at least have fewer opportunities for deviance. The findings regarding the effects of the facility-level predictors (other than facility-level religiosity) add to the growing body of research examining facility-level influences on inmate misconduct. Previous studies have examined the effect of facility security-level on misconduct rates, and found that higher security facilities have higher rates of misconduct (Dhami et al. 2007; Gover et al. 2008; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Huebner

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

150

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

2003; Steiner 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Wooldredge & Steiner 2012). The categorization of security level of a facility may involve several different concepts, however. For example, security level may measure the restrictions present on inmate activities in prison environments, the administrative approach to facility governance, and the risk/security threat level of the inmate population contained within the facility. Instead of a direct measure of security level, I incorporated different measures of facility security that tap into these possible dimensions of security level. For instance, the administrative control scale may measure the approach to prison governance, the commitment to convention scale may measure low risk inmate populations, and the measure of the proportion of inmates incarcerated for violent offenses may measure high risk inmate populations. Much of the past research at the facility level has included a limited number of facilities, and therefore not enough degrees of freedom were available to explore these potential aspects of security level separately. The findings from the facility-level analyses set forth in this study revealed that administrative control was not consistently related to rates of misconduct. Previous research studying the effects of measures of administrative control has generally found it to be at best a weak predictor of inmate misconduct (e.g., Huebner 2003; Reisig 1998). On the other hand, the variables that may assess the risk level of facility populations traditionally measured through security level were significantly associated with misconduct rates. Facilities with inmate populations with greater commitment to convention (low risk populations) had lower misconduct rates, and facilities with larger proportions of inmates incarcerated for violent offenses (high risk populations) had higher rates of all types of misconduct. The effects of these measures related to the risk level of facility populations across models may explain the largely null finding of administrative control on misconduct rates. In sum, it may be that the risk level of a facility’s population is the overridingly important component of the security level of a

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

151

facility and the principal reason for the significance of security level in previous empirical models of inmate misconduct behavior. The fact that administrative control was largely unrelated to misconduct rates, then, may not be so different from previous research that has found security level to be a strong predictor of misconduct (Dhami et al. 2007; Gover et al. 2008; Griffin & Hepburn 2006; Huebner 2003; Reisig 1998; Steiner 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge 2008; Wooldredge & Steiner 2012). Regarding the effect of commitment to convention, facilities that featured greater commitment to convention among their inmate populations had less misconduct, regardless of the type examined. Prior studies have not considered the potential relevance of the inmate populations’ collective commitment to convention or stake in conformity; yet, the findings from this study suggest it may be a measure well worth considering in the future. Inmate populations with greater commitment to convention may have a history of “playing well with others” in the context of school, work, and/or marriage. Therefore, as a collective unit, inmates with greater commitment to convention may be able to coalesce and follow facility rules and staffs’ instructions to provide a safer, more orderly prison environment. Finally, larger facilities had higher prevalence and incidence rates of assaults. Steiner and Wooldgredge (2009) found that design capacity was related to higher rates of assaults. Larger facilities (measured through the index of design capacity) would be likely to house a greater number of inmates. Large inmate populations may provide more opportunities for interactions among inmates that may lead to assaults, and it may be more difficult in these larger facilities to supervise, monitor, and manage inmate conflicts that would result in assaults. In sum, the facility-level analyses offered new insight into important facility-level predictors that future researchers may wish to consider in the development of models of inmate misconduct.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

152

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

On the surface, the findings from this study pertaining to the effects of religiosity on misconduct may seem to have little policy relevance, as the principal findings would imply that increasing religiosity may be associated with reductions in violence within prisons. Realistically, correctional policy makers could never compel inmates to become religious as a means of addressing security concerns, nor would it be desirable from a civil liberties perspective for them to attempt to do so. Yet, violence and assaults in prison may be the form of misconduct of most concern to prison officials, and so expanding the range and scope of institutional opportunities provided for inmates to practice their religion or become involved with religion may be a means of increasing safety within institutions while at the same time respecting individuals’ free exercise of religion. Although the public tends to harbor harsh and punitive attitudes towards prisoners (but see, Cullen et al. 2000), survey research indicates that the public by-and-large supports federal funding for faithbased programs; perhaps, by extension, they would also support religious opportunities for prisoners (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2009). A recent study found that faith-based programs can provide substantial cost savings to correctional administrators. Duwe and Johnson (2013) calculated the cost savings of the Innerchange Freedom Initiative (IFI) based on reduced crime/recidivism rates derived from a previous evaluation (See Duwe & King 2013). Many faith-based programs are privatelyfunded and staffed by volunteers – the IFI program is no exception, with funding and staffing provided by Prison Fellowship. Duwe and Johnson (2013) estimated the total cost savings of the program at $3,034,339 over the first six years of the program’s operation – which translated into $8,291 per participant. Thus, increased religious opportunities may not only be an effective and politically popular approach to addressing inmate violence, but they appear to also be a costeffective/saving approach. Given the contemporary economic climate and the renewed willingness of legislators to consider

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

153

correctional reform, religion and faith-based programs appear to have many benefits, with few, if any, disadvantages. In other words: Expanding the scope of religious programs and services for inmates of all faiths may be an easy, politically popular, and cost-effective way to enhance institutional order and safety, assuming of course, that inmates choose to participate in these services. The findings regarding the other predictors of misconduct, which were largely consistent with previous literature, add to the body of knowledge concerning predictors of institutional misbehavior and their relevance for correctional policy and decision-making. In the past, this information has been informative in the development of classification instruments (Van Voorhis 2005). For example, the findings of this study indicated that younger inmates and inmates with a history of antisocial behavior had higher odds/rates of all forms of misconduct. These measures (age, prior incarceration, drug use in month before arrest, and participation in an antisocial peer group) could be used to classify inmates who require greater supervision into appropriate facilities/housing units. Also, drug use and antisocial peers would fall under the category of criminogenic needs (risk factors for antisocial behavior that are dynamic/changeable), and could be used to assess inmates’ needs and direct them into the appropriate programs designed to target and address their criminogenic needs (Andrews et al. 1990). An understanding of the relevant risks and needs of inmates can assist correctional personnel with classification and treatment decisions and can facilitate the effective supervision of inmates deemed at greater risk of committing misconduct. The findings from this study also raise a number of questions for future research. To continue the study of the relationship between religiosity and inmate misconduct, better study designs and more sophisticated measures are needed. First, longitudinal designs may be necessary to fully capture the processes involved in spiritual transformations in prison and their impacts on

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

154

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

misconduct. The limits of observational data for establishing causal relationships have been discussed throughout this book, and longitudinal data sets may be an important step in exploring the link between religiosity and misconduct more fully. A longitudinal study of prison inmates could clearly specify the time ordering of religious conversion or involvement with religious activities and the subsequent effects (if any) on inmate behavior. After all, the documentation of temporal ordering between religiosity and misconduct is one of the main limitations of this study. The limitations related to the measure of religiosity in this study have already been covered in detail. Researchers should consider including multi-item measures that capture the different acknowledged dimensions of religiosity in future studies of the religiosity-misconduct relationship. The Survey provided an excellent opportunity for the estimation of multi-level models and combined with better measures of religiosity would be a rich source of study for scholars interested in the religiositymisconduct relationship. It might be beneficial for future waves of the survey to include measures of religiosity that research has demonstrated to be more valid and reliable (e.g., Larson & Johnson, 2003). In addition, researchers collecting their own data should carefully consider the measurement of religiosity in order to continue to build the knowledge base surrounding religiosity and inmate behavior. The use of propensity scores in this study to attempt to address concerns regarding selection bias was the first analyses of its kind in the study of religiosity and misconduct. The results indicated that there may indeed be some selection effects in the religiosity-misconduct relationship. The findings also suggest researchers should consider the possibility for selection effects based on extrinsic motivations of inmates that may also predispose religious inmates to higher odds of misconduct. Future research may wish to consider using propensity score matching in studies of religiosity and misconduct, and the inclusion of additional covariates not considered or available in

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

155

this study could further develop this literature. For example, research indicates that measures such as self-control or selfefficacy may have relevance in determining selection into religiosity/faith-based programs (Camp et al. 2008). The Survey does not include attitudinal measures related to these concepts. This may be a limitation of the present study, and one that future research may wish to address. In addition, matching inmates on better measures of religiosity (e.g., religious salience measures asking inmates to report the importance of God in their lives or in their daily decision-making) than those included in this study may shed additional light on selection effects in religiosity among inmates. In sum, further study of selection effects may add to our understanding of why inmates become religious in the first place. Research should also continue to explore the effects of facility-level religiosity on prevalence and incidence rates of misconduct. The results of this study did not find support for aggregate-level effects of religiosity, but once again this may be due to the measure of facility-level religiosity used here. There is also more work to be done in examining the moral communities hypothesis in prison. To date, this study and the only other study examining moral communities in prison (Sturgis 2010) did not find support for the conditioning effect of facilitylevel religiosity on the relationship between individual-level religiosity and misconduct. However, Sturgis (2010) used the same measure of religiosity that was used in this study, and so it is possible that using more refined measures of facility-level religiosity may reveal that facility-level religiosity does condition the individual-level relationship between religiosity and misconduct. Scholars may also want to consider collecting data at different units of analysis in order to examine the effect of religiosity at different aggregate-level units, such as housing units, faith-based dormitories, etc., that may function as moral communities.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

156

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Reilgion

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

In conclusion, this study has shed new light on the relationship between religiosity and inmate misconduct. This book has also laid the groundwork for future studies to continue to use stronger research designs, more sophisticated statistical methods, and better measures to provide a comprehensive examination of the effects of religiosity on prisoners’ behavior. It is only through improved approaches to researching the link between religiosity and inmate behavior that we can gain a clear picture of the influence of religion and religiosity in correctional institutions.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Sorensen

6,390

Whether inmate Committing offense

&

murderers

had been

robbery/burglary,

Pilgrim

house in

officially

committing offense

(2000)

prisons in TX charged with

multiple victims,

violent assault

additional

on other inmate

murder/assault, gang

or staff

membership, prior prison term, age < 21, age 26-30 (-), age > 35

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

(-), years at risk Harer &

24,765

Whether inmate Type of detainer,

Langan

female FBOP

had been found

(2001)

prisoners

guilty of violent offense, history of

incarcerated

misconduct,

violence,

from 1991-

including

precommitment status,

1998

murder, assault,

age at admission,

possession of

criminal history

weapon,

category, education at

fighting,

admission

severity of current

threatening harm 177,767 male

Whether inmate Type of detainer,

FBOP

had been found

prisoners

guilty of violent offense, history of

incarcerated

misconduct,

escapes, history of

from 1991-

including

violence,

1998

murder, assault,

precommitment status,

possession of

age at admission,

weapon,

criminal history

fighting,

category, education at

threatening

admission

severity of current

harm

155 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

156

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies 24,765 female and Whether inmate

Type of detainer,

177,767 male

had been found

severity of current

FBOP prisoners

guilty of violent

offense, history of

incarcerated from

misconduct,

escapes, history of

1991-1998

including

violence,

murder, assault,

precommitment status,

possession of

age at admission,

weapon,

criminal history

fighting,

category, education at

Male

threatening harm admission 24,765 female and Whether inmate

Type of detainer,

177,767 male

had been found

severity of current

FBOP prisoners

guilty of less

offense, history of

incarcerated from

serious violent

escapes, history of

1991-1998

misconduct,

violence,

including

precommitment status,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

assault, fighting, age at admission, threatening harm criminal history category, education at admission, male (-) 24,765 female and Whether inmate

Type of detainer,

177,767 male

had been found

severity of current

FBOP prisoners

guilty of serious

offense, history of

incarcerated from

violent

escapes, history of

1991-1998

misconduct,

violence,

including

precommitment status,

murder, assault,

age at admission,

possession of

criminal history

weapon

category, education at admission, male

Reidy

39 former male

et al.

death row inmates inmate is written American

(2001) in Indiana DOC

Time until

Age (-), African

up for a violent act

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

157

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Andia

545

Gang affiliation, #

Male, age, high

et al.

individuals in individual

of months of last

school graduate,

(2005)

NY

incarceration

ever in treatment

Whether reported injection drug use during

program, # of

last incarceration 545

Whether

times arrested # times

Male, age, high

individuals in individual

charged/arrested, #

school graduate,

NY

of months of last

ever in treatment

reported non-

injection drug use incarceration

program, gang

during last

affiliation

incarceration

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

235

Whether

Ever in treatment

Male, age, high

individuals in individual

program, gang

school graduate,

Puerto Rico

reported injection

affiliation, # of

# of times

drug use during

months of last

arrested

last incarceration

incarceration

Berg

831 males

Number of

Hispanic, Native

Black,

&

housed in a

incidence of five

American,

citizenship, age,

DeLisi

Southwestern serious forms of

residency, violence

substance abuse,

(2006)

state facility

violent

history, time served,

offense severity,

misconduct

education

confinement history, security threat group, street gang, vocation history

174 females

Number of

Black, Native

Hispanic,

housed in a

incidence of five

American, offense

citizenship, age,

Southwestern serious forms of

severity,

substance abuse,

state facility

confinement

residency,

history, time served,

violence history,

education, security

street gang,

threat group

vocation history

misconduct

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

158

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Berk et al.

9,662 inmates Whether

Sentence length, gang

Youth

(2006)

admitted to

inmate

activity, age at first

commitment,

CA DOC

received

arrest, age at intake

mental illness,

between 11/98 official

previous

and 04/99

record of

incarceration, ≥

serious

31 days in

misconduct

jail/youth facility, good behavior in prior commitment, bad behavior in prior commitment, serious infraction

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

in prison Cunningham

9,044 inmates Whether

Age at entry (-), gang

Sentenced to 15-

& Sorensen

admitted to FL inmate

member, prior

19 years,

(2006)

DOC between received

commitments,

sentenced to

01/98 and

official

sentenced for homicide LWOP

12/02

misconduct (-), sentenced for

sentenced to at for violent

sexual assault (-),

least 10 years

sentenced for robbery,

act

in close

sentenced 10-14 years,

security

sentenced to ≥ 30 years

confinement Cunningham

24,517

& Sorensen

inmates house inmate

age 26-30, age 36-40

(2007)

in close

received

(-), age > 40 (-), gang

custody in

official

member, prior prison

2003 in FL

misconduct commitment, violent

DOC

for violent

crime (-), sentence < 5

act

years, sentence 6-10

Whether

Age < 21, age 21-25,

Time served

years, sentence 11-20 years, prior violence

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

159

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether

Age < 21, age 21-25,

inmate

age 26-30, age 36-40

received

(-), age > 40 (-), gang

official

member, prior prison

misconduct

commitment, violent

for potential

crime (-), sentence
40 (-), prior

40, gang member,

received

prison commitment,

violent crime, time

official

sentence < 5 years,

served

misconduct

sentence 6-10 years,

for assault

sentence 11-20 years

Whether

Age < 21, age 21-25,

Age 36-40, age >

inmate

age 26-30, prior

40, gang member,

received

prison commitment,

sentence 6-10

official

violent crime (-),

years, time served

misconduct

sentence < 5 years,

for assault

sentence 11-20 years,

with injury

prior violence

Whether

Age < 21, violent

Age 21-25, age 26-

inmate

crime (-), prior prison

30, age 36-40, age

received

commitment, prior

> 40, gang

official

violence

member, sentence

misconduct

< 5 years, sentence

for assault

6-10 years,

with serious

sentence 11-20

injury

years, time served

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

160

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Komarovskaya

590

Whether inmate

Age (-),

(2007)

females

reported

minority status,

housed in

committing a

impulsivity

maximum

violent act

security facility in VA Whether inmate

Minority status, Age

received infraction

impulsivity

for violent rule violation Whether inmate

Age (-),

received infraction

minority status,

for nonviolent rule

impulsivity

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

violation Whether inmate

Age,

received infraction

impulsivity

Minority status

for institutionalonly infractions Sorensen &

1,659

Whether inmate

Age < 21, age > Black,

Cunningham

murderers

received official

40 (-), prior

Hispanic, age

(2007)

admitted

misconduct for

prison, time

21-25, age 26-

to TX

potentially violent

served

30, age 36-40,

prisons

acts

lesser

02/01

homicide,

through

capital murder

11/03 Whether inmate

Age < 21, age > Black,

received official

40 (-), prior

Hispanic, age

misconduct for

prison, capital

21-25, age 26-

assaultive

murder, time

30, age 36-40,

violations

served

lesser homicide

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

161

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Variable

Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether inmate

Age 21-25, prior

Black, Hispanic, age
40, lesser homicide

assaults resulting

served

in serious injuries Wolff

9,964

Whether inmate

et al.

male

reported being the sexual victim

bipolar, other mental

(2007)

inmates

victim of a

health problems, time at

housed in

nonconsensual

facility, time in prison

12

sexual

since 18, committed sex

facilities

victimization by

crime, committed violent

staff

crime, had young victim,

Age (-), white (-), Latino, schizophrenia/ prior to age 18

age at first arrest, thought gang activity high, education

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Whether inmate

White (-),

Age, Latino, time at

reported being the schizophrenia/

facility, time in prison

victim of an

bipolar, other

since 18, committed sex

abusive sexual

mental health

crime, committed violent

contact by another problems, sexual

crime, had young victim,

inmate

age at first arrest

victim prior to age 18, thought gang activity high, education

Whether inmate

Other mental

Age, white, Latino,

reported being the health problems,

schizophrenia/bipolar,

victim of a

sexual victim

time at facility, time in

nonconsensual

prior to age 18,

prison since 18,

sexual

thought gang

committed sex crime,

victimization by

activity high,

committed violent crime,

another inmate

education

had young victim, age at first arrest

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

162

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s

Dependent

Significant

)

Variable

Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies 257 male

Whether

Age (-),

inmates

inmate

thought gang schizophrenia/bipolar, other

housed in

reported being activity high

mental health problems, time at

sex

the victim of

facility, time in prison since 18,

offender

an abusive

committed sex crime, committed

treatment

sexual contact

violent crime, had young victim,

prison

by another

age at first arrest, sexual victim

inmate

prior to age 18, education

Whether

Age (-),

White, Latino,

inmate

other mental

schizophrenia/bipolar, time at

reported any

health

facility, time in prison since 18,

sexual

problems,

committed sex crime, committed

victimization

thought gang violent crime, had young victim,

by another

activity high

inmate

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

White, Latino,

age at first arrest, sexual victim prior to age 18, education

Whether

Age (-),

White, Latino,

inmate

other mental

schizophrenia/bipolar, time at

reported any

health

facility, time in prison since 18,

sexual

problems,

committed sex crime, committed

victimization

thought gang violent crime, had young victim,

by staff or

activity high

age at first arrest, sexual victim

another inmate

prior to age 18, education

564

Whether

Age, White, Latino,

females

inmate

schizophrenia/bipolar, other

housed in

reported being

mental health problems, time at

one

the victim of a

facility, time in prison since 18,

facility

nonconsensual

committed sex crime, committed

sexual

violent crime, had young victim,

victimization

age at first arrest, sexual victim

by another

prior to age 18, thought gang

inmate

activity high, education

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

163

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study Sample(s) Dependent Variable

Significant

Insignificant Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether inmate

Age, White, Latino,

reported being

schizophrenia/ bipolar, other

the victim of a

mental health problems, time at

nonconsensual

facility, time in prison since 18,

sexual

committed sex crime, committed

victimization

violent crime, had young victim,

by staff

age at first arrest, sexual victim prior to age 18, thought gang activity high, education

Whether inmate Sexual

Age, White, Latino,

reported being

schizophrenia/bipolar, other

victim prior

the victim of an to age 18,

mental health problems, time at

abusive sexual

thought gang

facility, time in prison since 18,

contact by

activity high

committed sex crime, committed

another inmate

violent crime, had young victim,

Whether inmate Age (-)

White, Latino,

reported being

schizophrenia/bipolar, other

the victim of an

mental health problems, time at

abusive sexual

facility, time in prison since 18,

contact by staff

committed sex crime, committed

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

age at first arrest, education

violent crime, age at first arrest, education Whether inmate Sexual

Age, White, Latino,

reported any

victim prior

schizophrenia/bipolar, other

sexual

to age 18,

mental health problems, time at

victimization

thought gang

facility, time in prison since 18,

by another

activity high

committed sex crime, committed

inmate

violent crime, had young victim, age at first arrest, education

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

164

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether inmate Education

Age, White, Latino,

reported any

schizophrenia/bipolar,

sexual

other mental health

victimization

problems, time at

by staff

facility, time in prison since 18, committed sex crime, committed violent crime, had young victim, age at first arrest, sexual victim prior to age 18, thought gang activity high

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Whether inmate Sexual victim prior Age, White, Latino, reported any

to age 18, thought

schizophrenia/bipolar,

sexual

gang activity high

other mental health

victimization

problems, time at

by another

facility, time in prison

inmate or staff

since 18, committed sex crime, committed violent crime, had young victim, age at first arrest, education

Blackburn 436 female

Whether inmate

Age, minority status,

et al.

inmates

reported a

marital status, high

(2008)

housed in a

sexual

school completion,

Southeastern victimization state

sexual orientation,

since admission

first-time inmate

Drury &

1,005 inmates Number of

Gang membership x Gang risk, gender, age,

DeLisi

housed within official

convicted of

black, Hispanic,

(2008)

facilities in a

homicide, homicide

offense severity risk,

Southwestern received for

index, white (-),

security threat group

state in 2001

major

time served,

risk

infraction

violence history risk

violations

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

165

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Number of

Gang membership

Homicide index, gang

official

x convicted of

risk, gender, age,

violations for

homicide, white

black, Hispanic,

weapon

(-), time served

offense severity risk,

possession

violence history risk, security threat group

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

risk Number of

Gang membership

Homicide index, gang

official

x convicted of

risk, gender, age,

violations for

homicide, white

black, Hispanic,

disobeying an

(-), timer served,

offense severity risk,

officer

violence history

security threat group

risk

risk

Number of

Gang membership

Gang risk, gender, age,

official

x convicted of

white, black, Hispanic,

violations for

homicide,

offense severity risk,

property

homicide index

security threat group

damage

(-), time served,

risk

violence history risk Number of

Gang membership

Gang risk, age, white,

official

x convicted of

black, Hispanic,

violations for

homicide,

offense severity risk,

contraband

homicide index

violence history risk,

(-), female, time

security threat group

served

risk

Whether

Gang membership

Gang risk, age, white,

inmate

x convicted of

black, Hispanic,

received

homicide,

violence history risk,

official

homicide index

security threat group

violation for ≥

(-), female, time

risk

3 minor

served, offense

violations

severity risk

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

166

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Kuanling

37,494

Whether

13-17 years old, 21-25

et al.

inmates

inmate

years old (-), 26-30 years

(2008)

housed in FL

received

old (-), 31-35 years old (-),

facilities

official

36-40years old (-), ≥ 41

between

infraction for

years (-), education level

01/98 and

any violent

(-), gang member, violent

12/03

misconduct

conviction offense (-), sentence length, area under curve

Whether

13-17 years old, 21-25

violent

inmate

years old (-), 26-30 years

conviction

received

old (-), 31-35 years old (-),

offense (-)

official

36-40years old (-), ≥ 41

infraction for

years (-), education level

potentially

(-), gang member, sentence

violent

length, area under curve

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

misconduct Whether

13-17 years old, 21-25

inmate

years old (-), 26-30 years

received

old (-), 31-35 years old (-),

official

36-40years old (-), ≥ 41

infraction for

years (-), education level

assault

(-), gang member, violent conviction offense, sentence length, area under curve

Whether

13-17 years old, 21-25

Violent

inmate

years old (-), 26-30 years

conviction

received

old (-), 31-35 years old (-),

offense,

official

36-40years old (-), ≥ 41

sentence

infraction for

years (-), education level

length

assault with

(-), gang member, area

injuries

under curve

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

167

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether

13-17 years old, 21-25 21-25 years old, 26-30

inmate

years old (-), 31-35

years old, violent

received

years old (-), 36-40

conviction offense

official

years old

infraction

years (-), education

for assault

level, gang member,

with

sentence length, area

serious

under curve

(-),≥ 41

injuries Drury

1,005

Number of

White (-), active

Female, age, black,

&

inmates

official

detainer (-), time

Hispanic, education

DeLisi

housed in

violations

served, prior

risk, confinement

(2010)

AZ DOC

received for

adjustment risk,

history, offense

facilities

major

vocation risk

severity, drug history

in 2001

infractions

risk, history of violence, security threat group

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

risk, gang history risk Number of

Age (-), white (-),

Female, black,

official

active detainer (-),

Hispanic, education

violations

confinement history,

risk, history of violence,

received for

time served, offense

security threat group

minor

severity, drug history

risk

infractions

risk (-), prior adjustment risk, vocation risk, gang history risk (-)

831 male

Number of

White (-), active

Age, black, Hispanic,

inmates

official

detainer (-), time

education risk,

housed in

violations

served, prior

confinement history,

AZ DOC

received for

adjustment risk,

offense severity, drug

facilities

major

history of violence

history risk, vocation

in 2001

infractions

risk, security threat group risk, gang history

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

168

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Number of

Age (-), white (-),

black, Hispanic,

official

active detainer (-),

education risk,

violations

confinement

security threat group

received for

history, time served, risk

minor infractions offense severity, drug history risk (-), prior adjustment risk, vocation risk, gang history risk (-) 174 female

Number of

Education risk, time

Age, white, black,

inmates

official

served, prior

Hispanic, active

housed in AZ violations

adjustment risk,

detainer,

DOC

received for

history of violence

confinement history,

facilities in

major infractions (-), security threat

2001

group risk

offense severity, drug history risk, vocation

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

risk, gang history risk Number of

Black (-),

official

confinement history, Hispanic, education

violations

time served, prior

risk, active detainer,

received for

adjustment risk,

offense severity, drug

minor infractions gang history risk (-)

Age, white,

history risk, vocation risk, history of violence, security threat group risk

Morash

242 male

Whether inmate

Child sexual abuse,

Child physical abuse,

et al.

inmates

was officially

adult property

black, age, juvenile

(2010)

incarcerated

found to be a

convictions (-), adult robbery, juvenile

in Midwestern perpetrator (vs.

sexual assault

assault, violence

state facilities

non-perpetrator)

convictions, adult

against vulnerable

between

of prisoner-on-

violence convictions people, aggressive

1998-2006

prisoner sexual

(-), adult drug-

misconducts, years

assault without

related convictions

incarcerated

penetration

(-), serving a life sentence

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

169

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether inmate

Child physical

Child sexual abuse,

was officially found abuse (-), age (-),

black, juvenile

to be a perpetrator

juvenile robbery,

assault, adult

(vs. non-

violence against

weapons

perpetrator) of

vulnerable people

convictions, adult

prisoner-on-prisoner (-), adult property

violence

sexual assault with

convictions (-),

convictions,

penetration

adult sexual assault

aggressive

convictions, adult

misconducts,

drug-related

serving a life

convictions (-),

sentence

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

years incarcerated Morris

400 male

Whether inmate

Black, Hispanic,

et al.

inmates

received official

age at entry (-), age

(2010)

serving non-

report for engaging

squared, prior

sentence

in violent

incarceration (-),

capital

misconduct

gang affiliation (-),

sentences in

capital life sentence

TX whose

(-)

Education

offenses occurred between 09/87-09/94 Whether inmate

Black, Hispanic,

Education, age at

received official

age squared

entry, prior

report for engaging

incarceration, gang

in potentially

affiliation, capital

violent misconduct

life sentence

Whether inmate

Black, prior

Hispanic, education,

received official

incarceration (-),

age at entry, age

report for engaging

capital life sentence

squared, gang

in accountability

(-)

affiliation

misconduct

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

170

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether inmate

Black, Hispanic,

received official

education (-), age at

report for engaging

entry (-), age squared,

in security

prior incarceration (-),

misconduct

gang affiliation (-), capital life sentence ()

Whether inmate

Black, Hispanic,

Education, age at entry,

received official

gang affiliation

age squared, prior

report for engaging in

incarceration, capital life

sexual misconduct

sentence

Whether inmate

Age at entry (-), age

Black, Hispanic,

received official

squared, gang

education, prior

report for engaging

affiliation (-), capital incarceration

in property

life sentence (-)

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

misconduct Whether inmate

Hispanic, prior

Black, education, age at

received official

incarceration (-),

entry, age squared, capital

report for engaging

gang affiliation

life sentence

Whether inmate

Hispanic, prior

Black, education, age at

received official

incarceration (-),

entry, age squared, capital

report for drug

gang affiliation

life sentence

in contraband misconduct

misconduct Number of official

Black, Hispanic, age Education, prior

reports received for

at entry, age squared incarceration, gang

violent misconduct

affiliation, capital life sentence

Number of official

Black, Hispanic, education,

reports received for

age at entry, age squared,

potentially violent

prior incarceration, gang

misconduct

affiliation, capital life sentence

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

171

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Number of

Black, Hispanic, age

Education,

official reports

at entry (-), prior

capital life

received for

incarceration, gang

sentence

accountability

affiliation (-)

misconduct Number of

Black, prior

Hispanic,

official reports

incarceration,

education, age at

received for

capital life sentence

entry, age

security

(-)

squared, gang

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

misconduct

affiliation

Number of

Black, age at entry,

Hispanic,

official reports

age squared (-),

education, gang

received for

prior incarceration,

affiliation

sexual

capital life sentence

misconduct

(-)

Number of

Black, Hispanic, age

official reports

at entry, age squared

received for

(-), prior

property

incarceration (-),

misconduct

gang affiliation,

Education

capital life sentence Number of

Education, age at

Black, Hispanic,

official reports

entry (-), age

gang affiliation

received for

squared, prior

contraband

incarceration,

misconduct

capital life sentence (-)

Number of

Education (-)

official reports received for drug misconduct

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

172

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Sorensen &

51,527

Number of

Female (-), age (-

Cunningham

inmates

official

), gang member,

(2010)

incarcerated

infractions

prior prison

in FL on

received for

commitment,

01/03 who

potentially

sentence (-),

served the

violent

time served,

entire year

misconduct

community

in prison

custody (-), minimum custody (-), medium custody (-), homicide conviction (-), property conviction, drug conviction,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

public order/weapons conviction Cunningham

111 inmates

Whether inmate

Age ≤ 21, age ≥

Normal-high

et al. (2011)

released

received official

30 (-), prior

intellectual

from TX

report of

violent crime

functioning,

death row

violence against

arrest

gun only

into general

inmates or staff

weapon used

population

in crime,

between

years at risk

1989-2008 Sorensen et

193 inmates

Whether inmate

Black, sentence

Age, prior

al. (2011)

in TX prison

received official

length, gang

prison

between

infraction for

member

9/07 and

serious assault

10/08

against staff member

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

173

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Sorensen

103,245

Whether

Female, age, (-), age

Hispanic,

& Davis

inmates

inmate

squared, education (-

homicide,

(2011)

incarcerated in received

), Black, gang

robbery

TX prison

official

member (-), prior

system on

infraction

prison, sentence

9/1/07 and

for serious

length (-), time

served all fy

rule

served (-), min

2008

violation

security classification (-), med security classification (-), lockdown, other custody classification, sexual assault, assault, other violent crime, drug crime (-), public

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

order (-) 13,816 male

Whether

Age (-), Hispanic (-),

Age squared,

minimum

inmate

prior prison, sentence

educational

custody

received

length (-), sexual

score, Black,

inmates

official

assault, robbery,

homicide,

admitted to

infraction

other violence, drug

assault

TX prison

for serious

crime (-), public

system in fy

rule

order (-)

2007 and

violation

served all fy 2008 Carr et

75 discharged

Number of

Age at first

al.

civil

official

incarceration, SACA

(2012)

psychiatric

infractions

(correctional

patients in

received

adaptation inventory)

Arrested

2005 and 2006

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

174

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Felson

1,092

Whether an

Victim age: 18-19, 20-24,

et al.

sexual or

assault was

25-29, 30-34

(2012)

physical

physical or

Offender age: 18-19 (-), 20-

assaults

sexual

24 (-), 25-29 (-), 30-34 (-),

occurring

occurring

35-39 (-)

in

inside a

Victim age: 35-39

correctional correctional facilities

facility

recorded in

reported to

NIBRS

police

between 2000 and

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

2007 Houser 2,535

Whether

Mental illness, co-occurring

Drug

et al.

female

inmates

mental illness and drug

dependence/abuse,

(2012)

inmates in

self-

dependence/abuse, age (-),

Hispanic, other

62 facilities reported

African American, married

race, high

in the 2004

being

(-), employed in month

school/GED,

Survey of

written up

before arrest (-), sexual

nonviolent offense

Inmates in

for any rule victimization prior to

State

violation

Facilities

admission, physical victimization prior to admission, history of prior arrests, violent offense

2,514

Whether

female

inmate self- and drug dependence

dependence/abuse,

inmates in

reported

/abuse, mental illness, age

high school/GED,

62 facilities being

(-), Other race, Black-non-

physical

in the 2004

written up

Hispanic, Hispanic, married

victimization

Survey of

for serious

(-), employed in month

history, nonviolent

Inmates in

misconduct

before arrest (-), sexual

offense

Co-occurring mental illness

State

victimization history, prior

Facilities

arrest, history, violent

Drug

offense

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

175

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether inmate Co-occurring

Drug dependence/abuse,

self-reported

mental illness and

other race, Black non-

being written

drug

Hispanic, Hispanic,

up for minor

dependence/abuse,

employed in month

misconduct

mental illness, age

before arrest, high

(-), married (-),

school/GED, sexual

physical

victimization history,

victimization

nonviolent offense

history, violent

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

offense Whether inmate Co-occurring

Drug dependence

self-reported

mental illness and

/abuse, married, high

serious

drug

school/GED, sexual

misconduct vs. dependence/abuse,

victimization history,

minor

mental illness, age

physical victimization

misconduct

(-), other race,

history, nonviolent

Black non-

offense

Hispanic, Hispanic, employed in month before arrest (-), prior arrest history, violent offense Morash

254 inmates

Whether

Victim

et al.

housed in

official record

characteristics: lack level of education,

(2012)

facilities in a

of sexual

(-), age (-), prior

Offender characteristics:

Midwestern

victimization

sexual

juvenile sexual assault,

state between without

victimization,

property convictions,

1998-2006

penetration

muscular rating (-), sexual assault

occurred

Offender

convictions, weapons

characteristics:

convictions, violence

weeks incarcerated

convictions, drug-related

Victim characteristics:

convictions, aggressive misconduct

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

176

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether official

Victim

Offender

record of sexual

characteristics:

characteristics:

victimization with

level of

juvenile sexual

penetration

education (-),

assault, property

occurred

Black (-), age

convictions,

(-), prior sexual

weapons

victimization,

convictions,

muscular rating

violence

(-), Offender

convictions,

characteristics:

drug-related

sexual assault

convictions,

convictions,

aggressive

weeks

misconduct

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

incarcerated Leigey

Between 5,378

Whether inmate

Age (-), time

Incarcerated as a

&

and 5,754 male

reported drug

served

juvenile, drug

Hodge

inmates in the

violation

(2013)

2004 Survey of

offense, education

Inmates in State Correctional Facilities Whether inmate

Age (-), drug

Incarcerated as a

reported alcohol

offense (-), time

juvenile,

violation

served

education

Whether inmate

Age (-), violent

Incarcerated as a

reported weapon

offense, time

juvenile

violation

served, education (-)

Whether inmate

Incarcerated as

Property offense,

reported stolen

a juvenile, age

education

property violation

(-), time served

Whether inmate

Age (-), time

Incarcerated as a

reported contraband served

juvenile,

violation

education

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

177

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether inmate

Age (-), time

Incarcerated as a

reported verbal

served

juvenile, violent

assault on staff

offense, education

Whether inmate

Age (-), time

Incarcerated as a

reported physical

served

juvenile, violent

assault on staff

offense, education

Whether inmate

Age (-), violent

Incarcerated as a

reported physical

offense, time

juvenile

assault on inmate

served, education (-)

Whether inmate

Age (-), time served Incarcerated as a

reported escape

juvenile, education

violation Whether inmate

Age (-), time served Incarcerated as a

reported

juvenile, education

unauthorized area Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

violation Whether inmate

Age (-), time served Incarcerated as a

reported

juvenile, education

disobeying orders Sandler 3,703 adult male

Whether inmate

Age at conviction

Violent felony arrests,

et al.

offenders

received a sexual

(-), prior

Black, Hispanic

(2013)

convicted of a

disciplinary ticket

disciplinary, prior

sexually

sexual ticket count,

motivated

criminal sexual act

offense housed in

arrests, variety of

New York state

offending types Whether inmate

Age at conviction

Criminal sexual act

received a

(-), prior

arrests, Black,

nonconsensual

disciplinary tickets, Hispanic

sexual disciplinary

prior sexual ticket

ticket

count, variety of offending types

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

178

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Walters

2,448 male

&

inmates housed assault

Number of

Crawford in a federal

infractions

(2013)

inmate received

medium

Age (-), gang

Marital status, drug

affiliation,

history, criminal

criminal thinking

history

Drug history,

Age, marital status,

security facility Number of

escape infractions criminal history

gang affiliation,

received

criminal thinking

Number of

Age (-), criminal

Marital status, gang

fighting

thinking

affiliation, drug

infractions

history, criminal

received

history

Number of

Criminal thinking,

Age, marital status,

intoxicant

criminal history

gang affiliation,

infractions

drug history

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

received Number of

Age, marital status,

refusing

gang affiliation,

programs

criminal thinking,

infractions

drug history,

received

criminal history

Number of

Age, marital status,

stealing

gang affiliation,

infractions

criminal thinking,

received

drug history, criminal history

Wood

2,973 inmates Whether inmates

Time served, other

Female, Black,

(2013)

in the 2004

reported

race/ethnicity, age at

Hispanic, diagnosed

Survey of

victimization by

admission (-),

with personality

Inmates in

assault

education, mental

disorder, number of

Federal

and substance use

prior incarcerations,

Facilities

disorder, physically

incarcerated for

or sexually

violent offense

victimized in past

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

179

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Individual-Level Studies Whether

Time served, other

Female, Black,

inmate

race/ethnicity, age at

Hispanic, education,

reported

admission (-),

mental and substance

being written

incarcerated for violent

use disorder, ever

up for

offense, physically or

diagnosed with

physical

sexually victimized in

personality disorder,

assault

past

number of prior incarcerations

Wood

12,054

Whether

Female (-), Black (-),

Hispanic, other

&

inmates in

inmate

Age at admission (-),

race/ethnicity,

Buttaro

the 2004

reported

not mentally ill and

education, severely

(2013)

Survey of

victimization

substance dependent (-), mentally ill, number

Inmates in

by assault

substance dependence

of prior

State

(-), time served,

incarcerations,

Facilities

incarcerated for violent

incarcerated for

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

offense, incarcerated for property offense, drug offense (-),

incarcerated for sex

sexually victimized in

offense, incarcerated

past, physically

for other offense

victimized in past Whether

Black, Hispanic, age at

inmate

admission (-), education race/ethnicity, severe

reported

(-), not mentally ill and

being written

substance dependent (-), incarcerated for

up for

substance dependence

property offense,

physical

(-), number of prior

incarcerated for sex

assault

incarcerations, time

offense, incarcerated

served, incarcerated for

for drug offense,

Female, other mental illness,

violent offense,

incarcerated for other

physically assaulted in

offense, sexually

the past

victimized in the past

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

180

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Aggregate-Level Studies Reisig

298 adult

Number of

% prohibited groups,

(2002)

high

inmate-on-

% disciplinary tickets inmate population, %

custody

inmate

upheld (-)

state

homicides

Officer turnover, below 25 years of age, % black, %

facilities

incarcerated for violent offense, % housed in maximum /close security, % medical staff

Steiner &

191 state

Prevalence of Most inmates are

Years in operation

Wooldredge

facilities

assaults

maximum security,

(logged)

(2009c)

for males

reported

most inmates are

across

medium security, %

facilities

African American, average daily population (-), design

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

capacity Griffin and

50 state

Level of

Security level, security

Hepburn

prisons in

violent

level and population

(2013)

AZ in

misconduct

characteristics, security

2000

level and prison environment Level of

Security level, security

nonviolent

level and population

misconduct

characteristics, security level and prison environment

Level of

Median age (-),

Percentage violent

violent

percentage non-white,

offense, percentage

misconduct

percentage street gang

prior conviction

Level of

Median age, percentage Percentage violent

nonviolent

non-white, percentage

misconduct

prior conviction,

offense,

percentage gang

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

181

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Pooled Models Gaes

82,504

Number of

Security custody score,

Missing

et al.

inmates n

official

prior misconducts,

citizenship, time

(2002)

FBOP in

findings of

Columbian citizenship

served, Asian,

1997

guilt for

(-), Mexican

low security

violent

citizenship, other

level, multiple

infractions

citizenship, Hispanic,

gang affiliation

age (-), African American, Native American, Florence/Marion (-), administrative security level, high security level, medium security level, months in gang (-),multiple gangs not monitored, multiple Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

gangs monitored, risk days 82,504

Number of

Security custody score,

Columbian

inmates n

official

prior misconducts,

citizenship,

FBOP in

findings of

Mexican citizenship,

Missing

1997

guilt for

age (-), Asian (-),

citizenship, other

serious

Native American,

citizenship,

violent

Florence/Marion (-),

Hispanic, time

infractions

administrative security

served, African

level, high security

American, low

level, medium security

security level,

level, months in gang

multiple gang

(-),multiple gangs not

affiliation

monitored, multiple gangs monitored, risk days

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

182

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Pooled Models 82,504

Number of

Security custody score, prior

Missing

inmates n

official

misconducts, Columbian

citizenship,

FBOP in

findings of

citizenship (-), Mexican

Hispanic, Native

1997

guilt for

citizenship (-), other

American, time

drug

citizenship (-), age (-), Asian

served, medium

infractions

(-), African American (-),

security level,

Florence/Marion (-),

low security

administrative security level

level, multiple

(-), high security level (-

gang affiliation,

),months in gang

multiple gangs

(-),multiple gangs monitored, not monitored

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

risk days 82,504

Number of

Security custody score,

inmates n

official

number of prior misconducts, citizenship,

FBOP in

findings of

Columbian citizenship (-),

Mexican

1997

guilt for

age (-),time served (-),

citizenship, other

total

African American (-),

citizenship,

infractions

Florence/Marion (-),

Asian, Hispanic,

administrative security level

Native

(-), high security level (-),

American,

medium security level (-),

multiple gang

Missing

low security level (-), months affiliation, in gang (-), , multiple gangs

multiple gangs

not monitored, risk days

monitored

Jiang &

431

Whether

Housed in working cell block

Fisher-

disciplinary

misconduct

(-), housed in dormitory (-),

was violent

incident occurred in work

Giordano reports for (2002)

186 inmates or non-

area (-), number of children,

in a single

substance abuse at

violent

prison from

admission, incarcerated for

5/94-11/94

drug crime, divorced at admission (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

183

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Pooled Models Whether

Sentence length (-),

misconduct was housed in working cell against staff

block (-), divorced at admission, single at admission, incident occurred during work time (-), incident occurred during free time (-), incident occurred in corridor (-)

Whether

Officer work in years,

misconduct was incident occurred in against inmate working cell block , incident occurred in corridor, incident occurred in recreational Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

area, incident occurred during free time, divorced at admission (-), convicted for property offense Griffin 2,158 male &

inmates

Whether inmate Age (-), African

Native American,

received official American (-),

violent offense, prior

Hepburn admitted to AZ misconduct for

Mexican American (-), incarceration, sentence

(2006) DOC in 1996

Mexican National (-),

assault

served ≥ 3 years

length, security level

gang affiliation Whether inmate Age (-), security level

African American,

received official

Mexican American,

misconduct for

Mexican National,

fighting

Native American, violent offense, prior incarceration, sentence length, gang affiliation

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

184

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Pooled Models Whether inmate Age (-), prior

African American,

received official incarceration,

Mexican American,

misconduct for

sentence length (-),

Mexican National,

threats

gang affiliation

Native American, violent offense, security level

Whether inmate Age (-), prior

African American,

received official incarceration

Mexican American,

misconduct for

Mexican National,

weapons

Native American, violent offense, sentence length, security level, gang

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

affiliation Whether inmate Age (-), Mexican

African American,

received official National (-), violent

Mexican American,

misconduct for

offense, prior

Native American,

any major

incarceration,

security level

violent incident sentence length (-), gang affiliation Dhami

712 male

Number of times Security level, time

et al.

prisons

inmates reported

spent in prison,

(2007)

housed in 3

being charged

quality of life before

Federal

with disciplinary

imprisonment

facilities on

infraction (1 =

Sentence length

West Coast

never, 7 = often)

Gover

190 male

Number of

Prior incarceration,

Age, non-white, ≥ high

et al.

inmates

officially

nonviolent offense (-),

school degree, children,

(2008)

housed in 6

recorded

violent offense (-), low

age at first arrest,

prisons in a

disciplinary

self-control, medium

sentence length, quality

Southeastern infractions

security, maximum

of life, staff or inmate

state in 2005

security, length of stay,

care,

prison job (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

185

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Pooled Models 57 female

Number of

Age (-), non-

Children, nonviolent

inmates

officially

white, ≥ high

offense, age at first

housed in 2

recorded

school degree

arrest, low self-

prisons in a

disciplinary

(-), prior

control, prison job,

Southeaster

infractions

incarceration

quality of life

n state in

(-), sentence

2005

length (-), length of stay, staff or inmate

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

care, safety Chamberlain

13,986

The number

Substance

Education/employme

(2012)

inmates

of

abuse need,

nt, male, African

housed in

institutional

number of days American, Hispanic,

272

infractions

incarcerated,

special condition to

facilities in

for which

convicted of

attend treatment,

the 1991

inmates

violent offense, probation at time of

Survey of

reported

age (-), other

Inmates in

being

race, prior adult of arrest, escape at

State and

convicted or

incarcerations,

time of arrest,

Federal

found guilty

number of

widowed, proportion

Correctiona

current

of prison African

l Facilities

offenses,

American, proportion

arrested before

of prison Hispanic,

arrest, parole at time

age 16, married proportion of prison (-), divorced (-), other race, age of physically

prison inmate

abused

population, facility population

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

186

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Pooled Models 14,285

Substance abuse need, Education/employm

inmates

number of days

ent, male, African

housed in

incarcerated,

American, Hispanic,

285

convicted of violent

other race, special

facilities in

offense, age (-), parole condition to attend

the 1997

at time of arrest (-),

treatment, probation

Survey of

prior adult

at time of arrest,

Inmates in

incarcerations, number escape at time of

State and

of current offenses,

Federal

arrested before age 16, widowed,

Correctiona

married (-),

proportion of prison

l Facilities

physically abused

African American,

arrest, divorced,

proportion of prison Hispanic, proportion of prison other race, age of prison inmate Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

population, facility population 14,499

Substance abuse need, Male, African

inmates

education/employment American, Hispanic,

housed in

, number of days

other race, special

287facilitie

incarcerated,

condition to attend

s in the

convicted of violent

treatment, probation

2004

crime, age (-), parole

at time of arrest,

Survey of

at time of arrest (-),

escape at time of

Inmates in

prior adult

arrest, widowed,

State and

incarcerations, number proportion of prison

Federal

of current offenses,

Correctiona

arrested before age 16, proportion of prison

l Facilities

married (-), divorced

Hispanic, proportion

(-), physically abused

of prison other race,

African American,

age of prison inmate population, facility population

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

187

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Wooldredge 891 inmates Whether et al. (2001) in 26 inmate was facilities in written up for NY rule infraction 493 inmates Whether in 11 inmate was facilities in written up for WA rule infraction

Age (-), nonwhite, number of prior arrests, offense severity, crowding, crowding x age (-) Age (-), nonwhite, number of prior arrests, offense severity, minimum sentence length (-), crowding, crowding x age (-) 444 inmates Whether Age (-), number of in 7 facilities inmate was prior arrests, in VT written up for minimum sentence rule infraction length, crowding Whether % white staff, % Camp et al. 120,855 inmate female staff, number (2003) inmates sentenced to received any of prior misconduct, initial custody score, 156 facilities infraction custody score squared within (-), age (-), age FBOP in squared, Mexican 06/01 citizen

Whether inmate received a violent infraction

Commitment to convention, minimum sentence length

Commitment to convention

Commitment to convention, offense severity

Average age, racial integration, first year of activation, crowding, % staff < 1 year experience, average custody score, time at risk, Cuban citizen, Other citizen, female, African American, other race, Hispanic Average age, racial Average custody score, count of prior integration, first year of activation, crowding % misconduct, initial custody score, initial white staff, % female custody score squared staff, % staff < 1year (-), age (-), Mexican experience, time at risk, Cuban citizen, Other citizen citizen, female, African American, other race, Hispanic

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

188

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Racial integration (-),% staff < 1year experience, count of prior misconduct, age (-)

Racial integration, first year of activation, crowding, % white staff, % female staff, average custody score, initial custody score, custody score squared, time at risk, age squared, Mexican citizen, Cuban citizen, Other citizen, female, African American, other race, Hispanic Average age, racial integration, first year of activation, crowding, % staff < 1year experience, average custody score, Cuban citizen, other citizen, female, African American, other race, Hispanic

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether inmate received a security infraction

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Whether inmate received accountability infraction

Whether inmate received property infraction

% white staff, % female staff, count of prior misconduct, initial custody score, custody score squared (-), time at risk (-), age (-), age squared, Mexican citizen % white staff, count of prior misconduct, age, Mexican citizen

Average age, racial integration, first year of activation, crowding, % female staff, % staff < 1year experience, average custody score, initial custody score, custody score squared, time at risk, age squared, Cuban citizen, other citizen, female, African American, other race, Hispanic

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

189

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Crowding, count

Avg. age, racial int.,

inmate

of prior

first year of

received other

misconduct,

activation, % white

infraction

initial custody

staff, % female staff,

score, age (-), age % staff < 1year exp., squared, African

avg. custody score,

American

custody score2, time at risk, Mex. citizen (),Cuban citizen, other citizen, female, other

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

race, Hispanic Huebner

4,168

Number of

African

(2003)

inmates

self-reported

American, age (-), citizen, married, years

housed in

findings of

education (-),

incarcerated, % paid

185 state

guilt for

gang

for work, % received

facilities in

infractions of

involvement,

solitary, % lost work

1991

assault on

criminal history,

assignment,

staff

% work outside

population, Southern

Hispanic, other race,

(-), % work inside facility (-), maximum security Number of

African

Hispanic, citizen,

self-reported

American, other

married, years

findings of

race, age (-),

incarcerated, % paid

guilt for

education (-),

for work, % work

infractions of

gang

outside, % work

assault on

involvement,

inside, % received

other inmate

criminal history,

solitary, % lost work

population,

assignment

Southern facility, maximum security

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

190

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Dependent Variable Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Gillespie 1,054 Frequency (2005) inmates of selfacross 30 reported prisons in drug use KY, OH, & TN

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Study

Jiang (2005)

Sample(s)

1,054 inmates across 30 prisons in KY, OH, & TN

Frequency of selfreported drug use

12,472 inmates housed in 275 facilities in the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities

Number of times per month inmate reported to be found guilty of substance use rule violation

Significant Predictors Age (-), race, non-white (-), years incarcerated, involvement in religious programs, previous use of drugs on street ,previous sale of drugs on street, number of deviant prison associates, definitions about prison rules, others definitions of prison rules Age (-), aggregate perception of crowding, race, non-white (-), years incarcerated, involvement in religious programs, previous sale of drugs on street, number of deviant prison associates, definitions about prison rules, others definitions of prison rules, previous use of drugs on street x aggregate perception of crowding Regular polydrug use prior to incarceration, age (-), white, crime history, mean age (-), population count (-), medium security (-), female facility (-), coed facility

Insignificant Predictors

previous use of drugs on street

Sentence length in months, minimum security,

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

191

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Number of

Regular polydrug

Sentence length

times per

use prior to

in months,

month

incarceration, age

minimum

inmate

(-), white (-),

security

reported

crime history,

found guilty

mean age (-),

of non-

population count

substance

(-), medium

use rule

security (-),

violation

female facility,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

coed facility Jiang &

8,934 male

Number of

Marred at

Have children,

Winfree

inmates

times per

interview (-),

mail to/from

(2006)

housed in 207

month

Calls to/from

children, visited

facilities

inmate

children (-), age

by children,

included in the

reported to

at interview (-),

sentence length,

1997 Survey

be found

white (-), number

proportion

of Inmates in

guilty of rule

of prior

programs

State

violation

sentences, regular

participated in,

Correctional

poly drug use,

proportion of

Facilities

security level,

inmate

population count

clubs/groups

on sampling day

participated in,

(-)

average age, % white

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

192

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models 2,027 female

Number of

Calls to/from

Married at interview,

inmates

times per

children (-),

have children, mail

housed in 45

month inmate

age at

to/from children,

facilities

reported to be

interview (-),

visited by children,

included in

found guilty of

number of

white, regular poly

the 1997

rule violation

prior

drug use, proportion

Survey of

sentences,

programs participated

Inmates in

sentence

in, proportion of inmate

State

length, average clubs/groups

Correctional

age (-)

Facilities

participated in, security level, population count on sampling day, %

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

white Wolff

6,964 male

Whether

Mental health

Mean age of inmates,

et al

inmates

inmate

problems,

age, white, Latino,

(2007)

housed in 12

reported being

sexual victim

Schizophrenia/bipolar,

facilities

the victim of a

prior to age 18, time at facility, time in

nonconsensual

education

prison since 18, sex

sexual

crime, violent crime,

victimization

had young victim, age

by another

at first arrest, thought

inmate

gang activity high

Whether

Age (-), white

Mean age of inmates,

inmate

(-),mental

Latino, Schizophrenia/

reported being

health

bipolar, time at facility,

the victim of

problems,

time in prison since 18,

an abusive

violent crime,

sex crime, had young

sexual contact

sexual victim

victim, age at first

by staff

prior to age 18, arrest thought gang activity high, education

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

193

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Age (-), white

Mean age of

inmate

(-), other mental

inmates, Latino,

reported any

health problems,

Schizophrenia/

sexual

committed

bipolar, time at

victimization

violent crime,

facility, time in

by staff

sexual victim

prison since 18,

prior to age 18,

committed sex

thought gang

crime, had young

activity high,

victim, age at first

education

arrest

Whether

White (-), other

Mean age of

inmate

mental health

inmates, age, Latino,

reported any

problems,

Schizophrenia/

sexual

committed

bipolar, time at

victimization

violent crime,

facility, time in

by inmate or

sexual victim

prison since 18,

staff

prior to age 18,

committed sex

thought gang

crime, had young

activity high,

victim, age at first

education

arrest

Lahm

1,054

Frequency of

Proportion non-

Non-white, violent

(2008)

inmates

self-reported

white,

offense, time served

housed in

assault on

population size,

for prior violent

30 prisons

other inmate

age (-),

offense, violent

across KY,

aggression,

beliefs, drug beliefs,

OH, & TN

crowding,

property crime

in 2001

proportion < age

beliefs, time served,

25, aggression x

time served squared,

crowding,

sentence length,

aggression x

visits

proportion < age 25

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

194

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Steiner &

9,828 male

Whether

Age (-), African

Married,

Wooldredge

inmates

inmate

American,

participated in

(2008)

housed in

reported

Hispanic, high

religious

204 state

being

school diploma

activities, %

institutions

charged

(-), employed

African

in 1991

with an

prior to arrest (-),

American, %

assault

physically abused

Hispanic, %

incarcerated for

with prior

violent offense,

incarceration, %

incarcerated for

participated in

drug offense (-),

programs, %

prior

with work

incarceration,

assignments

used drugs in month before arrest, sentence ≥ Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

5 years, time served, participated in program, number of hours at work assignment, % incarcerated for violent offense, % used drugs in month before arrest, maximum security

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

195

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether inmate reported being charged with drug/ alcohol violation

Whether inmate reported being charged with other nonviolent violation

Significant Predictors

Age (-), African American (-), Hispanic (-), incarcerated for violent offense, prior incarceration, used drugs in month before arrest, time served, participated in program, participated in religious activities, % African American (-), % Hispanic (-), % incarcerated for violent offense, % used drugs in month before arrest, % participated in programs, maximum security, incarcerated for violent offense x % incarcerated for violent offense, incarcerated for violent offense x % participated in programs Age (-), Hispanic (-), employed prior to arrest (-), physically abused, incarcerated for drug offense (-), prior incarceration, used drugs in month before arrest, time served, participated in program, number of hours at work assignment, % Hispanic (-), % incarcerated for violent offense, % used drugs in month before arrest, % participated in programs, age x % African American, age x % incarcerated for violent offense, age x maximum security

Insignificant Predictors Married, high school diploma, employed prior to arrest, physically abused, incarcerated for drug offense, sentence ≥ 5 years, number of hours at work assignment, % with prior incarcerations, % with work assignments

African American, married, high school diploma, incarcerated for violent offense, sentence ≥ 5 years, participated in religious activities, % African American, % with prior incarceration, % with work assignment, maximum security

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

196

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models 10,022

Whether

Age (-), married (-), employed African

male

inmate

prior to arrest (-), physically

American,

inmates

reported

abused, incarcerated for drug

Hispanic, high

housed in

being

offense (-), prior incarceration, school diploma,

203 state

charged with

used drugs in month before

incarcerated for

institutions

an assault

arrest, sentence ≥ years, time

violent offense,

served, participated in

% with prior

program, participated in

incarcerations, %

in 1997

religious activities, number of with work hours at work assignment, %

assignment

African American, % Hispanic, % incarcerated for violent offense, % used drugs in month before arrest, % participated in program,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

maximum security Whether

Age (-), African American (-), Hispanic,

inmate

prior incarceration, used

married, high

reported

drugs in month before arrest,

school diploma,

being

sentence ≥ 5 years, time

employed prior to

charged with

served, participated in

arrest, physically

drug/alcohol

program, participated in

abused,

violation

religious program, number of

incarcerated for

hours at work assignment, %

violent offense,

African American, %

% with prior

Hispanic, % incarcerated for

incarceration, %

violent offense, % used drugs

with work

in month before arrest, %

assignment

participated in program, African American x % African American, African American x % incarcerated for violent offense

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

197

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether inmate reported being charged with other nonviolent violation

Significant Predictors

Age (-), married (-), employed prior to arrest (-), physically abused, prior incarceration, used drugs in month before arrest, sentence ൒ 5 years, time served, participated in program, % Hispanic (-), % incarcerated for violent offense, % with prior incarceration, % participated in programs, maximum security, age x % participated in programs (-), age x % with work assignment (-), age x maximum security (-), prior incarceration x % participated in program, prior incarceration x maximum security 1,054 inmates Whether inmate Mean log odds of assault housed in 30 reported assault (-), staff/inmate ratio, % prisons across on staff member non-white, age (-), time served squared, aggression in past 12 KY, OH, & months TN in 2001

Insignificant Predictors African American, Hispanic, high school diploma, incarcerated for violent offense, prior incarceration, participated in religious activities, number of hours at work assignment, % African American, % used drugs in month before arrest, % with work assignment

Non-white, violent offense, time served for prior violent offense, time served, sentence length, visits % non-white staff, Steiner 512 state Number of % African American, % (2009) prisons for reported Hispanic (-), % female staff % inmates in disciplinary men in the physical assaults (-), % maximum security inmates, % minimum confinement, % 1995 Census on other security inmates (-), staff- inmates in of State and inmates inmate ratio, % inmates protective custody, Federal Adult with work assignment, crowding, state Correctional state unemployment rate violent crime rate Facilities Lahm (2009)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

198

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models 512 state

Number of

% African American,

prisons for

reported

% Hispanic, % non-

men in the

physical

white staff (-),

2000 Census

assaults on

% female staff,

of State and

other inmates

% maximum security

Federal

inmates, staff-inmate

Adult

ratio (-), % inmates in

Correctional

disciplinary housing,

Facilities

% in protective

Crowding

custody, % with work assignment, state unemployment rate, state violent crime

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

rate Steiner &

2,209 female

Whether

Age (-), African

Not married

Wooldredge

inmates

inmate

American, Hispanic,

and

(2009a)

housed in 37

reported a

married and

cohabiting,

state

physical

cohabiting (-),

children,

facilities

assault on

incarcerated for

high school

across 26

staff or

violent offense,

diploma,

states in

another

incarcerated for drug

employed

1991

inmate since

offense (-), prior

prior to

incarceration

incarceration,

arrest, # of

sentence length (-),

programs

physically/ sexually

participated

abused, used drugs in

in, work

month before arrest,

assignment,

overnight mental

maximum

health program,

security

prescribed medication facility for mental illness, time served, crowding

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

199

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Age (-), prior

African American,

inmate

incarceration, used

Hispanic, married and

reported a

drugs in month

cohabiting, not

non-violent

before arrest,

married and

rule

overnight mental

cohabiting, children,

infraction

health program,

high school diploma,

since

prescribed

employed prior to

incarceration

medication for

arrest, incarcerated for

mental illness,

violent offense,

number of programs incarcerated for drug participated in, time offense, sentence served

length, physically/sexually abused, work assignment, crowding, maximum security

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

facility 2,274

Whether

Age (-), African

female

inmate

American, Hispanic, cohabiting, high

inmates

reported a

married and

school diploma,

housed in

physical

cohabiting (-),

employed prior to

44 state

assault on

children (-), prior

arrest, incarcerated for

facilities

staff or

incarceration,

violent offense,

across 24

another

physically/ sexually incarcerated for drug

states in

inmate since

abused, overnight

offense, sentence

1997

incarceration

mental health

length, number of

Not married and

program, prescribed programs participated medication for

in, work assignment

mental illness, time served, maximum security facility, crowding

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

200

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Age (-), Hispanic,

African American,

inmate

children (-), sentence

married and

reported a

length, physically/

cohabiting, not

non-violent

sexually abused,

married and

rule

overnight mental

cohabiting, high

infraction

health program,

school diploma,

since

prescribed medication

employed prior to

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

incarceration for mental illness,

arrest, incarcerated

number of programs

for violent offense,

participated in, work

incarcerated for

assignment, time

drug offense, prior

served, maximum

incarceration, used

security facility,

drugs in month

crowding (-)

before arrest

Steiner &

8,795

Whether

African American,

Married, employed

Wooldredge

male

inmate

Hispanic, age (-),

prior to arrest,

(2009b)

inmates

reported

overnight mental health

physically/sexually

housed in

being

program, incarcerated

abused, inmate

183

charged with for violent offense,

heterogeneity, staff

facilities

assault on

incarcerated for drug

heterogeneity, # of

across 39

inmate or

offense (-), number of

years facility in

states in

other staff

prior arrests, used drugs

operation

1991

since

in month before arrest, #

incarceration of hours at work assignment (-), time served, inmate x staff heterogeneity (-), % with work assignment (), maximum security facility, African American x maximum security facility (-), Hispanic x maximum security facility

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

201

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

African American (-), Hispanic, married,

inmate

age (-), # of prior

employed prior to

reported

arrests, used drugs in

arrest,

being

month before arrest,

physically/sexually

charged

time served, inmate

abused, overnight

with drug or

heterogeneity, % with mental health program,

alcohol

work assignment (-),

incarcerated for violent

violation

maximum security

offense, incarcerated

facility, African

for drug offense, # of

American x # of years hours at work facility in operation,

assignment, staff

African American x

heterogeneity, inmate x

maximum security

staff heterogeneity,

facility (-), Hispanic x # of years facility in maximum security

operation

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

facility (-) Whether

Hispanic (-), age (-),

African American,

inmate

married (-),

employed prior to

reported

physically/ sexually

arrest, overnight mental

being

abused, incarcerated

health program,

charged

for drug offense (-),

incarcerated for violent

with other

# of prior arrests, used offense, % with work

non-violent

drugs in month before assignment, # of years

violation

arrest, # of hours at

facility in operation

work assignment (-), time served, inmate heterogeneity (-), staff heterogeneity (-), inmate x staff heterogeneity (-), maximum security facility

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

202

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether 8,566 inmate male reported inmates housed in being charged 175 with assault facilities on inmate or across 36 other staff states in since 1997 incarceration

Significant Predictors

Hispanic, age (-), married (-), employed prior to arrest (-), physically/sexually abused, overnight mental health program, incarcerated for drug offense (-), # of prior arrests, used drugs in month before arrest, # hours at work assignment (-), time served, inmate x staff heterogeneity, % with work assignment (-), maximum security facility, African American x % with work assignment, African American x maximum security facility, Hispanic x maximum security facility African American (-), Whether age (-), overnight inmate mental health reported being charged program, # of prior arrests, used drugs in with drug or month before arrest, alcohol time served, inmate violation heterogeneity (-), staff since incarceration heterogeneity, maximum security facility

Insignificant Predictors African American, incarcerated for violent offense, inmate heterogeneity, staff heterogeneity, # of years facility in operation

Hispanic, married, employed prior to arrest, physically/sexually abused, incarcerated for violent offense, incarcerated for drug offense, # of hours at work assignment, inmate x staff heterogeneity, % with work assignment, # of years facility in operation

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

203

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Hispanic (-), age (-),

African

inmate

married (-), employed

American,

reported

prior to arrest (-),

incarcerated

being

physically/sexually

for violent

charged

abused, overnight

offense,

other non-

mental health

incarcerated

violent

program, # of prior

for drug

violation

arrests, used drugs in

offense, # of

since

month before arrest,

hours at work

incarceration

time served, inmate

assignment,

heterogeneity, staff

inmate x staff

heterogeneity,

heterogeneity,

maximum security

% with work

facility

assignment, # of years facility in

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

operation

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

204

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Wooldredge

7,640

Whether

Age (-), employed prior

African

& Steiner

male

inmate

to arrest (-), physically

American,

(2009)

inmates

reported

abused, incarcerated for

Hispanic,

housed in

being

drug offense (-), prior

incarcerated

191 state

charged with

incarceration, used

for violent

facilities

assault on

drugs in month before

offense,

in 1997

staff or

arrest, time served

participated

another

(logged), work

in program,

inmate since

assignment hours

years in

incarceration

(logged) (-), most

operation

inmates are maximum

(logged),

security, most inmates

average daily

are medium security,

population

% African American, average daily population/capacity (-), Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

design capacity, physically abused x average daily population (-), incarcerated for violent offense x average daily population (-), incarcerated for drug offense x average daily population (-), prior incarceration x design capacity (-), used drugs in month before arrest x average daily population (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

205

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models 7,640 male

Whether

Age (-), employed prior to

African

inmates

inmate

arrest (-), physically

American,

housed in

reported

abused, incarcerated for

Hispanic,

191 state

being charged

drug offense (-), prior

incarcerated

facilities in

with assault

incarceration, used drugs

for violent

1997

on staff or

in month before arrest,

offense,

another

time served (logged),

participated in

inmate since

work assignment hours

program, years

incarceration

(logged) (-), most

in operation

inmates are maximum

(logged),

security, most inmates are

average daily

medium security, %

population

African American, average daily population/capacity (-), design capacity, Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

physically abused x average daily population (-), incarcerated for violent offense x average daily population

(-),

incarcerated for drug offense x average daily population (-), prior incarceration x design capacity (-), used drugs in month before arrest x average daily population (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

206

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models 10,022

Whether

Age (-), employed prior

African

male

inmate

to arrest (-), physically

American,

inmates

reported

abused, incarcerated for

Hispanic,

housed in

being

drug offense (-), prior

incarcerated for

203 state

charged with

incarceration, used drugs

violent offense,

facilities

assault on

in month before arrest,

participated in

in 1997

staff or

time served (logged),

program, years in

another

work assignment hours

operation

inmate since

(logged) (-), most

(logged), average

incarceration

inmates are maximum

daily population

security, most inmates are medium security, % African American, design capacity, employed prior to arrest x design capacity (-), Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

incarcerated for drug offense x design capacity (-), prior incarceration x design capacity (-), work assignment hours (logged) x design capacity, physically abused x average daily population (-), incarcerated for drug offense x average daily population, used drugs in month before arrest x average daily population

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

207

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Variable

Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Worrall

71,203 male

Whether

Custody level,

Age, foreign citizen, body

&

inmates

inmate

prior

mass index, Black,

Morris

housed in

received

incarceration,

Hispanic, other race, gang

(2011)

TX prison

official

intelligence,

member, married, violent

system on

infraction for sentence

offender, staff to inmate

04/28/2008

contraband

length, percent

ratio, racial integration

time served

percent prior incarceration, percent gang, percent G5 custody level

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Whether

Custody level

Age, foreign citizen, prior

inmate

incarceration, body mass

received

index, Black, Hispanic,

official

other race, gang member,

infraction for

intelligence, married,

violence

violent offender, sentence

against

length, percent time served,

another

staff to inmate ratio, percent

inmate

prior incarceration, percent gang, percent G5 custody level

Whether

Custody level

Age, foreign citizen, prior

inmate

incarceration, body mass

received

index, Black, Hispanic,

official

other race, gang member,

infraction for

intelligence, married,

property

violent offender, sentence

offense

length, percent time served, staff to inmate ratio, percent prior incarceration, percent gang, percent G5 custody level

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

208

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Variable

Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Custody level, age (-) Foreign citizen, body mass

inmate received prior incarceration,

index, Hispanic, gang

official

Black, Other race,

member, intelligence,

infraction for

married (-),

violent offender, sentence

accountability

length, percent time served, staff to inmate ratio, percent prior incarceration, percent gang, percent G5 custody level

Whether

Custody level, age,

Foreign citizen, prior

inmate received (-), body mass index

incarceration, other race,

official

(-), Black, Hispanic,

confirmed gang, married,

infraction for

intelligence, percent

sentence length, violent

sexual

time served, racial

offender, staff to inmate

misconduct

integration (-)

ratio, percent prior incarceration, percent gang,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

percent G5 custody level Whether

Custody level, age,

Foreign citizen, body mass

inmate received prior incarceration,

index, Black, Hispanic,

official

confirmed gang (-),

intelligence, sentence

infraction for

married (-), percent

length, staff to inmate

violence

time served, percent

ratio, percent gang,

against staff

prior incarceration (-), percent G5 custody level racial integration (-)

Whether

Custody level, foreign Age, prior incarceration,

inmate received citizen, Hispanic (-), official

married (-),

body mass index, Black, other race, gang member,

infraction for

intelligence, violent

security

offender, sentence length,

misconduct

percent time served, staff to inmate ratio, percent prior incarceration, percent gang, custody level

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

209

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Custody level, Black

Age, foreign

inmate

(-), Hispanic (-),

citizen, prior

received

intelligence, sentence

incarceration,

official

length, percent time

body mass index,

infraction for

served, violent

other race,

drug

offender (-), racial

confirmed gang,

misconduct

integration (-)

married, staff to inmate ratio, percent with prior prison, percent gang, percent G5

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

custody level Whether

Custody level, foreign

Age, prior

inmate

citizen, body mass

incarceration,

received

index (-), Hispanic (-),

Black, other race,

official

percent time served,

confirmed gang

infraction for

percent prior

intelligence,

other

incarceration

married, sentence

misconduct

length, staff to inmate ratio, racial integration, percent prior incarceration, percent G5 custody level

Morris

4,465

The number

Age (-), education (-),

White, prior

et al.

inmates

of recorded

married, IQ (-),

incarceration,

(2012)

housed in

acts of

sentence length (-),

gang member,

facilities in

misconduct

deprivation

violent offense,

Southern

age of unit,

state

percent with

between

priors

2004-2006

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

210

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models 1,630

Age (-), white, prior

inmates

incarceration,

housed in

education (-), married,

facilities in

IQ (-), gang member,

Southern

sentence length (-),

state

violent offense, age of

between

unit, deprivation,

2004-2006

percent with priors

233

Married, sentence

Age, white, prior

inmates

length (-), deprivation

incarceration,

housed in

education, IQ,

facilities in

gang member,

Southern

violent offense,

state

age of unit,

between

percent with

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

2004-2006

priors

Wooldredge

3,150

Whether

Male, employed at

Age, high school

and Steiner

White non-

inmate

arrest, violent offense

degree or more,

(2012)

Latino

reported

(-), security level,

lived with

inmates

being

general population (-), #

children at arrest,

housed in

assaulted

hours in recreation (-),

incarcerated for

46 prisons

by another

# hours in education or

property crime,

across

inmate in 6

vocational training (-),

prior

Ohio and

months

# hours in job per

incarceration,

Kentucky

prior to

week, # of visits in

gang member,

survey

preceding month,

months served in

officer legitimacy (-),

facility, average

violent misconduct in

custody score,

last six months,

CO perception of

engaged in theft in last

enforcement of

six months, inmate

rules

population on day of survey

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

211

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Male (-), high

Age, employed at

inmate

school degree or

arrest, lived with

reported

more, gang

children at arrest,

being

member (-),

incarcerated for violent

victimized

# hours in

offense, incarcerated

by loss of

recreation, officer

for property offense,

personal

legitimacy (-),

prior incarceration,

property in

engaged in violent

security level, general

6 months

misconduct in last

population, # hours in

prior to

six months,

education or vocational

survey

months served in

training, # hours in job,

facility (-), inmate

# visits during

population on day

preceding month,

of survey

engaged in theft in last month, average custody score, CO perceptions

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

of enforcement of rules 2,403

Whether

Age at survey (-),

High school degree or

African

inmate

male (-), lived with

more, employed at

American

reported

children at arrest (-

arrest, prior

inmates

being

), incarcerated for

incarceration, general

housed in

assaulted

violent offense (-),

population, gang

46 prisons

by another

incarcerated for

member, # hours in

across

inmate in 6

property offense,

education or vocational

Ohio and

months

security level, #

training, # hours in job,

Kentucky

prior to

hours in recreation

# of visits in preceding

survey

(-), engaged in

month, officer

violent misconduct

legitimacy, theft in last

in last six months,

six months, average

months served in

custody score, inmate

facility

population on day of survey, CO perceptions of enforcement of rules

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

212

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Male (-),

Age, high school degree,

inmate

incarcerated

employed at arrest, lived

reported

for violent

with children at arrest,

being

offense (-),

prior incarceration,

victimized

incarcerated

security level, general

by loss of

for property

population, gang

personal

offense, inmate member, # hours in

property in 6

population on

recreation, # hours in

months prior

day of survey

education or vocational

to survey

training, # hours in job, # of visits last month, officer legitimacy, violence in past six months, theft last six months, months served in facility, average

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

custody score, CO perceptions of rule enforcement Worrall

2,000 male

Number of

Age (-),

Hispanic, prior

&

inmates

inmate-on-

education (-),

incarcerations,

Morris

randomly

inmate

Black (-),

married, drug offense,

(2012)

sampled from a assaults that

sentence length gang member, IQ, %

state prison

resulted in

(-), violent

with priors, average

system between injury

offense, gang

unit IQ, % gang

2004-2006

integration

members

2,169 male

Age (-), prior

Education, Black,

inmates

incarceration

Hispanic, married,

confirmed as

(-), sentence

violent offense, drug

gang members

length (-)

offense, IQ, % with

in a state prison

priors, average unit IQ,

system between

% gang members, gang

2004-2006

integration

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

213

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Meade & 12,044

Whether

Abuse as child, physical

Sexual assault by

Steiner

inmates

inmate self-

assault by nonstranger as

nonstranger as

(2013)

housed in

reported

adult, age (-), Black,

adult, female,

242

being written incarcerated for drug offense

Hispanic, other

facilities

up for

(-), incarcerated for property

race/ethnicity,

from 2004 assault

offense (-), prior

incarcerated for

Survey of

incarceration, used drugs in

public order

Inmates in

month before arrest,

offense

State

associated with antisocial

Facilities

peer group before arrest, conventional behaviors (-), children (-), time served,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

hours at work assignment (-) Whether

Abuse as a child, age (-),

Sexual assault by

inmate self-

prior incarceration, used

nonstranger as adult,

reported

drugs in month before arrest,

physical assault by

being written associated with antisocial

nonstranger as adult,

up for

female, Black,

peer group before arrest,

drug/alcohol time served, hours at work

Hispanic, other

misconduct

race/ethnicity,

assignment (-)

incarcerating offenses Whether

Abuse as a child, physical

Sexual assault by

inmate self-

assault by nonstranger as

nonstranger as

reported

adult, age (-), incarcerated for

adult, female,

being written drug offense (-), prior

Black, Hispanic,

up for other

incarceration, used drugs in

other race/ethnicity,

nonviolent

month before arrest,

incarcerated for

misconduct

associated with antisocial

property offense,

peer group before arrest,

incarcerated for

conventional behaviors (-),

public order offense

children (-), time served, hours at work assignment (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

214

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Steiner and

9,680 inmates Whether

Age (-), drug offense

African

Wooldredge

housed in 205 inmate was

(-), number of prior

American,

(2013)

facilities in

written up

arrests, used drugs

Latino, violent

the 1991

for any

month before arrest,

offense,

Survey of

misconduct

program

sentence

Inmates in

participation, time

length

State

served, maximum

Facilities

security, minimum security (-) Whether

Age (-), number of

African

inmate was

prior arrests, used

American,

written up

drugs month before

Latino, violent

for assault

arrest, time served,

offense, drug

on staff

maximum security,

offense,

minimum security (-)

program

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

participation Whether

Age (-), African

Latino, drug

inmate was

American, violent

offense,

written up

offense, sentence

program

for assault

length (-), number of

participation

on inmate

prior arrests, used drugs month before arrest, time served, maximum security, minimum security (-)

Whether

Age (-), African

Latino,

inmate was

American, violent

program

written up

offense, drug offense

participation

for any

(-), sentence length

assault

(-), number of prior arrests, time served, maximum security, minimum security (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

215

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Age (-), African American

Latino, violent

inmate was

(-), number of prior arrests,

offense, drug

written up for

used drugs month before

offense,

drug/alcohol

arrest, number of prior

sentence length,

misconduct

arrests, program

minimum

participation, time served,

security

maximum security Whether

Age (-), African American

Latino, violent

inmate was

(-), drug offense (-), used

offense,

written up for

drugs month before arrest,

sentence length,

property

number of prior arrests,

offense

program participation, time served, maximum security,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

minimum security (-) Whether

Age (-), used drugs month

African

inmate was

before arrest, number of

American,

written up for

prior arrests, time served,

Latino, violent

security

maximum security,

offense, drug

offense

minimum security (-)

offense,

Whether

Age (-), Latino (-), drug

African

inmate was

offense (-), number of prior

American,

written up for

arrests, used drugs in month

violent offense,

other offense

before arrest, program

sentence length

sentence length

participation, time served, maximum security, minimum security Whether

Age (-), drug offense (-),

African

inmate was

number of prior arrests, used

American,

written up for

drugs in month before arrest,

Latino, violent

any nonviolent program participation, time

offense,

offense

minimum

served, maximum security

security

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

216

Appendices

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent Variable

Significant Predictors

Insignificant Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models 9,663 inmates Whether

Age (-), Latino (-), number

African

housed in 203 inmate was

of prior arrests, used drugs

American,

facilities in

written up

in month before arrest,

violent offense,

the 1997

for any

program participation, time

drug offense,

Survey of

misconduct

served, maximum security,

sentence length

Inmates in

minimum security (-)

State Facilities Whether

Age (-), African American,

inmate was

drug offense (-), number of offense,

written up

prior arrests, used drugs in

program

for assault

month before arrest, time

participation

on staff

served, maximum security,

Latino, violent

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

minimum security (-) Whether

Age (-), drug offense (-),

African

inmate was

number of prior arrests, used

American,

written up

drugs in month before arrest,

Latino, violent

for assault

program participation, time

offense,

on inmate

served, maximum security,

sentence length

minimum security (-) Whether

Age (-), drug offense (-),

African

inmate was

number of prior arrests, used

American,

written up

drugs in month before arrest,

Latino, violent

for any

time served, maximum

offense,

assault

security, minimum security (-) sentence length, program participation

Whether

Age (-), African American (-), Latino, violent

inmate was

number of prior arrests, used

offense, drug

written up

drugs month before arrest,

offense,

for

program participation, time

sentence length

drug/alcohol

served, maximum security,

misconduct

minimum security (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

217

Appendix A: Models from Studies of Inmate Misconduct: 2000-2013 Study

Sample(s)

Dependent

Significant

Insignificant

Variable

Predictors

Predictors

Multi-Level: Hierarchical Models Whether

Age (-), African

Latino, violent

inmate was

American (-), number

offense, drug

written up for

of prior arrests, used

offense, sentence

property

drugs month before

length, program

misconduct

arrest, time served,

participation,

maximum security

minimum security

Whether

Age (-), drug offense

African American,

inmate was

(-), number of prior

Latino, violent

written up for

arrests, used drugs

offense, sentence

security

month before arrest,

length, program

misconduct

time served,

participation

maximum security,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

minimum security (-) Whether

Age (-), number of

African American,

inmate was

prior arrests, used

Latino, violent

written up for

drugs month before

offense, property

other

arrest, program

offense, sentence

misconduct

participation, time

length

served, maximum security, minimum security (-) Whether

Age (-), Latino (-),

African American,

inmate was

number of prior

violent offense,

written up for

arrests, used drugs

drug offense,

any

month before arrest,

sentence length

nonviolent

program participation,

misconduct

time served, maximum security, minimum security (-)

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

218

Appendices

Appendix B: Potential inmate-level predictors of misconduct Mean

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Demographic Age* Hispanic* Black* Other* Committing Offense Type Incarcerated for violent offense* Incarcerated for drug offense* Incarcerated for property offense* Incarcerated for public order offense* Criminal History On correctional supervision at arrest Prior arrests* Number of prior arrests* Prior probation* Prior incarceration* Number of prior incarcerations* Time Served and Sentence Length Time served (months) Natural log time served (months) Sentence length (months) Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Alcohol abuse* Alcohol dependence* Drug abuse* Drug dependence* Used drugs in month before arrest* Associated with antisocial peer group before arrest Conventional Activities < high school degree* GED* ≥ High school diploma* Some college* Married* Any work assignment Paid work assignment Hours worked at work assignment past week Program participation since incarceration *

SD

35.43 .18 .41 .11

10.73 .39 .49 .32

.54 .18 .20 .09

.50 .38 .40 .28

.42 .85 5.05 .68 .51 1.54

.49 .37 7.76 .47 .50 2.78

58.24 3.42 478.02

66.98 1.27 1143.59

.44 .22 .49 .31 .56 .59

.50 .41 .50 .46 .50 .49

.36 .31 .32 .13 .16 .65 .38 15.29 .56

.48 .46 .47 .34 .37 .48 .48 17.76 .50

Pre-incarceration variable considered for PSM analysis

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Appendices

219

Appendix C: Potential facility-level predictors of misconduct Security Level/Security of Population Maximum security

SD

.38

.49

Medium security

.51

.50

Minimum security

.10

.35

Prop. of inmates in maximum custody

.21

.29

Prop. of inmates in medium custody

.42

.36

Prop. of inmates in minimum custody

.30

.34

Prop. of population in disciplinary housing

.03

.08

Prop. of population receiving 24 hour mental care

.14

.05

Prop of population receiving mental treatment

.12

.18

Facility Population or Crowding Population

1836.73

1364.58

Rated capacity

1905.54

1484.75

Design capacity

1472.60

995.24

Average daily population (ADP)

1936.94

1422.37

Ratio of ADP to rated capacity

1.05

.23

Ratio of ADP to design capacity

1.32

.48

.13

.34

Under court order/consent decree for crowding Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Mean

Demographic Composition of Inmates and Staff Prop. of inmates that are black

.45

.19

Prop. of inmates that are Hispanic

.14

.15

Prop. of inmates in maximum custody

.21

.29

Prop. of inmates in medium custody

.42

.36

Prop. of inmates in minimum custody

.30

.34

Prop. of staff that is female

.32

.11

Prop. of corrections officers that are female

.23

.14

Prop. of corrections officers that are black

.21

.24

Prop. of corrections officers that are Hispanic

.09

.15

.33

.10

.21

.08

Ratio of Staff to Inmate Ratio of staff to inmates Ratio of corrections officers to inmates

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

220

Appendices

Appendix C: Potential facility-level predictors of misconduct (continued) Mean

SD

Offense Type Prop. incarcerated for violent offense*

.54

.20

Prop. incarcerated for drug offense*

.17

.11

Prop. incarcerated for property offense*

.20

.10

Prop. incarcerated for public order offense*

.09

.07

Sentence and Time Served Prop. of inmates sentenced to > 1 year

.96

.15

Average sentence length (months)*

473.66

443.03

Average time served (in months)*

58.96

29.21

.52

.13

.56

.10

35.51

3.96

Antisocial History Prop. with prior incarceration* Prop. used drugs in month before arrest*

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Conventional Activities Average age of inmate population* Prop. married*

.16

.07

Prop. with > high school diploma*

.32

.10

Prop. received income from job month before arrest*

.67

.10

Prop. of population with work assignment

.62

.31

14.28

5.58

.56

.19

Average hours worked in past week* Prop. participated in program* *

Variables aggregated from inmate-level data

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

Adamczyk, A., & Palmer, I. (2008). Religion and initiation into marijuana use: The deterring role of religious friends. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(3), 717-741. Adams, K. (1992). Adjusting to prison life. Crime and Justice, 16, 275359. Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64(1), 151-167. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundations for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87. Akers, R. L. (1992) Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth. Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 636-655. Albrecht, S. L., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance: application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16(3), 263-274. Andia, J. F., Deren, S., Robles, R. R., Kang, S.-Y., Colon, H. M., Oliver-Velez,D., et al. (2005). Factors associated with injection and noninjection drug use during incarceration among Puerto Rican drug injectors in New York and Puerto Rico. The Prison Journal, 85(3), 329-342. Bahr, S. J., & Hoffman, J. P. (2008). Religiosity, peers, and adolescent drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(3), 743-769. Bahr, S. J., Maughan, S. L., Marcos, A. C., & Li, B. (1998). Family,

221 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

222

References

religiosity, and the risk of adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4), 979-992. Baier, C. J., & Wright, B. R. E. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments": A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1), 3-21. Bainbridge, W. S. (1989). The religious ecology of deviance. American Sociological Review, 54(2), 288-295. Benda, B. B. (1995). The effects of religion on adolescent delinquency revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(4), 446-466. Benda, B. B. (1997). An examination of the reciprocal relationship between religiosity and different forms of delinquency within a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(2), 163-186. Benda, B. B. (2002). Religion and violent offenders in boot camp: A structural equation model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 91-121. Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (2001). Are the effects of religion on crime mediated, moderated, and misrepresented by inappropriate measures? Journal of Social Service Research, 27(3), 57-86. Benda, B. B., & Toombs, N. J. (2000). Religiosity and violence: Are they related after considering the strongest predictors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 483-496. Benda, B. B., & Toombs, N. J. (2002). Religiosity and drug use among inmates in boot camp: Testing a theoretical model with reciprocal relationships. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 161183. Bentham, J. (2009 [1823]). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Lexington, KY: Philosophers Stone. Berg, M. T., & DeLisi, M. (2006). The correctional melting pot: Race, ethnicity, citizenship, and prison violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 631-642. Berk, R. A. (2004). Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. Berk, R. A., Kriegler, B., & Baek, J.-H. (2006). Forecasting dangerous inmate misconduct: An application of ensemble statistical procedures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 131-145.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

223

Blackburn, A. G., Mullings, J. L., & Marquart, J. W. (2008). Sexual assault in prison and beyond: Toward an understanding of lifetime sexual assault among incarcerated women. The Prison Journal, 88(3), 351-377. Bottoms, A. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205-281. Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. M. (1991). Religion and drug use among adolescents: A social support conceptualization and interpretation. Deviant Behavior, 12(3), 259-276. Burkett, S. R., & Warren, B. O. (1987). Religiosity, peer associations, and adolescent marijuana use: A panel study of underlying causal structures. Criminology, 25(1), 109-131. Burkett, S. R., & White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency: Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13(4), 455-462. Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(2), 31-72. Camp, S. D., Daggett, D. M., Kwon, O. K., & Klein-Saffran, J. (2008). The effect of faith program participation on prison misconduct: The Life Connections Program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 389-395. Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Langan, N. P., & Saylor, W. G. (2003). The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 501-533. Camp, S. D., Klein-Saffran, J., Kwon, O. K., Daggett, D. M., & Joseph, V. (2006). An exploration into participation in a faith-based prison program. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(3), 529-550. Carr, W. A., Eggenberger, M., Crawford, L., & Rotter, M. (2012). Prediction of institutional misconduct among civil psychiatric patients: Evaluating the role of correctional adaptations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(5), 541-550. Carroll, L. (1974). Hacks, Blacks, and Cons. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Chadwick, B. A., & Top, B. L. (1993). Religiosity and delinquency among LDS adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32(1), 51-67.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

224

References

Chamberlain, A.W. (2012). Offender rehabilitation: Examining changes in inmate treatment characteristics, program participation, and institutional behavior. Justice Quarterly, 29(2), 183-228. City of Boerne v. Flores. (1997). 521 U.S. 507. Clear, T.R., Cole, G.F., & Reisig, M.D. (2006). American Corrections. 7th Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. Clear, T. R., Hardyman, P. L., Stout, B., Lucken, K., & Dammer, H. R. (2000). The value of religion in prison. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16(1), 53-74. Clear, T. R., & Myhre, M. (1995). A study of religion in prison. IARCA Journal, 6(6), 20-25. Clear, T. R., & Sumter, M. T. (2002). Prisoners, prison, and religion: Religion and adjustment to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 127-159. Clemmer, D. (1940). The Prison Community. New York, NY: Rinehart. Cochran, J. K. (1988). The effect of religiosity on secular and ascetic deviance. Sociological Focus, 21(4), 293-306. Cochran, J.K. (2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 433-440. Cochran, J. K., & Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire: An exploration of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(3), 198-225. Cochran, J. K., Wood, P. B., & Arneklev, B. J. (1994). Is the religiosity-delinquency relationship spurious? A test of arousal and social control theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(1), 92-123. Colvin, M. (1992). The Penitentiary in Crisis: From Accommodation to Riot in New Mexico. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cooper v. Pate (1964). 378 U.S. 546. Corwyn, R. F., & Benda, B. B. (2000). Religiosity and church attendance: The effects on use of "hard drugs" controlling for sociodemographic and theoretical factors. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(4), 241-258. Cretacci, M. A. (2003). Religion and social control: an application of a modified social bond on violence. Criminal Justice Review, 28(2), 254-277.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

225

Cruz v. Beto. (1972). 405 U.S. 319. Cullen, F.T., Fisher, B.S., & Applegate, B.K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime & Justice: A Review of Research, 27, 1-79. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cunningham, M. D., & Sorenson, J. R. (2006). Nothing to lose? A comparative examination of prison misconduct rates among lifewithout-parole and other long-term high-security inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(6), 683-705. Cunningham, M. D., & Sorenson, J. R. (2007). Predictive factors for violent misconduct in close custody. The Prison Journal, 87(2), 241-253. Cunningham, M. D., Sorenson, J. R., Vigen, M. P., & Woods, S. O. (2011). Correlates and actuarial models of assaultive prison misconduct among violence-predicted capital offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(1), 5-25. D'Agostino, R. B. (1998). Tutorial in biostatistics: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine 17, 22652281. Daggett, D. M., Camp, S. D., Kwon, O. K., Rosenmerkel, S. P., & Klein-Saffran, J. (2008). Faith-based correctional programming in federal prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(7), 848-862. Dammer, H.R. (2000). Religion in Corrections: Self-Instructional Course. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Dammer, H. R. (2002). The reasons for religious involvement in the correctional environment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 35-58. Day, J.M. & Laufer, W.S. (eds.). (1987). Crime, Values, and Religion. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Co. Dehejia, R.H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151-161. Dhami, M., Ayton, P., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Adaptation to imprisonment: Indigenous or imported? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1085-1100.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

226

References

DiIulio, J. (1987). Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management. New York, NY: Free Press. DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (2009). Godly Republic: A Centrist’s Blueprint for America’s Faith-Based Future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Dodson, K.D., Cabage, L.N., & Klenowski, P.M. (2011). An evidencebased assessment of faith-based programs: Do faith-based programs “work” to reduce recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,50, 367-383. Drury, A. J., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Gangkill: An exploratory empirical assessment of gang membership, homicide offending, and prison misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 130-146. Drury, A. J., & DeLisi, M. (2010). The past is prologue: Prior adjustment to prison and institutional misconduct. The Prison Journal, 90(3), 331-352. Durkheim, E. (1951 [1897]). Suicide. New York: The Free Press. Durkheim, E. (2001 [1915]). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Duwe, G., & Johnson, B.R. (2013). Estimating the benefits of a faithbased correctional program. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2, 227-239 Duwe, G., & King, M. (2013). Can faith-based correctional programs work? An outcome evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Minnesota. International Journal for Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(7), 813-841. Ebaugh, H.R. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of Religion and Social Institutions. New York, NY:Springer. Elifson, K. W., Peterson, D. M., & Hadaway, C. K. (1983). Religiosity and delinquency: A contextual analysis. Criminology, 21(4), 505527. Ellison, C. G., Bradshaw, M., Rote, S., Storch, J., & Trevino, M. (2008). Religion and alcohol use among college students: Exploring the role of domain-specific religious salience. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(3), 821-846. Ellison, C. G., & George, L. K. (1994). Religious involvement, social ties, and social support in a Southeastern community. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(1), 46-61.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

227

Ellison, C. G., Trinitapoli, J. A., Anderson, K. L., & Johnson, B. R. (2007). Race/ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13(11), 1094-1112. Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Jr., Dunaway, R. G., Payne, G. L., & Kethineni, S. R. (1995a). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43-70. Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Dunaway, R. G., & Burton, V. S., Jr. (1995b). Religion and crime reexamined: The impact of religion, secular controls, and social ecology on adult criminality. Criminology, 33(2), 195-224. Felson, R.B., Cundiff, P., & Painter-Davis, N. Age and sexual assault in correctional facilities: A blocked opportunity approach. Criminology, 50(4), 887-911. Fernander, A., Wilson, D., Staton, M., & Leukefeld, C. (2005). Exploring the type-of-crime hypothesis, religiosity, and spirituality in an adult male prison population. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(6), 682-695. Fernquist, R. M. (1995). A research note on the association between religion and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 16(2), 169-175. Fields, R. R. W. (2005). Perks for prisoners who pray: Using the coercion test to decide Establishment Clause challenges to faithbased prison units. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 541(541567). Free, M. D., Jr. (1994). Religiosity, religious conservatism, bonds to school, and juvenile delinquency among three categories of drug users. Deviant Behavior, 15(2), 151-170. Gaes, G. G., Wallace, S., Gilman, E., Klein-Saffran, J., & Suppa, S. (2002). The influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct. The Prison Journal, 82(3), 359-385. Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gendrea, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414-431. Gibbs, J.P. (1977). Social control, deterrence, and perspectives on social order. Social Forces, 56(2), 408-423. Gillespie, W. (2005). A multilevel model of drug abuse inside prison. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 223-246.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

228

References

Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990-1064. Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., Schroeder, R. D., & Seffrin, P. M. (2008). A life-course perspective on spirituality and desistance from crime. Criminology, 46(1), 99-132. Goffman, I. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City: Doubleday & Co. Goodstein, L., MacKenzie, D., & Shotland, R. (1984). Personal control and inmate adjustment to prison. Criminology, 22, 343-369. Goodstein, L., & Wright, K. (1989). Inmate adjustment to prison. In L. Goodstein & D. MacKenzie (Eds.), The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy (pp. 229-252). New York: Plenum Press. Gover, A. R., Perez, D. M., & Jennings, W. G. (2008). Gender differences in factors contributing to institutional misconduct. The Prison Journal, 88(3), 378-403. Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayers' inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 251-266. Greeley, A. M., & Hout, M. (1999). Americans' increasing belief in life after death: Religious competition and acculturation. American Sociological Review, 64(6), 813-835. Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 419-448. Griffin, M.L., & Hepburn, J.R. (2013). Inmate misconduct and the institutional capacity for control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(3), 270-288. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hadaway, C. K., Elifson, K. W., & Peterson, D. M. (1984). Religious involvement and drug use among urban adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23(2), 109-128. Hanushek, E.A. & Jackson, J.E. (1977). Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

229

Harer, M. D., & Langan, N. P. (2001). Gender differences in predictors of prison violence: Assessing the predictive validity of a risk classification system. Crime & Delinquency, 47(4), 513-536. Harer, M., & Steffensmeier. (1996). Race and prison violence. Criminology, 34, 323-355. Harris, M. A. (2003). Religiosity and perceived future ascetic deviance and delinquency among Mormon adolescents: Testing the "ThisWorldly" supernatural sanctions thesis. Sociological Inquiry, 73(1), 28-51. Hercik, J. M. (2005). Rediscovering Compassion: An Evaluation of Kairos Horizon Communities in Prison. Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates. Hewitt, J.D., Poole, E.D., & Regoli, R.M. (1984). Self-reported and observed rule-breaking in prison: A look at disciplinary response. Justice Quarterly, 1, 437-447. Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55(4), 952-958. Hill, T. D., Burdette, A. M., Weiss, M. L., & Chitwood, D. D. (2009). Religious involvment and adolescent substance use. In C. G. Leukefeld, T. P. Gullota & M. Staton-Tindall (Eds.), Adolescent Substance Abuse: Evidence-Based Approaches to Prevention and Treatment (pp. 171-189). New York, NY: Springer. Hill, T. D., & McCullough, M. E. (2008). Religious Involvment and the intoxication trajectories of low income urban women. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(3), 847-862. Hindelang, M.J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J.G. (1979). Correlates of delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. American Sociological Review, 44, 995-1014. Hirschi, T. (2002 [1969]). Causes of Delinquency. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hirschi, T., & Stark, R. (1969). Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems, 17(2), 202-213. Hochstetler, A., & DeLisi, M. (2005). Importation, deprivation, and varieties of serving time: An integrated-lifestyle-exposure model of prison offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 257-266.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

230

References

Hoffman, J. P., & Bahr, S. J. (2005). Crime/Deviance. In H. R. Ebaugh (Ed.), Handbook of Religion and Social Institutions (pp. 241-263). New York: Springer. Houser, K.A., Belenko, S., & Brennan, P.K. (2012). The effects of mental health and substance abuse disorders on institutional misconduct among female inmates. Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 799828. Huebner, B. M. (2003). Administrative determinants of inmate violence: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117. Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in Turmoil. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company. Irwin, J. (2007). The Warehouse Prison: Disposal of the New Dangerous Class. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press. Irwin, J., & Austin, J. (2001). It's About Time: America's Imprisonment Binge. 3rd Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. (1962). Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 142-155. Jacobs, J. (1980). The prisoners' rights movement and its impact, 19601980. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of the Research. (Vol. 2, pp. 429-470). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jang, S.J., & Franzen, A.B. (2013). Is being “spiritual” enough without being religious? A study of violent and property crime among emerging adults. Criminology, 51(3), 595-627. Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2001). Neighborhood disorder, individual religiosity, and adolescent use of illicit drugs: A test of multilevel hypotheses. Criminology, 39(1), 109-144. Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2003). Strain, negative emotions, and deviant coping among African Americans: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(1), 79-105. Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2005). Gender, religiosity, and reactions to strain among African Americans. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 325-357. Jiang, S. (2005). Impact of drug use on inmate misconduct: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 153-163.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

231

Jiang, S., & Fisher-Giorlando, M. (2002). Inmate misconduct: A test of the deprivation, importation, and situational models. The Prison Journal, 82(3), 335-358. Jiang, S., & Winfree Jr., L. T. (2006). Social support, gender, and inmate adjustment to prison life: Insights from a national sample. The Prison Journal, 89(1), 32-55. Johnson, B. R. (1987). Religiosity and institutional deviance. Criminal Justice Review, 12, 21-30. Johnson, B. R. (2002). Assessing the impact of religious programs and prison industry on recidivism: An exploratory study. Texas Journal of Corrections, 28(1), 7-11. Johnson, B. R. (2004). Religious programs and recidivism among former inmates in prison fellowship programs: A long-term followup study. Justice Quarterly, 21(2), 329-354. Johnson, B. R. (2008). The faith factor and prisoner reentry. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 4, 1-21. Johnson, B. R. (2011). More God, Less Crime. West Conshoshocken, PA: Templeton Press. Johnson, B. R., De Li, S., Larson, D. B., & McCullough, M. (2000a). A systematic review of the religiosity and delinquency literature. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16(1), 32-52. Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., De Li, S., & Larson, D. B. (2000b). The "invisible institution" and black youth crime: The church as an agency of local social control. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(4), 479-498. Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent religious commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1), 22-44. Johnson, B. R., & Larson, D. (1997). Linking religion to the mental and physical health of inmates: A literature review and research note. American Jails, 11(4), 28-36. Johnson, B. R., & Larson, D. (2003). The InnerChange Freedom Initiative: A Preliminary Evaluation of a Faith-Based Prison Program. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

232

References

Johnson, B. R., Larson, D., & Pitts, T. C. (1997). Religious programs, institutional adjustment, and recidivism among former inmates in Prison Fellowship programs. Justice Quarterly, 14(1), 145-166. Johnson, M. C., & Morris, R. G. (2008). The moderating effects of religiosity on the relationship between stressful life events and delinquent behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 486-493. Johnson, R. (2002). Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Johnston, N. (2009). Evolving function: Early use of imprisonment as punishment. The Prison Journal, 89(1), 10-34. Kerley, K. R., Allison, M. C., & Graham, R. D. (2006). Investigating the impact of religiosity on emotional and behavioral coping in prison. Journal of Crime and Justice, 29(2), 69-93. Kerley, K. R., & Copes, H. (2009). "Keppin' my mind right": Identity maintenance and social support in the prison context. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(2), 228-244. Kerley, K. R., Copes, H., Tewksbury, R., & Dabney, D. A. (2011). Examining the relationship between religiosity and self-control as predictors of prison deviance. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(8), 1251-1271. Kerley, K. R., Matthews, T. L., & Blanchard, T. C. (2005). Religiosity, religious participation, and negative prison behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(4), 443-457. Klanjsekf, R., Vazsonyi, A.T., & Trejos-Castillo, E. (2012). Religious orientation, low self-control, and deviance: Muslims, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and “Bible Belt” Christians. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 671-682. Knudten, R. D. (1977). The religion of the Indiana Baptist prison. Review of Religious Research, 19(1), 16-42. Knudten, R. D., & Knudten, M. S. (1971). Juvenile delinquency, crime, and religion.Review of Religious Research, 12(3), 130-152. Koenig, H. G. (1995). Religion and older men in prison. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 219-230. Komorovskaya, I., Loper, A. B., & Warren, J. (2007). The role of impulsivity in antisocial and violent behavior and personality disorders among incarcerated women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11), 1499-1515.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

233

Kornhauser, R.R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kuanliang, A., Sorenson, J. R., & Cunningham, M. D. (2008). Juvenile inmates in an adult prison system: Rates of disciplinary misconduct and violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1186-1201. Lahm, K. F. (2008). Inmate-on-inmate assault: A multilevel examination of prison violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1), 120-137. Lahm, K. F. (2009). Inmate assaults on prison staff: A multilevel examination of an overlooked form of prison violence. The Prison Journal, 89(2), 131-150. Larson, D. B., & Johnson, B. R. (1998). Religion: The Forgotten Factor in Cutting Youth Crime and Saving At-Risk Urban Youth. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute. LaVigne, N. G., Brazzell, D., & Small, K. (2007). Evaluation of Florida's Faith- and Character-Based Institutions. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. Lee, S. J., & Edens, J. F. (2005). Exploring predictors of institutional misbehavior among male Korean inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(4), 412-432. Liegey, M.E., & Hodge, J.P. (2013). And then they behaved: Examining the institutional misconduct of adult inmates who were incarcerated as juveniles. The Prison Journal, 93(3), 272-290. Light, S.C. (1990). Measurement error in official statistics: Prison rule infraction data. Federal Probation, 54, 63-68. Litchfield, A. W., Thomas, D. L., & Li, B. D. (1997). Dimensions of religiosity as mediators of the relations between parenting and adolescent deviant behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 199-226. Longest, K. C., & Vaisey, S. (2008). Control or conviction: Religion and adolescent initiation of marijuana use. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(3), 689-715. MacKenzie, D., Goodstein, L., & Blouin, D. (1987). Personal control and prisoner adjustment: An empirical test of a proposed model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 49-68.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

234

References

Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54. Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Maruna, S., Wilson, L., & Curran, K. (2006). Why God is often found behind bars: Prison conversions and the crisis of self-narrative. Research in Human Development, 3(2/3), 161-184. McIntosh, W. A., Wilson, J. B., & Nyberg, K. L. (1981). The effect of mainstream religious social controls on adolescent drug use in rural areas. Review of Religious Research, 23(1), 54-75. Meade, B., & Steiner, B. (2013). The effects of exposure to violence on inmate maladjustment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(11), 1228-1249. Mears, D. P. (2007). Faith-based reentry programs: Cause for concern or showing promise? Corrections Today, 69(2), 30-33. Mears, D. P., Roman, C. G., Wolff, A., & Buck, J. (2006). Faith-based efforts to improve prison reentry: Assessing the logic and evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 351-367. Middleton, R., & Putney, S. (1962). Religion, normative standards, and behavior. Sociometry, 25(2), 141-152. Miller, J.M., Schrek, C.J., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Criminological Theory: A Brief Introduction, 2nd Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson. Morash, M., Jeong, S., Bohmer, M.N., & Bush, D.R. (2012). Men’s vulnerability to prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence: A state correctional system case study. The Prison Journal, 92(2), 290311. Morash, M., Jeong, S. J., & Zang, Z. L. (2010). An exploratory study of the characteristics of men known to commit prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence. The Prison Journal, 90(2), 161-178. Morris, R.G., Carriage, M.L., Diamond, B., Piquero, N.L., & Piquero, A. (2012). Does prison strain lead to prison misbehavior? An application of general strain theory to inmate misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 194-201. Morris, R. G., Longmire, D. R., Buffington-Vollum, J., & Vollum, S. (2010). Institutional misconduct and differential parole eligibility among capital inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(4), 417438.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

235

National Institute of Corrections. (2005). Residential Faith-Based Programs in State Corrections, Special Issues in Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Information Center. Oakes, J.M., & Johnson, P.J. (2006). Propensity score matching for social epidemiology. Oakes, J.M., & Kaufman, J.S. (Eds.). Methods in Social Epidemiology (pp 364-386). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley. O'Connor, T. (2002). Introduction: Religion-offenders-rehabilitation: questioning the relationship. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 1-9. O'Connor, T. (2004a). What works, religions as a correctional intervention: Part I. Journal of Community Corrections, 14(1), 1127. O'Connor, T. (2004b). What works, religions as a correctional intervention: Part II. Journal of Community Corrections, 14(2), 426. O'Connor, T., & Perryclear, M. (2002). Prison religion in action and its influences on offender rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 11-33. Olson, J. K. (1990). Crime and religion: A denominational analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(3), 395-403.Pass, M. G. (1999). Religious orientation and self-reported rule violations in a maximum security prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(3/4), 119-134. Peek, C. W., Chalfant, H. P., & Milton, E. V. (1979). Sinners in the hands of an angry God: Fundamentalist fears about drunken driving. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18(1), 29-39. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2009). Church-State Concerns Persist: Faith-Based Programs Still Popular, Less Visible. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center for the People & The Press. Pisciotta, A.W. (1994). Benevolent Repression: Social Control and the American Reformatory-Prison Movement. New York, NY: New York University Press. Putnam, R.D., & Campbell, D.E. (2010). American Grace. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

236

References

Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Regnerus, M. (2003a). Linked lives, faith, and behavior: Intergenerational religious influence on adolescent delinquency. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2), 189-203. Regnerus, M. (2003b). Moral communities and adolescent delinquency: religious contexts and community social control. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(4), 523-554. Regnerus, M., & Smith, C. (2005). Selection effects in studies of religious influence. Review of Religious Research, 47(1), 23-50. Regnerus, M., Smith, C., & Fritsch, M. (2003). Religion in the Lives of American Adolescents: A Review of the Literature. Chapel Hill, NC: National Study of Youth and Religion. Reidy, T. J., Cunningham, M. D., & Sorenson, J. R. (2001). From death to life: Prison behavior of former death row inmates in Indiana. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(1), 62-82. Reisig, M. (1998). Rates of disorder in higher custody state prisons: a comparative analysis of managerial practices. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 229-244. Reisig, M. D. (2002). Administrative control and inmate homicide. Homicide Studies, 6(1), 84-103. Reisig, M.D., Wolfe, S.E., & Pratt, T.C. (2012). Low self-control and the religiosity-crime relationship. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1172-1191. Rosenbaum, P.R., & Rubin, D.B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician 39, 33-38. Ross, L. E. (1994). Religion and deviance: Exploring the impact of social control elements. Sociological Spectrum, 14(1), 65-86. Rothman, D. (1980). Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and its Alternatives in Progressive America. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores:Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52,249264.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

237

Salas-Wright, C.P., Olate, R., & Vaughn, M.G. (2013). The protective effects of religious coping and spirituality on delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(9), 988-1008. Salas-Wright, C.P., Vaughn, M.G., Hodge, D.R., & Perron, B.E.(2012). Religiosity profiles of American youth in relation to substance use, violence, and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1560-1575. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sandler, J.C., Freeman, N.J., Farrell, P., & Seto, M.C. (2013). Predicting institutional sexual misconduct by adult male sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(10), 1131-1148. Santos, S.D., & Lane, J. (2014). Expanding Clear et al.’s value of religion ideas: Former inmates’ perspectives. Deviant Behavior, 35(2), 116-132. Schreck, C. J., Burek, M. W., & Clark-Miller, J. (2007). He sends rain upon the wicked: A panel study of the influence of religiosity on violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal violence, 22(7), 872-893. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T.. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Simon, J. (2007). Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2004). Identifying the mechanisms whereby family religiosity influences the probability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35(4), 547-563. Sinha, J. W. (2007). Youth at risk for truancy detour into a faith-based education program: Their perceptions of the program and its impact. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(2), 246-257. Sloane, D. M., & Potvin, R. H. (1986). Religion and delinquency: Cutting through the maze. Social Forces, 65(1), 87-105. Smith, C. (2003). Theorizing religious effects among American adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 1730.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

238

References

Smith, T., Marsden, P., Hout, M., & Kim, J. (2011). General Social Survey, 2010. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. Sorensen, J.R. & Cunningham, M.D. (2007). Operationalizing risk: The influence of measurement choice on the prevalence and correlates of prison violence among incarcerated murderers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 546-555. Sorenson, J. R., & Cunningham, M. D. (2010). Conviction offense and prison violence: A comparative study of murderers and other offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 56(1), 103-125. Sorenson, J. R., Cunningham, M. D., Vigen, M. P., & Woods, S. O. (2011). Serious assaults on prison staff: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 143-150. Sorenson, J. R., & Davis, J. (2011). Violent criminals locked up: Examining the effect of incarceration on behavioral continuity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 151-158. Sorenson, J. R., & Pilgrim, R. L. (2000). An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Criminal Law and Criminology, 90(4), 1251-1270. Stark, R. (1984). Religion and conformity: Reaffirming a sociology of religion. Sociological Analysis, 45(4), 273-282. Stark, R. (1987a). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 25(4), 893-909. Stark, R. (1987b). Religion and Deviance: A New Look. In J. M. Day & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Crime, Values, and Religion (pp. 111-120). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corp. Stark, R. (1996). Religion as context: Hellfire and delinquency one more time. Sociology of Religion, 57(2), 163-173. Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1997). Religion, Deviance, and Social Control. New York, NY: Routledge. Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. (1968). American Piety. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Stark, R., Kent, L., & Doyle, D. P. (1982). Religion and delinquency: The ecology of a "lost" relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19, 4-24. Steiner, B. (2009). Assessing static and dynamic influences on inmate violence levels. Crime & Delinquency, 55(1), 134-161.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

239

Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Inmate versus environmental effects on prison rule violation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 438-456. Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2009a). Individual and environmental effects on assaults and nonviolent rule breaking by women in prison. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 437467. Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2009b). The relevance of inmate race/ethnicity versus population composition for understanding prison rule violations. Punishment and Society, 11(4), 459-489. Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2013). Implications of different outcome measures for an understanding of inmate misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 59(8), 1234-1262. Stohr, M.K., & Walsh, A. (2012). Corrections: The Essentials. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stroope, S. (2011). How culture shapes community: Bible belief, theological unity, and a sense of belonging in religious congregations. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 568-592. Sturgis, P. W. (2010). Faith behind bars: An explicit test of the moral community hypothesis in the correctional environment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(5), 342-362. Stylianou, S. (2004). The role of religiosity in the opposition to drug use. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(4), 429-448. Sundt, J. L., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). The role of contemporary prison chaplain. The Prison Journal, 78(3), 271-299. Sundt, J. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). The correctional ideology of prison chaplains: A national survey. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 369385. Sundt, J. L., Dammer, H. R., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). The role of the prison chaplain in rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35(3/4), 59-86. Sutherland, E.H., & Cressey, D.R. (1978). Criminology, 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

240

References

Thomas, C. (1977). Theoretical perspectives on prisonization: A comparison of the importation and deprivation models. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68, 135-145. Tittle, C. R., & Welch, M. R. (1983). Religiosity and deviance: Toward a contingency theory of constraining effects. Social Forces, 61(3), 653-682. Toch, H. (1977). Living in Prison. New York, NY: Free Press. Toch, H., Adams, K., & Grant, D. (1989). Coping: Maladaptation in Prisons. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Ulmer, J.T., Desmond, S.A., Jang, S.J., & Johnson, B.R. (2012). Religious involvement and the dynamics of marijuana use: Initiation, persistence, and desistence. Deviant Behavior, 33, 448-468. Useem, B., & Kimball, P. (1989). States of Siege: U.S. Prison Riots, 1971-1986. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Useem, B., & Reisig, M. (1999). Collective action in prisons: Protests, disturbances, and riots. Criminology, 37(4), 735-759. Van Voorhis, P. (1994). Measuring prison disciplinary problems: A multiple indicators approach to understanding prison adjustment. Justice Quarterly, 11(4), 679-709. Van Voorhis, P. (2005). An overview of classification systems. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional Counseling and Rehabilitation (7th ed., pp. 133-160). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Voas, D. (2007). Does religion belong in population studies? Environment and Planning, 39, 1166-1180. Wallace, J. M., Jr., Yamaguchi, R., Bachman, J. G., O'Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E., & Johnston, L. D. (2007). Religiosity and adolescent substance use: the role of individual and contextual influences. Social Problems, 54(2), 308-327. Walters, G.D., & Crawford, G. (2013). In and out of prison: Do importation factors predict all forms of misconduct or just the more serious ones? Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 407-413. Welch, M. (2004). Corrections: A Critical Approach. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Welch, M. R., Tittle, C. R., & Petee, T. (1991). Religion and deviance among adult Catholics: A test of the "moral communities"

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

References

241

hypothesis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(2), 159172. Wheeler, S. (1961). Socialization in correctional communities. American Sociological Review, 26, 697-712. Wolff, N., Shi, J., Blitz, C.L., Siegel, J. (2007). Understanding sexual victimization inside prisons: Factors that predict risk. Criminology and Public Policy, 6(3), 535-564 Wood, S.R. (2012). Dual severe mental and substance use disorders as predictors of federal inmate assaults. The Prison Journal, 93(1), 34-56. Wood, S.R., & Buttaro, A.B., Jr. (2013). Co-occurring severe mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders as predictors of state prison inmate assaults. Crime & Delinquency, 59(4), 510-535. Wooldredge, J. (1998). Inmate lifestyles and opportunities for victimization. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 35, 480-502. Wooldredge, J., Griffin, T., & Pratt, T. (2001). Considering hierarchical models for research on inmate behavior: Predicting misconduct with multilevel data. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 203-231. Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2012). Race group differences in prison victimization experiences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 358369. Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2009). Comparing methods for examining relationships between prison crowding and inmate violence. Justice Quarterly, 26(4), 795-826. Wooldredge, J. D. (1991). Correlates of deviant behavior among inmates of U.S. correctional facilities. Journal of Crime & Justice, 14(1), 1-25. Worrall, J. L., & Morris, R. G. (2011). Inmate custody levels and prison rule violations. The Prison Journal, 91(2), 131-157. Worrall, J.L., & Morris, R.G. (2012). Prison gang integration and inmate violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 425-432. Wright, K. (1985). Developing the prison environment inventory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(3), 257-277. Wright, K. (1993). Prison environment and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20, 93-113.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

242

References

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Yanovitzky, I., Zanuto, E.,& Hornik, R.. (2005). Estimating causal effects of public health education campaigns using propensity score methodology. Evaluation and Program Planning 28, 209220. Young, M. C., Gartner, J., O'Connor, T., Larson, D., & Wright, K. (1995). Long-term recidivism among federal inmates trained as volunteer prison ministers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(1/2), 97-118. Zanutto, E., Lu, B., & Hornik, R. (2005). Using propensity score subclassification for multiple treatment doses to evaluate a national antidrug media campaign. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30, 59-73. Zhao, Z. (2008). Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications. Economics Letters, 98, 309-319.

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

Index

G

A

General strain theory, 21

Administrative control theory, 50, 101

H

Age-graded theory of social control, 24, 71

Hellfire hypothesis, 15 I

Anti-ascetic hypothesis, 33, 83, 91, 98, 136

Importation theory, 40, 45, 47, 101

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

C

Inmate balance theory, 48

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 94, 95

L Life course theories, 24, 28, 70

Clemmer, 41

M D

Management theories, 40, 51, 58

Deprivation theory, 40, 42, 45, 101

Moral communities, 7, 8, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 64, 76, 81, 82, 90, 109, 111, 113, 119, 129, 131, 142, 143, 144, 154

Desistance, 24, 70 Durkheim, 14 F

Multi-level modeling, 35, 59, 109

Faith-based prisons, 8, 69, 87

243 Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,

244

Index O

Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 2, 69 P Pains of imprisonment, 42, 45, 46, 61, 101 Prison Fellowship, 3, 84, 85, 151 Prisonization, 42 Propensity score matching, 5, 88, 89, 94, 105, 117, 133, 153 R

definition of, 70 measurement of, 138 organic, 84 prevalence in Prison, 70 programmatic, 84 S Selection bias, 5, 81, 88 Social bond theory, 16 Social learning theory, 19 Spiritual transformations, 24, 28, 71, 152 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 80, 82, 94, 96 Sykes, 42

Copyright © 2014. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Religion

Moral Communities and Jailhouse Religion : Religiosity and Prison Misconduct, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC,