This study examines whether survey data collected from inmates can be used to create group-level measures of prison conditions. Inmates often carry a stigma that they are never to be trusted. A subset of a national survey of inmates was used to examine how inmates incarcerated in prisons operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons answered questions about safety, noise, and job assignments at their prisons. In particular, this report demonstrates that inmate answers to the questions vary in a systematic fashion that lends credence to using survey data from inmates to obtain information about the prisons in which they are incarcerated. However, proper techniques for using survey data have not been practiced in existing evaluation studies comparing public and private prisons.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Survey of inmates of federal correctional facilities. Interviews conducted by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.
3.
Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Harer, M. D. (1997). Aggregating individual-level evaluations of the organizational social climate: A multilevel investigation of the work environment at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Justice Quarterly, 14(4), 739-761.
4.
Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Wright, K. N. (1999). Creating performance measures from survey data: A practical discussion. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(1), 71-80.
5.
DiIulio, J. J. (1987). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York: The Free Press.
6.
General Accounting Office. (1996). Private and public prisons: Studies comparing operational costs and/or quality of service. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Hatry, H. P., Brounstein, P. J., & Levinson, R. B. (1994). Comparison of privately and publically operated corrections facilities in Kentucky and Massachusetts. In G. W. Bowman, S. Hakim, & P. Seidenstat (Eds.), Privatizing correctional institutions (pp. 193-212). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
8.
Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 655-673.
9.
Lincoln, J. R., & Zeitz, G. (1980). Organizational properties from aggregate data: Separating individual and structural effects. American Sociological Review, 45, 391-408.
10.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
11.
Logan, C. H. (1991). Well kept: Comparing quality of confinement in a public and a private prison. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
12.
Mason, W. M., Wong, G. Y., & Entwisle, B. (1983). Contextual analysis through the multilevel linear model. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1983-1984 (pp. 72-103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, J. D. (Eds.). (1991). Schools, classrooms, and pupils: International studies of schooling from a multilevel perspective. San Diego: Academic Press.
14.
Rountree, P. W., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32(3), 387-414.
15.
Sechrest, D. K., & Shichor, D. (1994). Final report: Exploratory study of California's community correctional facilities. Parole and Community Services Division, California Department of Corrections.
16.
Tennessee Select Oversight Committee on Corrections. (1995). Comparative evaluation of privately-managed corrections corporation of America prison (South Central Correctional Center) and state-managed prototypical prisons (Northeast Correctional Center, Northwest Correctional Center). Nashville, TN: Author.
17.
Urban Institute. (1989). Comparison of privately and publicly operated correctional facilities in Kentucky and Massachusetts. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
18.
Waite, P. J. (1997). 1997 SIFCF: Inmate sample selection. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
19.
Wright, K. N. (1994). Effective prison leadership. New York: William Neil.
