Social Support and Chinese Female Offenders’ Prison Adjustment

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the relationship between Chinese female offenders’ prison adjustment and their perception of social support using both quantitative and qualitative methods. We find that social support has positive effects on female offenders’ prison adjustment and that demographic factors are not significantly related to their prison adjustment or perception of social support. Of three types of social support providers (family, friends, and significant others), offenders welcomed support from the family the most, followed by significant others (including prison officers and social volunteers). Support from friends (mainly fellow prisoners) is comparatively less important in the lives of Chinese female offenders.

Keywords

Chinese female offenders social support prison adjustment

Introduction

Statistics from various countries show that “females are three to five times less likely than males to be arrested, charged or detained in police custody” (Blanchette & Brown, 2006, p. 1), regardless of culture, time, and criterion measures. Compared with male prisoners, female prisoners make up a small proportion¹ of the worldwide prisoner population. Although the percentage of female offenders is quite small, the female incarceration rate around the world has grown fast, especially during the past two decades (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Cook & Davies, 1999; Medlicott, 2007; van Wormer, 2010). Therefore, incarcerated women have gradually gained interest around the world, including China.

Female Offenders’ Prison Adjustment

Adjustment is “the efforts people make to meet the demands and challenges placed upon them by the world in which they live” (Feldman, 1989, p. 6). Usually, it is thought of as a reaction to “any environmental demand that creates a state of tension or threat” (Morris & Maisto, 2010, p. 363). Thus, adjustment usually happens when people encounter special environmental demands. A confined unisex environment with restricted freedom, prison is a unique environment that gives prisoners no other choice but to adapt themselves to the lifestyle.

Studies on adjustment to prison communities have had quite a long history, dating back to Clemmer’s research in the 1940s (Clemmer, 1940/1966). However, most early research has been limited to male prisoners in U.S. maximum security prisons. Research on female prisoners began much later. Thus, integrated and systematic studies of female prisoners’ adjustment are lacking. Among these specific studies, most scholars identified differences between women with longer and shorter sentences. Women with longer prison sentences were usually found to (a) have fewer safety concerns, (b) be more violent while incarcerated, and (c) commit more institutional offenses and prison misconduct than those with shorter sentences and/or time served in prison (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2001; MacKenzie, Robinson, & Campbell, 1989; Thompson & Loper, 2005). There have also been studies on the relationship between female prisoners’ participation in treatment programs and their prison adjustment. Those who participate in treatment intervention programs show better adjustment to the prison environment than female prisoners not involved in therapy (Negy, Woods, & Carlson, 1997; Sultan, Long, & Kiefer, 1986; Sultan, Long, Schrum, Selby, & Calhoun, 1985).

Loper (2002) discovered that female prisoners convicted of drug possession offenses were more satisfied with the prison environment, experienced less internal distress, conflict, and mental illness, and took a more positive view toward imprisonment. Islam-Zwart and Vik (2004) found that women with a history of sexual assault (either in childhood or adult) adjusted to incarceration much more slowly. Another study by Loper (2006) focused on differences between incarcerated mothers and nonmothers. She found that “there were no observed differences between mothers and non-mothers in terms of self-reported mental illness symptoms, emotional distress, conflict with other individuals at the prison, or terms of institutional infractions” (p. 83).

According to a recent research on the psychological well-being of incarcerated women in the Netherlands (Slotboom, Kruttschnitt, Bijleveld, & Menting, 2011), depressive complaints, irritability, and risk of self-harm were all predicted by both deprivation factors (i.e., the characteristics of the prison environment and the interactions between prisoners and guards) and importation factors (i.e., prisoners’ unique characteristics and experiences prior to the imprisonment). But “the evidence suggests that deprivation factors have a greater impact on these measures of well-being than importation factors” (p. 176). Therefore, the authors suggested that people should pay more attention to women’s conditions of confinement when considering their prison adjustment.

Different studies have defined prison adjustment in various ways. Loper (2002) believed that rehabilitative involvement was necessary to successful prison adjustment, as it may reduce recidivism. In contrast, Warren, Hurt, Loper, and Chauhan (2004) argued that pragmatic issues (e.g., privacy, fitting in, prison rule comprehension, and making friends) were primarily important for measuring prisoners’ quality of life.

Other scholars have tended to focus on the relationship between factors related to criminal thinking and prison misconduct (Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997; Walters, 2005). Van Tongeren and Klebe (2010) argued in their recent study that the orientation toward rehabilitation, ability to adapt to the new environment, and factors related to criminal thinking should be combined. Thus, prison adjustment should be a multidimensional concept. In this study, we choose to use Van Tongeren and Klebe’s definition, which conceptualizes prison adjustment as a combination of these three elements. To achieve this goal, we develop a new scale—the Scale of Experience in Prison (SEP)²—to examine all three of these dimensions of prison adjustment.

Female Offenders and Social Support

It is not surprising that incarcerated female offenders—wherever they are from—generally tend to be “poor, young, undereducated and lacking employment skills” (Blanchette & Brown, 2006, p. 137). Compared demographically with women in the general population, female prisoners are (a) more often unemployed, poorly educated, and on public assistance; (b) more likely to be from minority groups or of color; (c) more likely to be unmarried and mothers of dependent children; (d) more likely to have histories of abuse; (e) more likely report a history of drug and alcohol abuse, mental and physical health disorders, and HIV/AIDS; and (f) more often arrested for misdemeanors (such as theft, drugs offenses, and handling stolen goods) rather than violent offences (Kruttschnitt & Cartner, 2003; Medlicott, 2007; Owen & Bloom, 1995; van Wormer, 2010).

Most likely, female prisoners have experienced a complex overlapping of many of these problems, and they would almost certainly come into conflict with prison rules and principles, and have difficulty coping with imprisonment (Kruttschnitt & Cartner, 2003). Because of their disadvantaged background, female offenders usually need much social support to adjust to the prison environment. To compare male and female prisoners’ adjustment to prison life, Jiang and Winfree (2006) used the monthly rule violation rate as a measurement of how the effect of social support on misconduct varies by gender. They found that “females have greater social support needs while incarcerated” (p. 32).

Apart from outside social support, social networks within the prison have also been found to be important in female offenders’ lives. According to some classic studies (e.g., Giallombardo, 1966; Ward & Kassenbaum, 1965), female offenders tend to “organize into relatively enduring primary relationships, often involving dyadic homosexual attachments and extensive ‘family’ relationships” (Tittle, 1969, p. 492). Therefore, female prisoners are more likely to create close family-like intimacy among each other (Dobash, Dobash, & Gutteridge, 1986; van Wormer, 2010). They not only try their best to maintain close ties with their family members outside but also “often reconstruct family relationships through membership in a sort of pretend family” (van Wormer, 2010, p. 124) within the prison walls.

Developing and demonstrating Giallombardo’s (1966) discovery of meaningful family ties among female prisoners, van Wormer (1979) describes female prisoners’ family-like relationships in her research on women prisons. In this research, she finds that female prisoners form “families,” which may include grandmother, mother, and daughter roles. Owen (1998) also points out that—compared with male prisoners’ gang culture—female prisoners are more willing to accept newcomers and youngsters into their prison families. In von Wormer’s (2010) later report on her previous research, she points out that prisoner families still exist in female prisons today. Thus, female prisoners are thought to need social support—especially emotional support—during their incarceration both from the outside and from fellow prisoners. By doing so, they can better adapt to imprisonment and live a better life in prison.

In contrast to the numerous systematic studies on Western female offenders, there have not been many studies on Chinese female offenders’ imprisonment experiences and their need for social support. The only published study was conducted by Li and Fu (2008). In that study, the authors used several psychological scales to analyze female prisoners’ coping methods. They found that female prisoners’ background (e.g., age, education level, and type of crime) and the frequency and utilization of social support had direct effects on their adjustment. In addition, most other scholars believe that Chinese female prisoners are an “irritable, self-contemptuous, highly emotional, and humorsome” group; they believe female prisoners are “selfish” and have “low interpersonal trust” (Li & Fu, 2008, p. 77). Thus, they “seldom search for social support” when they face new environments and frustration (Li & Fu, 2008).

To measure social support both within and outside prisons, we used the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS)³ in this study (G. D. Zimet, Dahlem, S. G. Zimet, & Farley, 1988). We use the MSPSS to assess Chinese female prisoners’ needs and preferences for social support.

Method

Is social support a crucial part of Chinese female offenders’ prison life? Is social support related to female offenders’ adjustment to prison life? Is it useful to help them to adjust to the prison environment more quickly and smoothly? Do female offenders want others to help? And what type of help do they welcome the most? All these questions are worthy of discussion, and this study focuses on them.

Two studies, one quantitative and one qualitative, were designed to achieve these goals. Study 1 describes the results of a questionnaire given to 288 participants. Its aim is to get a general idea of Chinese female offenders’ preference for different kinds of social support and the relationship between receiving social support and prisoners’ experience of prison adjustment. Study 2 utilized a qualitative methodology through interviews with 52 participants to further assess how and why Chinese female offenders use social support to help themselves adjust to the prison environment. Both studies were conducted in female Prison X, which is located in East China,⁴ and both studies were part of a large study examining Chinese female offenders’ prison behaviors from 2007 to 2011. The research proposal was reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Faculties at The University of Hong Kong. All participants gave signed informed consent prior to the commencement of each study.

An Introduction to the Research Site

Situated in eastern China and built in 2001, Prison X occupies 30 acres, with around 1,800 prisoners and about 200 prison officers. It is quite a modern prison with advanced facilities. Apart from dormitories, a canteen, and a working place, it has a supermarket, an auditorium, a training hall, an exhibition room, a broadcasting station, a mental rehabilitation studio, a fitness center, and many other facilities that are beneficial to the physical and mental health of the prisoners.

The entire prison has nine districts (meaning the prison is further divided into nine smaller-sized institutions to manage prisoners more efficiently), all of which have approximately the same amount of prisoners. All prisoners are randomly assigned to different districts, regardless of their crimes, length of sentence, or other individual background factors, with the exception of Districts 4 and 7. District 4 is specifically for prisoners who will be released soon (usually for prisoners with less than 2 months left in prison), prisoners who have special abilities (such as artistic skills), and prisoners who are unable to do normal work (such as aged prisoners, disabled prisoners, or prisoners in poor health). District 7 is for newly arrived prisoners. All newcomers spend their first 2 months in District 7 to learn the prison rules and get used to the prison schedules.

Prison X has a garment factory. With five sewing workshops and one workshop for preparing and packaging work, this factory is the chief workplace in the prison. Around 80% of prisoners work in the factory, while others (mainly prisoners in District 4) perform adjunct work in the supermarket, broadcasting station, art troupe, or cook room. Newcomers (in District 7) do not work at all because they need to complete the first 2 months’ orientation program. This prison is much like a small, closed society—it has its own production departments and administrative departments, and the prisoners do nearly all the work themselves.

The prisoners in Prison X are all adult females (above 18 years old). They come from all over China, but the majority is from the province and peripheral locales of the prison. The prisoners’ criminal convictions vary. There are violent offenders (e.g., those who have committed intentional or negligent homicide, robbery, assault, or kidnapping), offenders who have encroached on property (e.g., stealing, fraud, or racketeering), drug- and sex-related offenders (e.g., those who have committed drug trafficking and sheltering prostitutes), corruption-related offenders, and so on.

Participants

Cluster sampling was used in Study 1 to collect the quantitative data. In Prison X, each of the nine districts has 12 to 14 groups, and each group has around 16 prisoners. Since there is hardly any special distinction in age, social background, education level, or crime among groups, we chose to use cluster sampling to recruit participants for Study 1. Prisoners in Group 2 and Group 8 of every district were selected. In total, 288 questionnaires were distributed, and 270 were returned for an effective sampling rate of 93.8%.

In Study 2, we used purposive sampling. Similar to Study 1, participants also came from all of the nine prison districts. Specifically, we chose approximately six female offenders in each prison district from the two groups who participated in Study 1. To further understand the female offenders’ experiences and perspectives on social support and prison adjustment, we decided to select prisoners with various backgrounds (such as age, sentence length, education level, and crime). In total, 52 prisoners took part in Study 2. Table 1 lists the characteristics of the participants.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

	Study 1	Study 2
Age
Range	19-61 years	22-62 years
Average	35.5 years	40.2 years
Marriage status
Single	47.6%	40%
Married (including cohabitation)	52.4%	60%
Education level
Illiterate	13.4%	4%
Primary school	15%	21%
Middle school	45.7%	29%
High school	17%	27%
College and above	8.9%	19%
Crime
Violent	20.3%	27%
Property	29.3%	21%
Drug	25.2%	19%
Sex	13.4%	8%
Corruption	3.7%	19%
Others	8.1%	6%
Sentence length
Short sentence (10 years and less)	64%	52%
Long sentence (more than 10 years)	36%	48%
Average length of sentence^a	9 years	10.5 years
Time served in prison
1 year and below	52.2%	15%
More than 1 year	47.8%	85%
Average	2.1 years	4.3 years

Death penalties with a 2-year reprieve extended the sentence to 24 years. In accordance with the current prison regulations of China, the longest imprisonment for prisoners of death penalty with a 2-year reprieve would be 24 years. Similarly, life imprisonment was counted as 22 years.

Measures

Study 1 used the MSPSS and SEP to study whether social support was related to female prisoners’ prison adjustment. The MSPSS (G. D. Zimet et al., 1988) is a scale that measures perceived adequacy of support from three different sources: family (Items 3, 4, 8, 11), friends (Items 6, 7, 9, 12), and significant others (Items 1, 2, 5, 10).⁵ It consists of 12 items with Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). Four items measure perceived social support from each particular source. We simply calculated the total score of each source by adding the score of each item. A higher score means better perception of social support. These three support sources (family, friends, and significant others) were set as independent variables when we conducted multiple regression analyses in Study 1. We also tested other independent variables—the demographic characteristics of the female prisoners, that is, their age, marriage status, education level, crime, sentence length, and time served in prison against their perception of prison adjustment.

The other scale, the Scale of Experience in Prison, is a scale that we developed. It has 12 items with a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All 12 items in this scale were designed to assess how well female prisoners adjusted to the prison environment. To have a comprehensive understanding of female offenders’ prison adjustment, the items covered three dimensions, including orientation toward rehabilitation, ability to adapt to the new environment, and factors related to criminal thinking. We combined the 12 items together (by adding the score of each item) as the dependent variable—prison adjustment. The higher the score, the more positive they perceived prison adjustment.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data for both studies were collected from September to October, 2010. Questionnaires were distributed to the selected participants through prison officers and collected on the following day. Prison officers assisted to ensure that every prisoner completed the questionnaires independently. The self-report model has the advantage of allowing participants to answer the questions in a relaxed and nonguided way. However, it has the disadvantage that when participants have difficulty understanding the questions, they cannot ask the researcher for help.

Semistructured interviews were conducted to collect the qualitative data. This kind of interview has preestablished questions that allow participants some room to express their own ideas. In other words, these interviews have guidelines based on research objectives, but they also allow the researcher to craft new ideas when participants respond (Chen, 2000; Flick, 2002). Compared with questionnaire surveys, face-to-face interviews allow for fuller communication and provide researchers with a deeper understanding of how participants think and feel (Gillham, 2000). The findings of Study 2 are used to help explain the results of Study 1.

The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS. The qualitative data were analyzed using the following steps: (a) coding, both open coding and axial coding were adopted; (b) categorizing, the data were reorganized into different categories based on the coding; and (c) thematic analysis, which enabled us to get much closer to our data and develop a deeper explanation of the contents.

In data collection and analysis, the identities of participants were not revealed to protect their privacy. All questionnaires and interviews were done voluntarily. The questionnaires were answered anonymously, and quotes/descriptions of the interview participants were ensured so that they will not be collated to construct the potential identity of any particular participant.

Findings

Findings of Study 1

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and reliability of the two scales. We utilized multiple regressions to analyze the relationship between female prisoners’ perception of social support and their experience in adjusting to prison. Through them, we hoped to find whether social support is positively (or negatively) related to female offenders’ prison adjustment.

Table 2.

Reliability and Description of the Scales.

Scales	Cronbach’s α	M (SD)^a
MSPSS	.89	―
Support from family	.73	22.77 (3.62)
Support from friends	.70	19.65 (4.29)
Support from significant others	.76	21.42 (4.34)
SEP	.91	48.00 (5.29)

Note. MSPSS = Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support; SEP = Scale of Experience in Prison.

M (SD) is calculated based on the sum of the items.

Table 3 shows the correlations between the dependent variable and all independent variables. From Table 3, it is obvious that all three kinds of social support have significant positive relationships with female prisoners’ experience of prison adjustment.⁶ Female prisoners’ demographic backgrounds have no obvious relationships with prison adjustment or perception of social support.

Table 3.

Correlations of the Dependent Variable and All Independent Variables.

Pearson correlation	SEP	Support from family	Support from friends	Support from significant others	Age	Marital status	Education level	Crime: Violent	Crime: Economic	Crime: Drug	Crime: Sex	Crime: Corruption	Crime: Other	Sentence length	Time served in prison
SEP	1
Support from family	.524**	1
Support from friends	.456**	.628**	1
Support from significant others	.486**	.678**	.774**	1
Age	−.017	.028	.012	−.007	1
Marital status	.041	.074	.005	.006	.339**	1
Education level	.062	.006	−.009	−.018	−.204**	−.179**	1
Crime: Violent	−.046	−.035	−.003	−.040	−.105	−.094	−.088	1
Crime: Economic	.081	.089	.095	.103	.092	.103	−.018	−.287**	1
Crime: Drug	−.116	−.097	−.141*	−.099	.015	−.166**	.053	−.260**	−.329**	1
Crime: Sex	.065	.083	.069	.035	−.199**	.064	.014	−.178**	−.225**	−.204**	1
Crime: Corruption	.032	.030	−.004	.018	.139*	.055	.288**	−.089	−.112	−.101	−.069	1
Crime: Other	−.003	−.003	.010	.034	.104	.133*	−.162*	−.135*	−.171**	−.154*	−.106	−.053	1
Sentence length	−.094	−.079	−.107	−.133*	.187**	−.080	.023	.399**	−.175**	.135*	−.236**	.015	−.187**	1
Time served in prison	−.104	−.072	.024	−.074	.259**	−.024	−.015	.287**	−.083	.042	−.229**	.000	−.080	.615**	1

Note. SEP = Scale of Experience in Prison.

p < .05. **p < .01.

The regression results show a much clearer relationship between female prisoners’ perception of social support and prison adjustment (see Table 4). From Model 1, we find that—without any kind of social support—female prisoners convicted of economic crime and sex-related crimes adjust better. However, when we add one or more types of social support (see Models 2-4), the type of crime and other demographic variables no longer show significant relationships with female offenders’ prison adjustment. That means, after taking into account any type of social support, female prisoners’ demographic backgrounds are not as important as their prison adjustment outcome. Compared with Model 1, the R² of Models 2, 3, and 4 are dramatically higher. This suggests that the three types of social support have a crucial influence on prison adjustment. From Models 2, 3, and 4, we can see that social support from family has the strongest positive relationship with female offenders’ prison adjustment. In comparison, support from friends and significant others is less important. Even in Model 4, which incorporates all three kinds of support in the regression model, we find a nonsignificant relationship with support from friends, implying that support from friends is the least crucial of the three in influencing female offenders’ prison adjustment.

Table 4.

Prison Adjustment (SEP) and Social Support.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Age	0.007^a	−0.006	−0.011	−0.010
Marriage status	0.163	0.137	0.270	0.293
Education level	0.337	0.266	0.307	0.337
Crime: Violent	5.543	1.021	1.278	1.612
Crime: Economic	6.164*	1.116	1.482	1.717
Crime: Drug	4.694	0.554	1.109	1.371
Crime: Sex	6.107*	0.807	0.996	1.418
Crime: Corruption	5.826	1.003	1.415	1.825
Crime: Other	5.260	0.613	0.995	1.190
Sentence length	−0.003	−0.001	0.001	0.001
Time served in prison	−0.015	−0.012	−0.018	−0.015
Support from family		0.750**	0.516**	0.420**
Support from friends			0.299**	0.152
Support from significant others				0.252*
Adjusted R²	−0.001	0.236	0.263	0.273

Note. SEP = Scale of Experience in Prison. Model 1 only includes the dependent variable and all independent variables without any kinds of social support. Model 2 includes all variables in Model 1 plus Support from Family. Model 3 includes all variables in Model 1 plus Support from Family and Support from Friends. Model 4 includes all variables in Model 1 plus Support from Family, Support from Friends, and Support from Significant Others.

Numbers in this table are unstandardized regression coefficients.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Findings of Study 2

The 52 participants can be divided into three groups: those who spent quite a long time (i.e., 6 months or more) adjusting to the prison environment, those who adjusted quickly, and those who could not adjust.

First, 29 participants reported that it took them a rather long time to adjust to prison life. While they were adjusting, they all received help from others including families, friends, and significant others.⁷ Family support played the most important role in helping prisoners adjust. Twenty-three participants said it was their family members’ support that urged them to adapt themselves to the prison environment. One prisoner said,

I was not adapted to the prison and even planed to commit suicide at first. Then my family came to see me and gave me plenty of encouragement. Now I want to behave well. My main drive is my family’s support and their anticipation of my release. I do not want to disappoint them. (P-Case No. 33)⁸

The second most important support provider is significant others. According to the participants, significant others are usually prison officers and social volunteers. Prison officers’ support was especially important to those who took longer to adjust. Eighteen participants reported that they found the prison officers helpful. One even said that she might feel guilty if she did something that challenged the prison officers’ requirements because the prison officers had helped her so much:

I felt the prison officers helped me a lot during my adjustment period. To be honest, sometimes when I see their kindness, I may feel embarrassed if I do not behave well. (P-Case No. 3)⁹

According to the participants, the most helpful aspect of prison officers was psychological guidance, mainly through frequent conversations. Two participants described the psychological guidance of officers:

The prison officers are all patient and attentive, and they talk to us regularly every week. They ask for information, show care for those who are in bad moods and those who are experiencing psychological problems. Through communicating with them, I feel I can get over my problems. (P-Case No. 1)¹⁰

Prison officers help us see what is right or sensible, and thus help us face life in prison positively. I think the most crucial part with which the prison officers help us is psychological adaptation. (P-Case No. 27)¹¹

In participants’ eyes, prison officers’ help was “easy to get.” That is to say, whenever and whatever they needed, they could seek help from prison officers. One prisoner said,

Miss Wang [the prison officer who is in charge of the participant’s group] is just like the head of our family. She handles all aspects of our daily lives, and she knows every one of us much more than anybody else. Every week, she holds a talk with us to be updated on our situation. We can talk to her whenever we have any problems. (P-Case No. 13)¹²

Female prisoners chose to seek support from prison officers because they believed that the prison officers’ help could make their prison life easier. Due to the power that the prison officers hold, the female prisoners never want to offend them. In fact, they depend on them, as one participant concluded,

In fact, we cannot seek help from others in prison; the only ones we can depend on are the prison officers. (P-Case No. 6)¹³

Apart from prison officers, social volunteers also provide help and act as “significant others” in the eyes of female offenders. Four participants reported this. A typical example is described here:

I was once punished for attempting suicide. During that period of time, I was down in spirit. I felt hopeless. Then a social volunteer, a famous paper-cutting artist, was invited to help me up from the bottom. He came here to see me and taught me a lot. I was moved and agreed to learn paper-cutting. We then maintained communication through letters. I am now good at paper-cutting and am proud of that. I think after two years of help from the artist, I have changed a lot, like my temper and character. I feel very good now. (P-Case No. 11)¹⁴

Last, seven participants said that they got social support from friends. Here, “friends” mainly refer to their fellow prisoners. For example, one prisoner reported her experience as follows:

Some say it is impossible to make true friends in prison, but I don’t agree. I myself have made good friends with my roommate, whom I am willing to share anything with. I believe friendship here is very important to my life. I can talk to them when I am unhappy or uncomfortable. (P-Case No. 45)¹⁵

In general, most participants did not agree that fellow prisoners were good social support providers. We found that the most important reason was that female prisoners had very little trust in each other. Most prisoners have serious problems in their interpersonal relationships with other prisoners.

Apart from these 29 “slow adjusting” prisoners, there were another 19 who said that they had spent quite a short period of time adjusting to the prison environment. They were “quick adjusting” ones. Even so, they still said that they were willing to receive help from others, and they thought that they might spend a more meaningful time in prison if they had social support. Among the types of support, they most often mentioned support from their families. For example, one prisoner said,

Because of the support of my family members, I adjusted to the environment after a few days. I think I should be good because I do not want my family to worry about me. They are so nice to me, and I believe taking good care of myself is also for the best for my family. (P-Case No. 41)¹⁶

And the second most mentioned help providers were prison officers, similar to the “slow adjusting” group. A former high school teacher said that although it did not take her long to adjust, she still appreciated the prison officers’ conversation with her when she was a newcomer:

Under these circumstances, I needed to come to terms with my reality. Although the environment is different, I still have to keep going. The first thing I did upon my arrival was to clearly understand all the rules and regulations here so that I would know what I must do and what I cannot do. At this point, I appreciate the prison officers. I still remember when I first arrived, the prison officer noted that my current situation could be assumed as “teaching in another school.”¹⁷ (P-Case No. 9)¹⁸

The quick-adjusting ones seldom reported receiving social support from friends (or fellow prisoners).

Last, among the 52 interview participants, there were four people who could not adjust to the prison environment even after several months’ imprisonment. In this group, two were completely unwilling to adjust to the prison environment because they had abandoned themselves. They rejected any kind of help from others. And both the other two prisoners suffered from health problems and could barely meet the requirements in prison even with the support of others.

Conclusion and Implications

In this study, we investigated whether there were positive relationships between Chinese female offenders’ perception of social support and their adjustment to prison life. Jiang and Winfree Jr. (2006) once stated that female offenders needed more social support in adjusting to the prison environment. Li and Fu (2008) also found that the backgrounds of female prisoners (e.g., age, education level, and type of crime) and the frequency and utilization of the social support had direct effects on their adjustment. This study also suggests that social support has positive effects on female prisoners’ adjustment.

To summarize, in Study 1, we found that Chinese female offenders also need social support during their term of imprisonment, as revealed in the previous research. More social support seems to help them adjust better to the prison environment. Of the three types of social support, family support is the most crucial, support from significant others is second, and support from friends is much less important.

Similar findings came from Study 2. Through interviews, we determined that—although family members could not come to the prison to see the offenders from time to time—they provided a kind of emotional support or, as one participant put it, “hope.” Several participants mentioned that family support was their “motivation” for living well in prison. Support from significant others could be further divided into two types: that provided by prison officers and that by social volunteers. The prison officers’ support is especially important for offenders who have longer sentences and is very helpful in their psychological adjustment. This “close” relationship between female offenders and prison officers has not been commonly reported in previous studies. Thus, it may be one of the most important findings of this study.

Support from friends (or fellow prisoners) was found to be less important than support from family and significant others. However, there were still a few participants who reported receiving support from friends during the adjustment period. Of course, those who entirely could not adjust to the prison environment—even with the help of others—made up a very small proportion.

Studies 1 and 2 both point to the conclusion that Chinese female prisoners need social help to lead better lives in prison. In this situation, we suggest that prison authorities provide more social support (of any kind) to help female prisoners. This social support can be arranged from the following two dimensions.

First, within the prison, both prison officers and fellow prisoners can be social support providers. They can either become female prisoners’ “significant others” or friends. Currently, prison officers mainly provide social support through regular one-on-one conversations with prisoners. We suggest that, in the future, social support can be more targeted. For example, there can be specific treatment programs for drug, alcohol, and gambling addicts. There can also be female-oriented therapy programs. In addition, these programs may be most effective if implemented in groups. Although fellow prisoners’ support is somewhat useful, female prisoners did not report that it was very useful—mainly because they often encounter a lack of interpersonal trust. Thus, the prison authority could provide more education on difficulties in prisoners’ interpersonal relations, which might improve prisoners’ quality of life.

Second, we encourage family members, social volunteers, and professionals to provide more social support. The family is the most important social support in female prisoners’ lives. There is no doubt that women rely greatly on their families and need more family support than men (Roberson, 1997; van Wormer, 2010). First of all, prisoners’ criminal behavior is significantly related to their family problems (Trotter, 2010). In addition, imprisonment also causes the collapse of families. Several participants told us that they were afraid they would not be accepted by their parents and children anymore. Thus, there are many female prisoners who suffer from family problems who would benefit from receiving help. In this case, there should be special therapy programs to help female prisoners view their family problems positively and to also help them find ways to repair, reestablish, and maintain good relations with their family members.

Support from social volunteers should also be improved. We found that social volunteers come to the prison on an irregular schedule, with a fairly long time between visits. We suggest that prison authorities arrange regular services from social volunteers, and we suggest that social volunteers visit the prisons frequently. There can also be professional counseling services provided by trained social workers or counselors. Professional counseling services will be helpful in solving female prisoners’ psychological problems, various kinds of difficulties in adjusting to the prison environment, and difficulties in interpersonal relations.

Although female prisoners make up a very small part of the whole country’s population, it is still important to address issues of prison adjustment and quality of life. Providing more social support will certainly help female prisoners adjust to the prison environment more quickly and shape a more meaningful imprisonment experience.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A2.

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).

	Very strongly disagree	Strongly disagree	Mildly disagree	Neutral	Mildly agree	Strongly agree	Very strongly agree
1. There is a special person who is around when I am in need.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
2. There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
3. My family really tries to help me.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
4. I get the emotional help and support I need from my family.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
5. I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
6. My friends really try to help me.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
7. I can count on my friends when things go wrong.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8. I can talk about my problems with my family.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
9. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
10. There is a special person in my life that cares about my feelings.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
11. My family is willing to help me make decisions.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
12. I can talk about my problems with my friends.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Liu Liu is a lecturer in the Department of Social Work and Social Policy, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Nanjing University, People’s Republic of China. Her research interests include corrections, Chinese judicial system, and China studies.

Wing Hong Chui is an associate professor in the Department of Social Work and Social Administration, and the Associate Dean (Undergraduate Education) of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include working with youth at risk and juvenile offenders and criminology.

References

Blanchette

Brown

S. L.

(2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspectives. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Casey-Acevedo

Bakken

(2001). The effect of time on the disciplinary adjustment of women in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 489-492.

Chen

(2000). 质的研究方法与社会科学研究 [Qualitative research in social sciences.]. Beijing, China: Educational Science Publishing House.

Clemmer

(1966). The prison community. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (Original work published 1940)

Cook

Davies

(1999). Will anyone ever listen? An introductory note. In Cook

Davies

(Eds.), Harsh punishment: International experiences of women imprisonment (pp. 3-9). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Dobash

R. P.

Dobash

R. E.

Gutteridge

(1986). The imprisonment of women. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Feldman

R. S.

(1989). Adjustment: Applying psychology in a complex world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Flick

(2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.

Gendreau

Goggin

C. E.

Law

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

10.

Giallombardo

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

11.

Gillham

(2000). Case study research methods. London, UK: Continuum.

12.

Islam-Zwart

K. A.

Vik

P. W.

(2004). Female adjustment to incarceration as influenced by sexual assault history. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 521-541.

13.

Jiang

Winfree

L. T.

(2006). Social support, gender, and inmate adjustment to prison life: Insights from a national sample. Prison Journal, 86, 32-55.

14.

Kruttschnitt

Cartner

(2003). Women’s imprisonment. Crime & Justice, 30, 1-81.

15.

(2008). 在押女犯应对方式相关因素的研究 [Research on supervising women in custody]. Journal of Yunnan Police Officer Academy, 67, 77-80.

16.

Loper

A. B.

(2002). Adjustment of prison of women convicted of possession, trafficking, and nondrug offenses. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 22-26.

17.

Loper

A. B.

(2006). How do mothers in prison differ from non-mothers? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 83-95.

18.

MacKenzie

Robinson

Campbell

(1989). Long-term incarceration of female offenders: Prison adjustment and coping. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 223-238.

19.

Medlicott

(2007). Women in prison. In Jewkes

(Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 245-267). Cullompton, UK: Willan.

20.

Morris

C. G.

Maisto

A. A.

(2010). Understanding psychology (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Negy

Woods

D. J.

Carlson

(1997). The relationship between inmates’ coping and adjustment in a minimum-security prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 224-233.

22.

Owen

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

23.

Owen

Bloom

(1995). Profiling women prisoners: Findings from national surveys and a California sample. Prison Journal, 75, 165-185.

24.

Roberson

(1997). Introduction to corrections. Incline Village, NV: Copperhouse.

25.

Slotboom

A. -M.

Kruttschnitt

Bijleveld

Menting

(2011). Psychological well-being of incarcerated women in the Netherlands: Importation or deprivation? Punishment & Society, 13, 176-197.

26.

Sultan

F. E.

Long

G. T.

Kiefer

S. A.

(1986). The application of psychodidactic support groups to facilitate female offenders’ adjustment to prison. Psychotherapy, 23, 469-471.

27.

Sultan

F. E.

Long

G. T.

Schrum

S. A.

Selby

J. W.

Calhoun

L. G.

(1985). The female offender’s adjustment to prison life: A comparison of psychodidactic and traditional supportive approaches to treatment. Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation, 9(1-2), 49-56.

28.

Thompson

Loper

A. B.

(2005). Adjustment patterns in incarcerated women: An analysis of differences based on sentence length. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 714-732.

29.

Tittle

C. R.

(1969). Inmate organization: Sex differentiation and the influence of criminal subcultures. American Sociological Review, 34, 492-505.

30.

Trotter

(2010). Working with families in criminal justice. In McNeill

Raynor

Trotter

(Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 282-300). Cullompton, UK: Willan.

31.

Van Tongeren

D. R.

Klebe

(2010). Reconceptualizing prison adjustment: A multidimensional approach exploring female offenders’ adjustment to prison life. Prison Journal, 90, 48-68.

32.

van Wormer

(1979). Sex-Role Behavior in a Women's Prison: An Ethnological Analysis. San Francisco: R&E Research Associates.

33.

van Wormer

(2010). Working with female offenders: A gender-sensitive approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

34.

Walters

G. D.

(2005). Predicting institutional adjustment with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form and Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 49, 63-70.

35.

Ward

D. A.

Kassenbaum

G. G.

(1965). Women’s prison: Sex and social structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

36.

Warren

J. I.

Hurt

Loper

A. B.

Chauhan

(2004). Exploring prison adjustment among female inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 624-645.

37.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41.