The Impact of Security Placement on Female Offenders’ Institutional Behavior

Abstract

It has been argued that institutional misconduct is promulgated by the correctional environments associated with different security levels. In this article, the authors summarize the results of a study examining whether such an association was present among Canadian federally sentenced female offenders. A total of 964 security reviews of federally sentenced women were analyzed to determine the independent effects of assessed risk (on the basis of individual-level factors) and security placement on institutional behavior. The analyses revealed that institutional behavior was related to assessed risk, after controlling for the effect of security placement. No relationship between security placement and misbehavior remained after controlling for assessed risk. Together, these findings suggest that although individual-level variables influence behavior, security placement does not.

Keywords

female offenders institutional misconduct security classification correctional environment criminogenic effect of prison

Given critiques regarding the use of “gender-neutral” security classification instruments with women (e.g., Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001) and the “gendered” nature of the concept of risk (e.g., Hannah-Moffat, 2004), some authors have argued that the current array of risk assessment tools, including those used to determine institutional placement, should not be used with women (e.g., Bloom, 2000; Hannah-Moffat, 1999). However, most jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand, England and Wales, and the U.S. and Canadian federal correctional systems, have taken the position that the existence of a small number of female offenders whose risk for violent behavior is elevated necessitates that institutions of varying levels of security be available for this population.

Not surprisingly, women classified to higher levels of security have correspondingly higher rates of involvement in institutional misconducts (Blanchette, Verbrugge, & Wichmann, 2002; Collie & Polaschek, 2003; Harer & Langan, 2001). It is unclear, however, if this concordance reflects individual-level differences in propensity toward misbehavior, differences attributable to the influence of the environments at different levels of security, or some combination of the two. Although it makes intuitive sense that women assessed as higher risk would be more likely to engage in misbehavior as a result of an established pattern of impulsive or aggressive behavior, some researchers have expressed concern that the correctional environment can in and of itself exert a criminogenic effect (e.g., Harer & Langan, 2001). For instance, one Canadian advocacy group for female offenders has argued that placement at maximum security “may result in some women rising to meet the label of maximum security prisoner by feeling that they have to live up to their image” (Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, 1998). Although previous researchers have demonstrated that this is not the case for male offenders (Baird, 1993; Camp & Gaes, 2005; Luciani, Motiuk, & Nafekh, 1996), no equivalent research has been conducted with women. In the present study, therefore, we sought to examine the possible effects of the correctional environments at different levels of security on female offenders’ institutional behavior.

Theoretical Context

The hypotheses that institutional misbehavior is due to individual-level differences and to the influence of the prison environment are encapsulated in importation theory and deprivation theory, respectively. Proponents of deprivation theory suggest that poor institutional behavior stems directly from the deprivation or losses associated with incarceration (i.e., the “pains of imprisonment”; Sykes, 1958). According to this theory, difficulties in adapting to characteristics of the incarceration experience, including crowding, guard-to-inmate ratio, and security level (i.e., institutional-level variables) are what prompt misbehavior. Deprivation theorists argue that such socialization difficulties affect all offenders, regardless of their individual-level characteristics. In other words, an institutional organization that is particularly depriving may encourage institutional misbehavior from offenders with very diverse attitudes, values, and histories.

Importation theory was developed in response to deprivation theory and maintains precisely the reverse. Proponents of importation theory argue that individual-level traits such as attitudes, values, and previous life history are those that will ultimately influence behavior in prison (Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Individuals likely to engage in impulsive, violent, or rule-breaking behavior in the community will use this repertoire of behaviors in the prison context also. More specifically, importation theory suggests that characteristics of the prison environment do not in and of themselves promote specific institutional behaviors; instead, they simply prompt the use of preestablished behavioral patterns.

Notably, the above theories were developed on the basis of male offenders. Very little research has focused on their applicability with women or on the development of gender-informed variations of these theories. The limited extant research specific to women, however, provides more support for importation theory than for deprivation theory. Incarcerated women have been found to establish lives in prison that reflect components of those they had prior to incarceration, especially with regard to the reproduction of intimate and family-like relationships (Giallombardo, 1966; Heffernan, 1972; Larsen & Nelson, 1984; Owen, 1998).

Institutional Behavior

To date, most research on institutional behavior has focused on individual-level variables. Robust relationships have been identified between institutional misconduct and both criminal history (Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997; Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Wright, 1991) and age (Gendreau et al., 1997; Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Huebner, 2003; Lahm, 2008; Wooldredge, 1991), while somewhat less conclusive findings have been found for the relationship between institutional behavior and ethnicity (Fernandez & Neiman, 1998; Gendreau et al., 1997). Recently, however, it has been demonstrated that these individual-level variables alone are not sufficient to explain institutional behavior. In multilevel studies that included both individual- and institutional-level variables, Lahm (2008) and Steiner and Wooldredge (2008) found that after accounting for the effects of numerous individual-level variables, institutional-level variables (e.g., crowding) continued to be associated with involvement in various types of institutional incidents.

In reviewing this literature, however, two gaps in knowledge are apparent. First, only a few researchers (e.g., Collie & Polaschek, 2003; Skopp, Edens, & Ruiz, 2007; Wright, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2007) have examined the correlates of institutional behavior among female offenders, despite evidence of significant differences in institutional adjustment for women and men (Warren, Hurt, Loper, & Chauhan, 2004). Second, few studies (e.g., Camp & Gaes, 2005; Huebner, 2003) have concentrated on the impact of the institutional variable of security placement. We are aware of none that have combined the two foci, which underscores the importance of the present study. Given this lack, we review research on the influence of security placement on institutional behavior in male offenders to provide context.

Impact of Security Placement on Institutional Behavior

To date, only a handful of researchers have concentrated on the influence of security placement in explaining institutional behavior. Typically, such research is conducted during the review of a security classification system or classification instrument. For instance, Baird (1993) reported on two separate studies conducted with male inmates in the context of reviews of Tennessee’s inmate classification system. In the first, in 1984, it was determined that although a comprehensive inmate classification system was being used, most offenders were actually being placed at medium security. Baird capitalized on this finding and examined differences in rates of institutional misconduct of the 384 inmates in medium security on the basis of their assessed classifications (i.e., minimum, medium, or “close,” which was higher than medium but lower than maximum). In this instance, it was found that the offenders with higher classifications had higher rates of institutional misbehavior, despite all offenders in this sample sharing the same actual security placement. In 1991, the Tennessee Department of Corrections reviewed its classification system again. Part of this review involved contrasting the rates of involvement in institutional misconducts for offenders classified to medium with those classified to “minimum restricted.” The latter designation is used for inmates who meet the criteria to be classified to minimum but must be housed in secure facilities for reasons such as the type of offense or the length of time until release. In practice, these offenders are housed at medium security. In comparing the institutional behavior of 2,765 offenders classified to minimum restricted and 2,499 classified to medium, all housed in medium-security facilities, notable differences were found. Again, rates of involvement in institutional misconducts were associated with risk classification rather than placement, with offenders classified to medium security having higher rates of involvement in institutional misconducts than those classified to minimum restricted.

In Canada, Luciani et al. (1996) examined the validity and the reliability of the Correctional Service of Canada’s initial security classification tool, the Custody Rating Scale (CRS), using 6,745 inmates’ behavior as the dependent variable. (Of these inmates, 65 were women, but the findings that were relevant in this context were not fully disaggregated by gender.) Like many other security classification scales, the CRS produces a recommended security placement, but caseworkers may disagree and ultimately place an inmate at a different level on the basis of their review of case-specific factors. This procedure allowed the examination of the association between institutional behavior and both CRS classifications and actual security placements. Although the researchers reported statistical tests only for the association between classification and institutional behavior, visual inspection of trends showed a clear and linear relationship between institutional behavior and CRS-recommended classification but a much less clear trend between institutional behavior and actual placement. In the latter case, although rates of involvement in institutional behavior were much lower (18%) for offenders placed at minimum security compared with those at medium (35%) or maximum (34%) security, there was virtually no difference between the latter two groups.

Finally, perhaps the most convincing study to date in this area was one conducted by Camp and Gaes (2005). These researchers reanalyzed data collected by Berk, Ladd, Graziano, and Baek (2003) in the context of the assessment of a new classification system. As part of this assessment, a total of 561 male inmates, all originally classified to Level I (the lowest level) under the old system and then reclassified to Level III (a moderate to high level) under the new system were randomly assigned to either a Level I or a Level III institution. Analyses revealed no significant differences in the two groups’ institutional behavior, suggesting that the correctional environment associated with each security level did not influence institutional behavior. Furthermore, the random assignment used in these analyses increases confidence in the results. Altogether, the findings from these studies suggest quite convincingly that for male offenders, individual-level variables influence institutional behavior, but security level placement does not.

The Current Study

Given that the studies reviewed above all focused exclusively or primarily on male offenders, it is unclear whether this pattern of findings generalizes to women. As such, the present study was an investigation of the impact of security placement on female offenders’ institutional behavior. The recent development and implementation of the Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW; Blanchette, 2005) provided an excellent opportunity to examine this issue.

According to Canadian legislation, security placements are reviewed at a minimum of once a year for most federally incarcerated offenders (Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992). For female offenders, the SRSW acts as a key component in this review process. The SRSW is an objective, gender-informed reclassification instrument developed specifically for federally sentenced women, implemented nationally in June 2005 (Blanchette & Taylor, 2007). During the development of the SRSW, nearly 200 gender-neutral and gender-informed variables were examined for predictive validity and inclusion in the scale (e.g., institutional behavior, criminal associates, parenting and child custody issues, family factors, self-injury). Item selection was based on association with institutional adjustment and behavior, risk for escape, and risk to the public in the event of an escape. Given the SRSW’s aim of assessing change since admission or the preceding security review, candidate variables were predominantly dynamic in nature. The nine items ultimately selected were

progress against correctional plan/motivation during review period;

pro-social/positive family contact during review period;

serious disciplinary offences during review period;

number of recorded incidents during review period;

current institutional pay level;

involuntary segregation due to being a danger to others or to the institution during review period;

number of successful temporary absences during review period;

history of having been unlawfully at large from a temporary absence, work release, or supervision; and

Custody Rating Scale incident history.

Using actuarial methods, the SRSW provides a recommended security classification of minimum, medium, or maximum for each woman on the basis of her scale score, which can span a range of approximately 30 points. Notably, a 10% discretionary range is included at the threshold between each security classification, allowing flexibility in assigning classifications to those women whose scores fall near the threshold values. These recommendations act as anchors for review decisions, but caseworkers assigned to each woman also complete clinical appraisals of the woman’s risk, allowing consideration of case-specific factors or exceptional circumstances that are not contained within the scale’s component items. When the scale’s security recommendation and the results of the clinical appraisal differ, caseworkers need not assign the scale’s recommended security classification. They must, however, document the rationale for their decision.

Cases in which the security classification recommendations on the basis of the SRSW and the clinical appraisals differed (and in which the clinical appraisals ultimately dictated placement) constituted the data for the present study. Specifically, differences between SRSW classification recommendations and actual security placements allowed the investigation of the association of each with institutional behavior. Results indicating that involvement in misconduct was consistent with actual security placements rather than scale classifications would suggest that it is the correctional environment associated with each security level that influences institutional behavior. Conversely, indications that involvement in misconduct was consistent with SRSW security recommendations rather than placements would demonstrate that behavior is related to individual-level factors associated with the women themselves rather than the environment associated with the security level. Finally, if both were found to be independently related to behavior, a combined effect of the correctional environment and individual-level characteristics would be supported.

Method

Samples

Two samples of data were used in this study. The first corresponded to the SRSW field test (Blanchette & Taylor, 2007) and included a total of 580 security reclassification reviews completed between 2000 and 2003. Because some women underwent two or more security reviews during this time period, this number represented a total of 323 individual women. The second data sample corresponded to the 443 reviews completed between 2005 and 2007 used to revalidate the scale (Gobeil, 2007). Of these, actual security placement data were not available for 59 reviews, leaving 384 reclassification events (268 individual women) for inclusion in this study. Table 1 presents an overview of the demographic characteristics of the women in each sample.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Women in Each Sample.

	Field Test (n = 323)		Revalidation (n = 268)
Variable	M (SD)	% (n)	M (SD)	% (n)
Age at first review	32.6 (8.3)		33.5 (9.3)
Total sentence length (years)	3.7 (2.7)		4.0 (2.7)
Life sentenced		15 (49)		16 (43)
Ethnicity
Caucasian		56 (182)		43 (114)
Aboriginal		35 (114)		49 (132)
Black		5 (16)		3 (9)
Other/unknown		3 (11)		5 (13)
Marital status
Single/widowed/divorced		68 (220)		69 (186)
Married/common law		29 (94)		29 (79)
Unknown		3 (9)		1 (3)

Note. Because of rounding, proportions may not sum to 100%.

The two samples were not combined for analysis because of differences in the methodologies of the two earlier studies. In the field test, the scale was completed after the clinical appraisal and actual placement decision were completed, while for the revalidation, the scale was completed before the actual placement decision was reached. Because it is unknown what impact these different methods may have had, the two samples were analyzed separately.

Data

Within the context of the SRSW field test (Blanchette & Taylor, 2007) and revalidation (Gobeil, 2007), data were obtained from the Correctional Service of Canada’s automated offender information system. In each case, the security classification recommendations produced by the SRSW and the actual security placements were recorded. To be consistent with how the scale is actually used in practice, the SRSW’s discretionary range was applied to all analyses.¹ Whether each offender was involved in institutional misconduct after each review was also recorded, with misconduct being categorized as minor (e.g., disturbances, possession of unauthorized items) or major (e.g., assaults, hostage taking, possession of weapons or drugs). In each case, data were extracted for the period during which the offender could be considered to be “at risk” for institutional misbehavior, that is, from the date of review until the subsequent security review, release, or the end of data collection, whichever came first.

Analyses

To disentangle the effects of security classification and correctional environment at each security level, a series of analyses were conducted that methodologically controlled, in turn, for each of these variables. Other than for descriptive analyses, examinations focused on placements and classifications to medium security, rather than across security levels, because the majority of cases fell into these categories (n₁ = 348, n₂ = 249). Other security levels had lower sample sizes, in many cases so small that analyses became impossible. For those at medium security, χ² tests of independence were first used to assess differences in involvement in institutional misconduct for offenders matched on SRSW classifications but differing in actual placements. Specifically, for those recommended to medium classifications by SRSW, comparisons were between those receiving actual placements of minimum, medium, or maximum security. These analyses were used to determine whether the environments associated with different security levels were associated with differences in institutional misconduct. Second, the opposite procedure was applied: For women actually placed in medium security, between-group differences in institutional behavior were examined for offenders with SRSW recommendations of minimum, medium, or maximum security. These analyses served to examine whether individual-level variables were associated with institutional misconducts, holding the environments associated with different security levels constant.

Because time at risk for institutional misbehavior varied across security reviews, two types of analyses were considered: (a) analyses involving all misconducts occurring during the risk period and (b) analyses limited to misconducts occurring in a fixed 3-month follow-up period. In the first case, results could be biased if the risk period differed according to prereview security placement. In the second, analyses would not include any such bias, because all cases would be equated on time at risk. However, because some women in the original studies were reclassified or released before the end of their 3-month follow-up periods, postreview data were not available for a portion of cases, thereby rendering some analyses impossible because of sample sizes. To determine the most appropriate option, preliminary comparisons of the length of time at risk for institutional misconduct by prereview security placement were completed. These revealed no differences in length of time at risk, so it was decided to conduct analyses involving all misconducts occurring during the full risk period.

To examine potential between-group differences, the demographic characteristics of the women classified by the SRSW as medium security and the women actually placed at medium security were contrasted. This verification was conducted to identify any variables that might confound the results of the primary analyses. A series of χ² tests of independence and t tests demonstrated that the two groups of women (in both the field test and revalidation samples) were equivalent on all the demographic characteristics reported in Table 1, indicating that differences in these areas cannot explain the study results.

Results

Field Test Data

Overall, 31.7% (n = 184) of cases in the full SRSW field test sample were found to be associated with involvement in institutional misconduct during the risk period. Figure 1 demonstrates that greater proportions of cases corresponding to higher security were involved in both minor and major institutional incidents. This trend was apparent when considering both actual security placements and SRSW classification recommendations and appeared to be approximately linear in each case. Some differences were visible, however, with SRSW recommendations seeming to be associated with slightly more polarized rates of involvement than actual placements. In other words, relative to proportions actually placed at maximum security, greater proportions of women recommended to maximum security by the SRSW were involved in misconduct of each type. Similarly, lesser proportions of women recommended to minimum security by the SRSW (again relative to the proportions actually placed at minimum) were involved in misconduct. Although interpretations based on visual examination of Figure 1 are far from conclusive, the figure suggests that SRSW recommendations were slightly more consistent with subsequent involvement in misconduct than were actual placements.

Figure 1.

Proportions of Women Involved in Institutional Misconduct (field test sample).

To investigate this possibility, analyses were conducted wherein each of SRSW recommendation and actual placement (in turn) was statistically held constant. First, analyses were conducted while controlling for SRSW recommendation. Although most women recommended to medium security by the SRSW were also placed at this level (69.4%), nearly a third were not. Comparisons of the rates of involvement in institutional misconduct across actual placements for these women allowed for the assessment of the effect of actual placement. Table 2 demonstrates that there were no differences in the rates of involvement in institutional misconduct between the groups of women recommended to medium security by the SRSW but actually placed at differing levels. Put another way, after controlling for SRSW recommendation, no association was found between involvement in institutional misconduct and actual security placement.

Table 2.

Involvement in Institutional Misconduct for Women With Medium Security SRSW Recommendations, by Actual Placement.

	Actual Placement
Misconduct	Minimum	Medium	Maximum	Total	χ²
Field test sample
Major, % (n)	4.2 (1)	9.0 (24)	19.0 (11)	13.4 (36)	3.34
Minor, % (n)	20.8 (5)	22.6 (42)	19.0 (11)	21.6 (58)	0.35
Any, % (n)	20.8 (5)	30.1 (56)	31.0 (18)	29.5 (79)	0.97
n	59	186	21	266
Revalidation sample
Major, % (n)	0.0 (0)	24.6 (29)	23.3 (10)	22.7 (39)	0.18
Minor, % (n)	18.2 (2)	23.7 (28)	27.9 (12)	24.4 (42)	0.76
Any, % (n)	18.2 (2)	42.4 (50)	39.5 (17)	40.1 (69)	0.61
n	64	118	13	195

Note. SRSW = Security Reclassification Scale for Women. All results were nonsignificant.

Subsequently, analyses were conducted focusing on women actually placed at medium security, regardless of SRSW recommendation. Again, the concordance level between actual placement and SRSW recommendation was quite high (69.9%), but sufficient numbers of cases were discrepant to allow for analyses. Table 3 demonstrates that differences in involvement in misconduct remained after accounting for actual placement. Specifically, rates of involvement in misconduct of any type were considerably greater for cases corresponding to higher SRSW recommendations, although security placement was held constant.²

Table 3.

Involvement in Institutional Misconduct for Women Placed at Medium Security, by SRSW Recommendation.

	SRSW Recommendation
Misconduct	Minimum	Medium	Maximum	Total	χ²
Field test sample
Major, % (n)	3.4 (2)	12.9 (24)	23.8 (5)	11.7 (31)	7.21*
Minor, % (n)	10.2 (6)	22.6 (42)	47.6 (10)	21.8 (58)	12.96**
Any, % (n)	13.6 (8)	30.1 (56)	52.4 (11)	28.2 (75)	12.65**
n	24	186	58	268
Revalidation sample
Major, % (n)	3.1 (2)	24.6 (29)	15.4 (2)	16.9 (33)	13.60**
Minor, % (n)	4.7 (3)	23.7 (28)	15.4 (2)	16.9 (33)	10.72**
Any, % (n)	7.8 (5)	42.4 (50)	30.8 (4)	30.3 (59)	23.49^†
n	11	118	43	172

Note. SRSW = Security Reclassification Scale for Women.

p < .05. **p < .01. ^†p < .0001.

Given this pattern of results, follow-up analyses were conducted to examine the relationship of each of the SRSW items with involvement in institutional misconduct. These analyses were conducted with all women rather than only those classified to or placed at minimum security. As Table 4 shows, Items 3 (“serious disciplinary offences during review period”), 4 (“number of recorded incidents during review period”), 6 (“involuntary segregation due to being a danger to others or to the institution during review period”), and 9 (“Custody Rating Scale incident history”) were most strongly associated with involvement in incidents of all types.³

Table 4.

Point Biserial Correlations of SRSW Items With Involvement in Institutional Misconduct.

	Type of Misconduct
	Field Test Sample (n = 580)			Revalidation Sample (n = 384)
SRSW Item	Minor	Major	Any	Minor	Major	Any
1	.11*	.10*	.12**	.07	.09	.09
2	.10*	.11**	.13**	.04	.05	.06
3	.27^†	.23^†	.29^†	.17***	–.01	.15**
4	.42^†	.28^†	.40^†	.40^†	.28^†	.46^†
5	–.01	.00	–.01	.04	–.05	.01
6	.20^†	.21^†	.21^†	.15**	.06	.14**
7	.05	.14***	.09*	.21^†	.18^†	.27^†
8	–.04	–.05	–.04	.17***	.14**	.21^†
9	.15***	.20^†	.17^†	.11*	.09*	.14**

Note. SRSW = Security Reclassification Scale for Women; Item 1: progress against correctional plan/motivation during review period; Item 2: pro-social/positive family contact during review period (reverse scored); Item 3: serious disciplinary offences during review period; Item 4: number of recorded incidents during review period; Item 5: current institutional pay level; Item 6: involuntary segregation due to being a danger to others or to the institution during review period; Item 7: number of successful temporary absences during review period (reverse scored); Item 8: history of having been unlawfully at large from a temporary absence, work release, or supervision; Item 9: Custody Rating Scale incident history.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ^†p < .0001.

Revalidation Data

Turning to the data gathered as part of the revalidation study, a virtually identical proportion of the full sample of cases (31.8% [n = 122]) was found to correspond to involvement in institutional misconduct. Patterns were similar to those found in examining data stemming from the field test. As Figure 2 demonstrates, involvement in institutional misconducts increased in accordance with security classification, whether classification recommendations derived from the SRSW or actual placements were considered. Also consistent with findings from the preceding examination, proportions of women subsequently involved in misconduct seemed to be slightly better predicted by SRSW recommendations. In comparison with proportions based on actual placements, fewer of those recommended to minimum security and more of those recommended to maximum security were found to engage in misconduct. In examining Figure 2, it is also clear that the similarity between medium- and maximum-security cases was greater when considering SRSW recommendations than when considering actual placement.

Figure 2.

Proportions of Women Involved in Institutional Misconduct (revalidation sample).

Again, a series of χ² analyses were conducted to examine whether actual placement and SRSW recommendation were associated with involvement in misconduct. First, the effect of actual placement was assessed by focusing on women recommended to medium security by the SRSW. Of these, 68.6% corresponded to actual placements at medium security. In contrasting rates of involvement in institutional misconduct for women placed at minimum, medium, and maximum security, no significant differences were found (see Table 2). Attention next turned to women actually placed at medium security, of whom 60.5% were also recommended to this level by the SRSW. As shown in Table 3, women placed at medium security differed significantly in their involvement in institutional misconduct, according to their SRSW recommendation.

In contrast to findings from the field test data, however, the pattern of involvement in institutional misconduct in this latter analysis did not increase linearly with security level. Follow-up analyses (using Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels) involving a partitioning of the cells used in the χ² analyses were conducted to attempt to understand this difference. These analyses suggested that the overall significant results were attributable solely to differences between women recommended to minimum security and those recommended to higher levels. Relative to their counterparts in a collapsed group of women recommended to medium or maximum security, a smaller proportion of women recommended to minimum security were involved in misconduct. This was true for each of minor misconduct, χ²(1, N = 195) = 10.14, p < .05, major misconduct, χ²(1, N = 195) = 12.90, p < .01, and the total category of any misconduct, χ²(1, N = 195) = 22.74, p < .001. Similar analyses were conducted to compare the rates of involvement of women recommended to medium security to those recommended to maximum security. Although the expected cell counts were such that the results of these analyses must be considered tentatively, results of these examinations suggest that there were no differences between these groups in terms of minor misconduct, χ²(1, N = 131) = 0.46, ns, major misconduct, χ²(1, N = 131) = 0.55, ns, or any misconduct, χ²(1, N = 131) = 0.65, ns.

These follow-up analyses indicated that the differences in rates of involvement between women recommended to medium and maximum security observable in Table 3 were not statistically reliable. Instead, these differences were likely simply an artifact of the small number of women actually placed at medium security but recommended to maximum by the SRSW. On the other hand, what did reliably emerge from these analyses was that SRSW recommendations were associated with differences in involvement in institutional misconduct, in the expected direction, even after controlling for the effect of actual placement.

Next, the associations of individual SRSW items with involvement in institutional misconduct were examined (see Table 4). The pattern of results was somewhat different than that found for the field test sample, with Items 4 (“number of recorded incidents during review period”), 7 (“number of successful temporary absences during review period”), and 8 (“history of having been unlawfully at large from a temporary absence, work release, or supervision”) being most robustly and consistently associated with involvement in institutional misconducts. Particularly notable was the fact that Item 3 (“serious disciplinary offences during review period”), which was the item with the second strongest association with involvement in all types of misconduct for the field test sample, was considerably less strongly associated with involvement in minor misconduct, and not associated with involvement in major misconduct at all, in the revalidation sample.

Discussion

In this investigation, we used SRSW security level recommendations and actual security placements in a preliminary examination of the impact of correctional environment on the institutional behavior of Canadian federally sentenced female offenders. When considering only those cases in which the SRSW recommended medium classifications, the results of the present study suggested that institutional misconduct was independent of actual placement (minimum, medium, or maximum). Although this may suggest that the correctional environment associated with security placement has no impact on behavior, there is an alternative explanation. One American study revealed that being housed at higher levels of security had a suppressive effect on involvement in institutional misconduct, possibly because of greater supervision or higher levels of static security (Berecochea & Gibbs, 1991). In the current context, it could be argued that the more secure environment at maximum security served to reduce potential misconduct in otherwise disruptive inmates. However, the second series of analyses conducted for each sample of data did not support this possibility. In these analyses, security level placement was held constant; therefore, any suppressive or amplifying effects associated with institutional security level would be consistent across women. Involvement in institutional misconduct according to SRSW security classifications continued to be apparent, however, demonstrating that a possible suppressive effect of incarceration at a higher level of security cannot adequately explain the present results.

Altogether, then, across two samples, analyses consistently demonstrated that actual security placement was not associated with institutional conduct after accounting for SRSW security classification. Conversely, SRSW security classification continued to be associated with institutional behavior when controlling methodologically for actual placement. Together, these results suggest that it is individual-level variables that influence institutional behavior, not correctional environment as represented by security placement. Notably, these results are consistent with those found in samples composed primarily of men (Baird, 1993; Camp & Gaes, 2005; Luciani et al., 1996).

An interesting pattern emerged from follow-up analyses of the specific individual-level variables captured by the SRSW that were most strongly correlated with involvement in misconduct. Not surprisingly, items reflecting previous institutional misbehavior were the ones most strongly associated with misconduct. It was less expected, however, that there would be such variability between the field test and revalidation samples. Only one item (“number of recorded incidents during review period”) had statistically significant associations of similar magnitude for both samples; other items relating to previous incidents, placement in segregation, successful completion of temporary absences, and being unlawfully at large were much less consistent. Future research will be necessary to better understand this inconsistency and to examine the underlying characteristics of individuals that contribute to their participation in the behaviors reflected by SRSW items.

Overall, our results are supportive of importation theory (Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Wheeler, 1961), in that individual-level variables were the only ones predictive of institutional adjustment. This is consistent with the limited previous findings specific to female offenders, in that they also found that factors specific to the women were important in shaping their experiences of prison life (Giallombardo, 1966; Owen, 1992). This being said, a number of caveats to this conclusion deserve mention. First, SRSW recommendations were used to represent individual-level variables, but many of the SRSW’s component items are dynamic in nature. Strictly speaking, proponents of importation theory argue that it is the life experiences prior to incarceration that influence institutional socialization and adjustment. The dynamic nature of the SRSW items means that the individual-level variables used in this study represent experiences and behaviors both before and after incarceration. Although this is not precisely in keeping with importation theory, the SRSW’s component items still very clearly represent individual- rather than institutional-level variables and can therefore likely be considered an adequate stand-in for more traditional importation theory variables. However, as mentioned earlier, further examination of additional individual-level variables that exert an influence on those measured by the SRSW would be beneficial, because these variables may be more reflective of experiences and behaviors before incarceration.

The use of security placement as the sole variable representative of deprivation theory (Sykes, 1958) in this study also deserves mention. Empirical investigation of deprivation theory has traditionally included other variables of institutional disorder or pressure, such as crowding and guard-to-inmate ratio. Given that we examined only security placement, the present results are insufficient to demonstrate that there is no support for deprivation theory in explaining female offenders’ institutional adjustment; instead, all that can be concluded from the present study is that security placement does not in and of itself influence institutional behavior. This acknowledgement is particularly important given recent findings that institutional-level variables contribute incrementally to the prediction of institutional violence after considering numerous individual-level variables (Lahm, 2008; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008). Although the applicability of these findings to the current context is unclear because of reliance on samples composed entirely of men, at the very least, these findings suggest that variables relating to deprivation theory require further investigation.

Future researchers may also wish to extend this study in other ways. We used official institutional misconduct records to assess adjustment, but not all incidents of misbehavior are likely to have been recorded. Indeed, empirical studies have determined that minor rule violations are inconsistently reported (e.g., Freeman, 2003; Hewitt, Poole, & Regoli, 1984). Some evidence even demonstrates that rule enforcement differs by institution (Jenne & Kersting, 1998), though these researchers found that differences were not associated with institutional security level (D. Jenne, personal communication, August 24, 2007). Nonetheless, investigators may wish to incorporate this possibility in future research designs.

It is also important that this study be extended across security levels. Given the small number of incarcerated women in Canada, there was an insufficient number of women to be able to recreate these analyses at levels of security other than medium. In jurisdictions with higher rates of incarceration among women, it may be possible to assess whether the pattern detected in this study also applies to women recommended to minimum or maximum security, regardless of placement, and to women actually placed at minimum or maximum security, regardless of security recommendation. Such an exploration would be particularly valuable because women housed at various levels of security differ on certain demographic and risk characteristics, including age, ethnicity, criminal history, and index offense (Blanchette, 1997). Further exploration would allow the determination of whether these different demographic and risk characteristics influence the pattern of findings found in the present study.

Other jurisdictions may also be able to extend on the current findings by virtue of their correctional facilities. Federal female offenders in Canada are housed in multilevel facilities, with those placed at minimum and medium security sharing programs, recreational activities, and social time, as well as being supervised by the same staff members and being housed in very similar accommodations. As such, the correctional environment is not very different for women at these security levels, though their environment is quite different from that of women housed at maximum security. Whether the current pattern of findings will generalize to jurisdictions with more distinct environments for female offenders across levels of security is therefore worthy of further attention.

Implications

The findings stemming from this study are encouraging from an operational point of view, as security classification in Canada incorporates assessment of three areas of risk: institutional adjustment, risk for escape, and risk to the public in the event of an escape (Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992). These results clearly indicate that when placement at a higher level of security is necessary because of risk in one of the latter two areas, there is likely to be no associated negative effect on institutional adjustment.

It should be acknowledged that we did not examine whether the correctional environment associated with different levels of security exerts a criminogenic influence on behavior other than that in the institution. In other words, it is possible that security placement contributes to postrelease behavior. It has been contended that prison can serve as a “training school” for inexperienced offenders, in that these offenders may have the opportunity to learn criminal behaviors from their peers while incarcerated. Indeed, one group of researchers has suggested that “prisons breed crime” (Petersilia, Turner, & Petersen, 1986, p. 37). Moreover, rates of reoffending among female offenders have been found to be linked to security level, with those classified to higher levels of security more likely to reoffend upon release (Blanchette & Motiuk, 2004). It would be of interest, therefore, to explore the extent to which individual-level variables and actual security placement independently contribute to reoffending.

This being said, evidence demonstrates a link between institutional behavior and recidivism. Negative institutional behavior has been shown to predict outcomes after release in male offenders (Luciani et al., 1996). Similarly, in studying 122 Canadian female offenders, Bonta, Pang, and Wallace-Capretta (1995) found a significant positive correlation of moderate size between reoffending and the number of incidents of institutional misconduct in which women were involved. Moreover, an extensive body of research has resulted in the identification of many individual-level risk factors predictive of reoffending in both men and women (e.g., Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Stuart & Brice-Baker, 2004). Interpreted within this framework, then, the present findings provide preliminary suggestions that security placement likely does not independently influence postrelease outcomes after accounting for individual-level risk factors. Nonetheless, direct examination of this issue will be necessary in the future.

Footnotes

Notes

Author Biographies

Renée Gobeil is a senior research manager at the Correctional Service of Canada. She is also a doctoral candidate in forensic psychology at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. Her primary research interests are female offenders and conditional release decision making.

Kelley Blanchette is the Senior Director of Correctional Research at the Correctional Service of Canada. She received her doctorate in forensic psychology from Carleton University in 2005. Her research has included a variety of topics relevant to women offenders, as well as correctional issues more generally. She is especially interested in the development of actuarial risk instruments for women.

Meredith Robeson Barrett is a research assistant at the Correctional Service of Canada. She completed her BA (honors) in criminology with a concentration in psychology at Carleton University in 2008. Her primary interests are mentally ill offenders, female offenders, and relational theory in women’s corrections.

References

Baird

(1993). Objective classification in Tennessee: Management, effectiveness, and planning issues. In American Correctional Association (Ed.), Classification: A tool for managing today’s offenders (pp. 92-107). Arlington, VA: American Correctional Association.

Berecochea

J. E.

Gibbs

J. B.

(1991). Inmate classification: A correctional program that works? Evaluation Review, 15, 333-363.

Berk

R. A.

Ladd

Graziano

Baek

J.-H.

(2003). Randomized experiment testing inmate classification systems. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 215-242.

Blanchette

(1997). An examination of medium- and maximum-security federally-sentenced female offenders (Report R-55). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

Blanchette

(2005). Field test of a gender-informed reclassification scale for women offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

Blanchette

Motiuk

L. L.

(2004). Taking down the straw man: A reply to Webster and Doob. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 621-630.

Blanchette

Taylor

K. N.

(2007). Development and field test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 362-379.

Blanchette

Verbrugge

Wichmann

C. G.

(2002). The Custody Rating Scale, initial security level placement, and women offenders (Report R-127). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

Bloom

B. E.

(2000). Beyond recidivism: Perspectives on evaluation of programs for female offenders in community corrections. In McMahon

(Ed.), Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections (pp. 107-138). Arlington, VA: American Correctional Association.

10.

Bonta

Pang

Wallace-Capretta

(1995). Predictors of recidivism among incarcerated female offenders. Prison Journal, 75, 277-294.

11.

Camp

S. D.

Gaes

G. G.

(2005). Criminogenic effects of the prison environment on inmate behavior: Some experimental evidence. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 425-442.

12.

Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. (1998). Position of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) regarding the classification and carceral placement of women classified as maximum security prisoners. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://www.elizabethfry.ca/maxe.htm

13.

Collie

R. M.

Polaschek

D.L.L.

(2003). Sorting women’s risk: New Zealand women prisoner’s misconducts and internal security risk. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 32, 101-109.

14.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act. (1992).

15.

Fernandez

K. E.

Neiman

(1998). California’s inmate classification system: Predicting inmate misconduct. Prison Journal, 78, 406-422.

16.

Freeman

R. M.

(2003). Social distance and discretionary rule enforcement in a women’s prison. Prison Journal, 83, 191-205.

17.

Gendreau

Goggin

Law

(1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 414-431.

18.

Gendreau

Little

Goggin

(1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.

19.

Giallombardo

(1966). Society of women: A study of women’s prison. New York: John Wiley.

20.

Gobeil

(2007). Revalidation of the Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW) (Report R-191). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

21.

Griffin

M. L.

Hepburn

(2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 419-448.

22.

Hannah-Moffat

(1999). Moral agent or actuarial subject: Risk and Canadian women’s imprisonment. Theoretical Criminology, 3, 71-94.

23.

Hannah-Moffat

(2004). Gendering risk at what cost: Negotiations of gender and risk in Canadian women’s prisons. Feminism & Psychology, 14, 243-249.

24.

Hardyman

P. L.

Van Voorhis

(2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

25.

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, 513-536.

26.

Heffernan

(1972). Making it in prison: The square, the cool, and the life. New York: John Wiley.

27.

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, 3, 437-448.

28.

Huebner

B. M.

(2003). Administrative determinates of inmate violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 107-117.

29.

Irwin

Cressey

(1962). Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 142-155.

30.

Jenne

D. L.

Kersting

R. C.

(1998). Gender, power, and reciprocity in the correctional setting. Prison Journal, 78, 166-185.

31.

Lahm

K. F.

(2008). Inmate-on-inmate assault: A multilevel examination of prison violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 120-137.

32.

Larsen

Nelson

(1984). Women, friendship, and adaptation to prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 601-615.

33.

Luciani

Motiuk

Nafekh

(1996). An operational review of the Custody Rating Scale: Validity, reliability, and practical utility (Report R-47). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

34.

Owen

(1998). “In the mix”: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. Albany: State University of New York Press.

35.

Petersilia

Turner

Petersen

(1986). Prison versus probation in California: Implications for crime and offender recidivism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

36.

Skopp

N. A.

Edens

J. F.

Ruiz

M. A.

(2007). Risk factors for institutional misconduct among incarcerated women: An examination of the criterion-related validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 106-117.

37.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2008). Inmate versus environmental effects on prison rule violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 438-456.

38.

Stuart

Brice-Baker

(2004). Correlates of higher rates of recidivism in female prisoners: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 32, 29-70.

39.

Sykes

(1958). The society of captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

40.

Van Voorhis

Presser

(2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

41.

Warren

Hurt

Loper

A. B.

Chauhan

(2004). Exploring prison adjustment among female inmates: Issues of measurement and prediction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 624-645.

42.

Wheeler

(1961). Socialization in correctional communities. American Sociological Review, 26, 697-712.

43.

Wooldredge

(1991). Correlates of deviant behavior among inmates of U.S. correctional facilities. Journal of Crime & Justice, 16, 1-25.

44.

Wright

E. M.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2007). Predicting the prison misconducts of women offenders: The importance of gender-responsive needs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 310-340.

45.

Wright

(1991). The violent and victimized in the male prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16, 1-25.