Vicarious Victimization in Prison

Abstract

Prison victimization research has mainly focused on direct experiences of victimization rather than on the vicarious victimization experiences of prisoners, despite the possibility of inmates being exposed to high levels of victimization. Using the Prison Experience and Reentry Study, a longitudinal study of 1,613 males residing in Ohio halfway houses, the study examined the extent of witnessing victimization in prison and its effects on individual post-release outcomes. The findings show that a large proportion of offenders witness victimization and that parolees who witnessed victimization faced greater odds of experiencing at least one negative criminal justice outcome, including a parole violation and an arrest. These findings suggest that it is not only direct victimization that plays a role in post-release adjustment.

Keywords

witnessing victimization reentry vicarious victimization prison

According to national estimates, approximately 4% of the nation’s prisoners have experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization (Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013). Non-sexual victimization (e.g., physical assaults and theft) rates appear to be much higher. Research indicates that between 32% and 66% of inmates experience physical victimization (Copes, Higgins, Tewksbury, & Dabney, 2011; Perez, Gover, Tennyson, & Santos, 2010; Wolff & Shi, 2011; Wolff, Shi, & Siegel, 2009; Wooldredge, 1998) with prevalence estimates for property victimization (i.e., theft) ranging from 18% to 49% (Lahm, 2009; Maitland & Sluder, 1998; Wooldredge, 1994, 1998). Although the estimates vary widely, there is agreement that violence in prison is commonplace.

What is less understood, however, is the extent and impact of witnessing victimization while confined.¹ Drawing from the literature on exposure to community-based violence, we know that this exposure can result in short- and long-term negative consequences such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Rossman, 2000), aggressive behavior (Diamond & Muller, 2004), depression, substance abuse (Colbert & Krause, 2009), and future violence perpetration (Bell & Jenkins, 1991). Several studies have linked exposure to violence in prison to decreased well-being (Hochstetler, Murphy, & Simons, 2004; Wooldredge, 1999), increased emotional distress (Listwan, Colvin, Hanley, & Flannery, 2010), and tendencies toward antisocial behavior (Boxer, Middlemass, & Delorenzo, 2009). Although these studies support a relationship between vicarious victimization in prison and psychological distress, none have isolated the relationship between witnessing different types of violence and criminal justice–related post-release outcomes. It is likely, however, that these negative consequences of witnessing victimization in prison also have consequences for inmates as they attempt to reenter their communities. As most inmates are in fact released into the community (Carson & Golinelli, 2013), this potential negative impact of witnessing victimization is worthy of exploration. Even so, few studies have examined this relationship. This omission is somewhat surprising given the attention on reentry and how prison experiences, including being violent in prison, shape the ability of prisoners to successfully reintegrate into the community (Cochran, Mears, Bales, & Stewart, 2014). This study extends the previous literature by identifying the extent to which individuals witness different types of victimization in prison and the effects of witnessing victimization in prison on post-release criminal justice–related outcomes, such as arrest and parole violation. In this way, the current study adds to the existing literature on victimization in prison and reentry as well as on the exposure to victimization literature. Knowing the extent to which exposure to victimization influences post-release outcomes for inmates is a critical first step in reducing its effects.

Literature Review

For recently released prisoners, the risk of reoffending in the community is great (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014). As a whole, released prisoners face legal barriers that restrict the type of jobs they can obtain (Berg & Huebner, 2011), and their access to public welfare and housing subsidies (Petersilia, 2003). Ex-inmates often come out of prison with educational deficits (Harlow, 2003), family problems (Travis, McBride, & Solomon, 2003), antisocial peers, addictions, and mental and physical health problems (Petersilia, 2003). What has received less attention, however, is what impact an inmate’s experience in prison has on post-release outcomes.

Emerging research suggests that the harsh conditions of imprisonment can have a criminogenic effect rather than a deterrent effect (Cid, 2009; Drago, Galbiati, & Vertova, 2011; Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009; Villettaz, Killias, & Zoder, 2006). In fact, Chen and Shapiro (2007) found that the harshness experienced in prison impacts recidivism, and Listwan, Daigle, Hartman, and Guastaferro (2014) found that exposure to coercive prison experiences influenced successful post-release outcomes. Finally, in a recent study using a national sample of serious and violent offenders, inmates who are threatened or experience physical victimization had poorer release outcomes (Zweig, Yahner, Visher, & Lattimore, 2014). As noted by Cullen, Jonson, and Nagin (2011), “Imprisonment is thus not simply a cost to be weighed in future offending but, more important, a social influence that shapes inmates’ attitudes toward crime and violence, peer networks, ties to the conventional order, and identity” (p. 53).

The Impact of Witnessing Violence

The general strain theoretical perspective provides a context for understanding the relationship between witnessing victimization and negative post-release criminal justice outcomes. Although Agnew’s (1992) original presentation of general strain theory focused solely on experienced strain, he later examined vicarious and anticipated strains involving physical victimization, including the frequency of serious victimization of those close, either in proximity or relationship, to the individual (Agnew, 2002). Given that inmates live in such close proximity while confined, it is possible that the majority of inmates have been exposed to at least one episode of victimization. It is hypothesized that strain caused by witnessing victimization is likely to lead to adverse effects, such as anger, which could result in negative post-release outcomes (see Blevins, Listwan, Cullen, & Jonson, 2010).

Although the prison literature has not fully explored the impact of seeing violence, two areas of literature—exposure to violence in the community and witnessing domestic violence (DV) in childhood—can be used as a backdrop to understanding witnessing victimization in prisons. Whether an individual is exposed to violence in the home (i.e., witnessing DV) or in the community, there are often numerous attending deleterious consequences. Exposure to violence has been linked to depression and substance abuse (Colbert & Krause, 2009; Martinez & Richters, 1993), PTSD (Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001; Fitzpatrick & Boldizar, 1993; Martinez & Richters, 1993), anxiety (Gaylord-Harden, Cunningham, & Zelencik, 2011; Maker, Kemmelmeier, & Peterson, 1998; Overlien, 2010), violence perpetration (Bell & Jenkins, 1991; Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2004), and future victimization (Maker et al., 1998). While much of the exposure to violence literature focuses primarily on children, there is evidence that the attending consequences potentially influence individuals later in life. Witnessing violence early in life was associated with alcohol use as well as depressive and somatic symptoms for both males and females later in life (Colbert & Krause, 2009). When considering the consequences of witnessing violence across the life course, it appears that the effects have the potential to be long-lasting.

Although one might expect outcomes to vary based on the type of violence the individual witnesses, research examining seeing specific types of victimization is limited. Diamond and Muller (2004) examined the differences in the effects of witnessing psychological abuse compared with witnessing physical abuse. Witnessing either physical or psychological abuse during childhood was significantly related to higher levels of psychopathology, suggesting that observing non-physical interpersonal aggression may have harmful negative effects similar to those of witnessing physical violence (Diamond & Muller, 2004). Gibson and colleagues (1999) examined antecedents to PTSD and discovered that exposure to victimization was significant for male inmates. In particular, seeing someone being hurt or killed was the most commonly reported event among those meeting lifetime criteria. However, these events were witnessed during the inmate’s lifetime and not necessarily in prison.

Recently, there has been some attention given to the psychological consequences of witnessing violence in prison. In one study, coercion in prison (includes direct and witnessed victimization) was negatively associated with posttraumatic cognition and symptoms, as well as traumatic symptoms (Listwan, Colvin, et al., 2010). Similarly, Boxer et al. (2009) found that among a sample of recently released inmates, those who witnessed violence while incarcerated had poorer psychological adjustment compared with the individuals who did not. Neither study examined the impact of specific types of witnessed victimization such as physical and sexual victimization, theft, and emotional abuse on criminal justice outcomes.

The type of victimization witnessed in prison may matter in multiple ways. For example, research suggests that events with the potential to lead to bodily injury or harm are more impactful than other events. Studies examining military personnel who witness atrocities in war find that exposure to violence has clear psychological impacts (Ford, 1999). In that vein, witnessing (seeing or hearing) sexual assault, for example, may be even more likely to be associated with negative consequences. Studies have documented inmate’s fear of victimization and its relationship to psychological outcomes such as anxiety and depression (McCorkle, 1993) and that inmates fear being sexually victimized more so than other types of victimizations (Smith & Batiuk, 1989). As such, it is reasonable to assert that inmates may experience greater levels of personal distress associated with being fearful of rape and other sexual victimizations. Witnessing victimization may lead to similar outcomes given that it may impact a persons’ perceptions of their likelihood of direct victimization.

Current Study

The current study examined the extent to which ex-prisoners witnessed different types of victimization while incarcerated. In addition, it examined the effects that witnessing different types of victimization has on individual post-release outcomes. Specifically, witnessing stealing, sexual victimization, physical assault, and verbal abuse were separately analyzed for their potential relationship to criminal justice outcomes (i.e., an overall criminal justice outcome measure, arrest, and parole violation).

Method

Data

Data for the current study were gained from a federally funded cross-sectional study of inmates returning to the community after a period of incarceration (Listwan, Hanley, & Colvin, 2010). Data were gathered in two stages. The first stage of data collection occurred through face-to-face interviews during a 13-month time period (August 2006-August 2007). The questionnaire measured emotional well-being; social support; coping skills; socio-demographic characteristics; perceptions of the prison environment; prison victimization; participation in work, treatment, and religion in prison; and reentry expectations and supports available upon release. At the time of the interviews, all of the participants were residing in community-based halfway house locations throughout Ohio. Participants were contacted soon after their release from prison (mean time from release to interview = 52.7 days, SD = 51.5). It should be noted that not all inmates released from prison in this particular state return to halfway houses. However, an analysis revealed that the demographic characteristics of the final sample were similar to those of prisoners across the state. The researchers reviewed participants’ parole, halfway house, and incarceration records. The participants’ official records were examined to assess other community variables (e.g., employment, treatment exposure) and barriers to successful reentry (e.g., securing housing and/or the existence of supports). The recommitment to prison data were obtained through the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Participants were followed in the community for an average of 2.5 years.

Participants

The sample included adult males who were recently released from Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections penal institutions. The sample for this study focused solely on male adult inmates and excluded both juveniles and female offenders. At the time of the interview, the participants were residing in one of 22 halfway houses in the community.² Participants were recruited from halfway houses across the state of Ohio using a four-stage sampling approach (see Listwan, Hanley, et al., 2010, for further discussion) that included the creation of a population-based sample allocated in proportion to the geographic distribution of the target population based on the previous year’s halfway house census estimates. Once these proportions were estimated, target sample sizes from four regions were determined. These proportions were used as sampling targets for the number of interviews needed from each region. Halfway house personnel provided names of 2,341 eligible individuals, and the researchers were able to make face-to-face contact with 1,738 individuals. Of the 1,738 eligible participants who were contacted, 1,642 agreed to participate. Twenty-nine of the participants were interviewed twice and were subsequently deleted, bringing the final sample size to 1,613.

Sample Description

Table 1 describes the sample and the prevalence estimate of each type of witnessed victimization. On average, parolees were 34 and a half years old (SD = 10.1), and about 75% had a high school diploma or higher. Almost half (47%) of the sample were White, and 89% were not married. The majority (53%) had been incarcerated before the incident that led to their last incarceration. Fifty-four percent reported attending religious services, and 18% were diagnosed with a mental illness while incarcerated. Approximately 58% of the respondents reported directly experiencing at least one type of victimization. In terms of post-release outcomes, roughly 35% of the individuals in the sample were arrested while on parole, 32% had at least one parole violation, and 60% had experienced at least one of the negative criminal justice outcomes.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics (N = 1,613)

Variable	Minimum	Maximum	%
Dependent (1 = yes)
Any criminal justice outcome	0	1	59.9
Arrest	0	1	34.8
Parole violation	0	1	31.9%
Independent (1 = yes)
Witnessed emotional	0	1	93.1
Witnessed fighting	0	1	91.3
Witnessed theft	0	1	80.7
Witnessed sexual	0	1	21.9
Control
Direct victimization (1 = yes)	0	1	57.5
Age, M (SD)	18	77	34.5 (10.1)
Race (1 = White)	0	1	46.6
Marital (1 = not married)	0	1	89.0
Education (1 = high school or higher)	0	1	75.3
Prior prison (1 = yes)	0	1	53.1
Mental illness (1 = yes)	0	1	17.5
Religion (1 = yes)	0	1	54.6

Measures

Dependent Variables

The current study examined the impact witnessing victimization in prison has on prisoner reentry. The dependent variables used in this study include arrest, parole violation, and any negative criminal justice outcome.

Arrest

To examine the impact of witnessing victimization on reoffending, a measure of arrest was created. Using a record check, arrest was measured using two sources, which included parole officer case notes and online record checks. If a participant had a non-traffic offense that occurred during the 2.5-year follow-up period, the arrest variable was coded as 1. If no non-traffic offenses occurred, then the variable was coded as 0.

Parole violation

To examine parole outcome, a variable was created to measure whether respondents received a parole violation. Information on whether an individual had received a parole violation was collected using parole officer case notes and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections records. Parole violation was coded as 1 for those who received a violation and 0 for those without a parole violation.

Any negative criminal justice outcome

A variable was created to measure whether a participant had received any negative criminal justice outcome.³ For this measure, a 1 was given if an individual had a “yes” for at least one of the following: arrest, parole violations, parole revocation, or reincarceration. Those without an arrest, parole violation, parole revocation, or reincarceration were coded as 0.

Independent Variables

Exposure to victimization was measured by asking individuals whether they witnessed verbal assaults, fighting, theft, or sexual victimization within the last 12 months of their most recent period of incarceration. Sexual victimization was measured using two questions that asked respondents to indicate whether they had witnessed either coerced or forced sexual activity (see the appendix for individual items). For each of the four types of victimization, respondents indicated whether (coded as 1) or not (coded as 0) they had witnessed at least one incident of victimization.

Nearly all of the respondents reported witnessing at least one form of victimization during the last 12 months they were incarcerated, with the most common type experienced being witnessing emotional victimization (see Table 1). Ninety-four percent of respondents reported witnessing emotional victimization during the last 12 months they were incarcerated. A large majority also reported witnessing fighting (92%), and approximately 81% witnessed stealing. Witnessing sexual victimization was the least experienced, with 22% of the sample witnessing this type of victimization.

Control Variables

Other variables that may impact reentry were also included as controls. As done in previous research, previous victimization, age, race, marital status, mental illness, level of education, prior incarceration, and religion were included as control variables (Listwan, Hanley, et al., 2010).

Victimization experience

It is likely that some of the respondents who report witnessing some form of victimization may have also experienced victimization and that experiencing victimization is related to negative criminal justice outcomes (Boxer et al., 2009; Zweig et al., 2014). Therefore, a measure of direct victimization is included. The measure included both sexual and nonsexual (physical, emotional/verbal, and theft) victimization, with 1 coded for respondents who indicated experiencing at least one form of victimization during the last 12 months.

Age

Research shows that age is a predictor of victimization and recidivism, with younger individuals being at greater risk for being victimized and reoffending (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Loza, 2003). As such, age in years at the time of the interview was included.

Race

Research demonstrates that White prisoners are at an increased risk of victimization compared with non-Whites (Lahm, 2009; Wolff et al., 2009). In addition, Black inmates are more likely to recidivate than members of other races (Lin, Grattet, & Petersilia, 2010; Petersilia, 2003). The race of respondents was recorded during the interview. Race originally was coded as the following: 1 for “White, non-Hispanic”; 2 for “Black, non-Hispanic”; and 3 for “Other.” The variable was recoded as non-White or White.⁴

Marital status

Prisoners who are not married have been shown to be at risk of prison victimization (Hensley, Tewksbury, & Castle, 2003). To account for marital status, a measure was included. Respondents were asked to indicate their relationship status. Responses included married; single; divorced; separated; single, but living with someone; single, but dating someone; and other. The variable was recoded as married or not married.

Mental illness

Research suggests that prisoners with mental illness are particularly vulnerable to victimization (Austin, Fabelo, Gunter, & McGinnis, 2006; Blitz, Wolff, & Shi, 2008; Wolff et al., 2009). In addition, mental illness can hinder successful reintegration by hampering the ability of individuals to obtain and maintain employment (Petersilia, 2003). To examine mental health, respondents were asked whether they had been diagnosed with a mental illness (coded 1 for yes and 0 for no).

Education

Prior education has been shown to be associated with victimization, with individuals with more education being at greater risk of victimization (Lahm, 2009; Wooldredge, 1998). To measure level of education, respondents were asked, “How far in school did you go?” Responses included less than high school, high school, General Educational Development (GED), some college, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree. The variable was recoded to reflect having less than a high school degree (coded as 0) and having a high school degree or greater (coded as 1).

Prior prison

Research reveals that individuals who have been previously incarcerated are at risk of experiencing victimization (Wooldredge, 1998). Time spent incarcerated is positively associated with having experienced or been exposed to victimization. To measure whether a respondent had been incarcerated before the incident that led to his being in prison last, respondents were asked whether he (a) had been incarcerated in the same prison before or (b) had been incarcerated in a different prison before.

Religion

Engagement in religious services was included as a measure of program participation,⁵ which may reduce the risk of victimization by removing individuals from other prisoners and increasing the time spent in the vicinity of correctional staff (Clear, Hardyman, Stout, Lucken, & Dammer, 2000). Respondents were asked whether they participated in religious services while incarcerated, with participation in religious services coded as 1 and non-participation coded as 0.

Analytical Plan

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of witnessing different types of victimization on criminal justice outcomes, holding the control variables constant. To do so, separate models were conducted to examine the influence of witnessing victimization on any criminal justice outcome, parole violation, and arrest.

One issue that arises when using data in which persons are clustered within sampling units is that the observations are not independent from each other. In this case, ex-inmates from one prison are more likely to be similar than inmates from another prison. To control for this issue, robust standard errors were used when estimating the multivariate regression models in STATA 13, which increased the standard errors for the coefficients and reduced the likelihood of rejecting a null hypothesis when it is true (Wooldridge, 2009).

Results

Binary multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the influence of a number of factors on the likelihood of negative post-release outcomes.⁶ Table 2 shows the full model for any negative criminal justice outcome and parole violation. The results for the analysis predicting any negative criminal justice outcome are presented in column 1. Only one variable significantly predicted the likelihood of having at least one negative criminal justice outcome. Parolees who reported witnessing theft while incarcerated faced odds of any negative criminal justice outcome that were 85% higher than those who had not witnessed stealing (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.01, 3.36]).

Table 2:

Binary Logistic Regression Examining the Influence of Witnessing Victimization on Post-Release Outcomes of Any Negative Criminal Justice Outcome and Parole Violation (N = 1,613)

Variable	Any Negative Criminal Justice Outcome^a		Parole Violation
Variable	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Independent
Emotional	0.59	[0.13, 2.67]	1.21	[0.60, 2.21]
Theft	1.85*	[1.01, 3.36]	1.09	[0.72, 1.63]
Fighting	0.91	[0.31, 2.70]	0.93	[0.56, 1.53]
Sexual	1.74	[0.51, 6.01]	1.35*	[1.01, 1.80]
Controls
Direct victimization	2.08	[0.99, 4.36]	1.01	[0.78, 1.31]
Age	1.00	[0.97, 1.03]	0.99	[0.97, 1.00]
Marital status^b	—	—	1.11	[0.79, 1.56]
Race	1.26	[0.74, 2.15]	1.07	[0.75, 1.52]
Religion	0.78	[0.36, 1.70]	1.06	[0.88, 1.27]
Education	1.14	[0.61, 2.13]	0.98	[0.80, 1.18]
Prior prison	0.79	[0.49, 1.20]	0.91	[0.69, 1.20]
Mental illness	0.70	[0.33, 1.48]	1.55***	[1.22, 1.97]
Intercept	24.85***	[3.67, 166.0]	0.53	[0.23, 1.21]
Model statistics
Log pseudolikelihood	−169.40		−836.32
Wald χ²	28.22**		60.34***
Pseudo-R²	.04		.01

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

The models for parole revocation and reincarceration produced null findings and therefore were not presented in the current article.

Marital status was a perfect predictor in the model for any negative criminal justice outcome and was not included in the model.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Column 2 shows that one witnessing variable and one demographic variable were statistically significantly related to parole violation. Parolees who reported witnessing sexual victimization faced odds of receiving a parole violation that were 35% greater than parolees who did not witness sexual victimization (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = [1.01, 1,80]). In addition, the odds of receiving a parole violation were 55% higher for parolees diagnosed with a mental illness compared with those who were not diagnosed with a mental illness (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = [1.22, 1.97]).

As shown in Table 3, parolees who reported witnessing sexual victimization faced odds of re-arrest that were 44% higher than those who had not witnessed a sexual victimization (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = [1.16, 1.80]). Two demographic variables were also related to arrest. Older respondents faced lower odds of re-arrest compared with younger respondents (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = [0.97, 0.99]. The strongest predictor of being arrested while on parole was mental illness, with respondents who were diagnosed with a mental illness while incarcerated being 49% more likely to be arrested than respondents who were not diagnosed with a mental illness (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = [1.15, 1.93]).

Table 3:

Binary Logistic Regression Examining the Influence of Witnessing Victimization on Post-Release Outcomes of Arrest (N = 1,613)

Variable	Arrest
Variable	OR	95% CI
Independent
Emotional	1.46	[0.78, 2.75]
Theft	1.41	[0.98, 2.00]
Fighting	0.86	[0.55, 1.33]
Sexual	1.44***	[1.16, 1.80]
Controls
Direct victimization	1.15	[0.88, 1.50]
Age	0.98**	[0.97, 0.99]
Marital status	1.39	[0.99, 1.94]
Race	0.95	[0.71, 1.29]
Religion	0.98	[0.78, 1.22]
Education	0.97	[0.71, 1.32]
Prior prison	1.02	[0.76, 1.37]
Mental illness	1.49**	[1.15, 1.93]
Intercept	0.45	[0.17, 1.18]
Model statistics
Log pseudolikelihood	−858.17***
Wald χ²	103.16
Pseudo-R²	.03

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The current study isolates the link between witnessing different types of victimization in prison and individual criminal justice outcomes and has two main findings. First, nearly all parolees reported witnessing at least one type of victimization during their incarceration, with witnessing emotional victimization (94%) and witnessing fighting (92%) being the most common, followed by witnessing stealing (82%) and witnessing sexual victimization (23%), respectively. This finding is not surprising given the prevalence of victimization in prisons and the ways in which inmates are confined. The prison structure (e.g., cells and common areas) facilitates interaction and places inmates in close, regular proximity (Kerbs & Jolley, 2007), which may make it easy for other inmates to witness the occurrence of victimization. Wolff and Shi (2011) found that although an inmate’s cell was the most frequently reported location in which physical and sexual victimization occurred, a significant proportion of victimization incidents occurred in the areas where inmates frequently congregate, including the yard, dining areas, showers, the library, and corridors.

Kerbs and Jolley (2007) found that property victimization was common for older inmates, particularly those residing in low-security facilities and open barrack-style housing. They argued that such open floor plans facilitated theft, especially when the inmate was away at the dining hall (Kerbs & Jolley, 2007). These findings suggest that the physical structure of prison may be the reason a significant portion of this sample reported witnessing fighting, theft, and emotional victimization. Not only do these three types of victimization appear to commonly occur, these types of victimization are also likely occurring in locations within prisons where many inmates are able to witness them.

Second, while nearly all of the parolees reported seeing fighting and emotional victimization, these two types of victimization were not related to any of the outcomes at the multivariate level, which is not consistent with the witnessing DV/exposure to violence literature. The absence of a relationship between witnessing these two types of victimization and post-release outcomes may be because there is little variation in the responses for both measures. Of the 1,581 respondents who answered whether or not they witnessed emotional victimization, only 80 respondents did not witness this type of victimization. Similarly, of the 1,601 respondents who indicated whether or not they witnessed fighting, 129 did not witness fighting. It may also be that because witnessing psychological and physical victimization is so common, it does not have an effect. In this way, seeing victimization is simply part of the everyday landscape of prison. It is possible that because almost everyone is witnessing these types of victimization, exposure to them has little effect on an individual’s ability to reintegrate into society.

Observing theft and sexual victimization, on the contrary, were significantly related to post-release outcomes. Witnessing theft significantly increased the odds of a respondent having any of the negative criminal justice outcomes. The effects of witnessing theft may be tied to the depriving nature of prisons. Upon entrance to prison, inmates are stripped of their autonomy, personal identities, privacy, and access to material goods (Sykes, 1958). Their worldly possessions consist of what little they can amass during incarceration. Witnessing theft reinforces the fact that they have little control or power, and at any time, they may be stripped of their few belongings, which may result in feelings of hopelessness. Low levels of perceived personal control and autonomy are linked to psychological consequences, such as depression, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness (Goodstein, MacKenzie, & Shotland, 1984; Ruback, Carr, & Hopper, 1986; Wright, 1991). These consequences may translate into antisocial behaviors, including criminal behavior, that are reflective of an individual’s ability to reintegrate into society.

Of all the types of victimization, witnessing sexual victimization appears to be most related to post-release outcomes. This finding supports the assumption that witnessing sexual victimization is a source of vicarious strain and can lead to similar negative emotional reactions as directly experiencing strain (Agnew, 2002). It is also plausible that seeing someone in close physical proximity being victimized may reinforce the fact that at any point they too can become a victim. For males, witnessing sexual victimization may be more traumatic than other types of victimization. Although any form of victimization can result in adverse emotional reactions, sexual victimization, specifically of males, challenges traditional views of masculinity. Such views that dictate that men should be strong, assertive, sexually dominant, and heterosexual influence society’s misconceptions about male rape, both inside and outside of prison (Davies, 2002). In prison, rape is a way to assert masculinity and signify power (Fleisher & Krienert, 2009) with sexual victimization demonstrating the aggressor’s superior strength and knowledge, while identifying the victim as weaker and less knowledgeable (Man & Cronan, 2001). Being the victim goes against this idea of males as the more powerful and dominant sex. For individuals who witness this form of victimization, the anticipation of becoming a victim may have significant consequences.

As discussed in the literature review, the anticipation of becoming a victim may have significant psychological consequences for individuals. For inmates, just witnessing sexual victimization and the anticipation of potentially becoming a victim may result in long-lasting strain. Individuals with poor coping skills lack the ability to respond to strain in a prosocial manner and may resort to delinquency (e.g., violence or substance use) as a way to alleviate the pressures of strain (Hoffmann & Su, 1997; Mazerolle, Burton, Cullen, Evans, & Payne, 2000). Poor coping resources combined with beliefs of victimization as a form of emasculation may cause prisoners who witnessed sexual victimization to respond with aggression and anger as a means of reasserting masculinity and alleviating the strain of victimization.

Particularly relevant to the current study is that parolees may not possess good coping resources such as effective problem-solving skills and having non-delinquent social networks once released (Agnew, 1992). Insomuch that they lack good coping skills and resources and respond to strain with negative emotionality, parolees who witness victimization are at risk of engaging in behaviors that could lead to arrest, parole violations/revocations, reincarceration, and substance use. In line with this link, Boxer et al. (2009) found that experiencing violence in prison, through either direct experience or witnessing, was significantly related to a composite measure of personality and behavior items (Boxer et al., 2009). This finding suggests that witnessing violence in prison is related to aggressive behaviors, such as hitting someone, that may result in parole violations and/or revocation, and ultimately re-arrest. If the consequences of observing victimization are similar to those of experiencing victimization, it is likely that prisoners who witness victimization, specifically sexual victimization, will engage in behavior that may lead to negative criminal justice outcomes.

An interesting finding is that after controlling for direct and indirect experiences of victimization, having been diagnosed with a mental disorder is significantly related to negative post-release outcomes. This finding indicates that prisoners who have been diagnosed with a mental illness have difficulty adjusting outside of prison. Having a mental illness may impair individuals’ ability to cope with the effects of witnessing victimization. Thus, screening for mental illness and connecting prisoners to treatment in the community is a necessary part of the reentry process. In addition, persons with mental illness may need additional support from parole officers and caseworkers, including connecting them with relevant services in the community. Because certain persons with mental illness who have been victimized are also at risk of experiencing additional victimization, this increased support may also serve to reduce risk of victimization as well as offending (Teasdale, Daigle, & Ballard, 2014). Future research should examine how the experience of exposure to victimization affects the ability of persons with mental illness to successfully reintegrate into society, and whether witnessing victimization has particularly negative consequences for certain types of mental illness. To explore this, measures of mental illness of incarcerated persons will need to be more nuanced and should include official records to reduce measurement error.

Although the study illustrates that victimization in prison does have an impact, this study is not without limitations. The current study relied on a preexisting data set that contained victimization and post-release data from male parolees residing in halfway houses in only one state. Having data on only males and from only one state precludes generalizing the findings to all parolees in halfway houses throughout the country.

A second limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature of the victimization data. Face-to-face interviews were conducted between 2006 and 2007 with parolees who had recently been released from prison (within 6 months of their release date). However, follow-up interviews are needed to enhance our understanding of the persistence of the effects of witnessing victimization in prison. Another limitation is the lack of measures for barriers to reentry after the parolees were released into the community. More information is needed on whether or not parolees were able to find and maintain housing, whether or not they were able to pay their bills, and what type of support they had in the community to help with their reintegration. Finding stable housing and employment has been identified as one of the most difficult obstacles to successful reentry (Helfgott, 1997; Petersilia, 2003).

The results can be used to inform policy and practice within prison and after release. Although much effort has been made to reduce the occurrence of sexual victimization in prisons as a result of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), the findings here suggest that other forms of victimization have negative effects on post-release outcomes. Reducing the occurrence of victimization within prisons can reduce the occurrence of witnessing victimization. Among the various types of victimization, sexual victimization is the least likely to occur; thus, efforts to combat victimization in prisons should also focus on theft and emotional abuse in addition to physical and sexual victimization. A meta-analysis points at promising ways to reduce misconduct in prison—Behavioral treatments that target criminogenic needs with high therapeutic integrity produced the largest mean effect sizes on misconduct level (French & Gendreau, 2006). As such, it is important that prisons expand their use of treatment services rather than turn to policies that are not evidence-based or rely primarily on deterrence-based strategies (Nagin et al., 2009).

Until we can eradicate violence in prison, however, attention must be given to those individuals who have already been exposed and are transitioning back into the community. Although victimization in prison is problematic, the current study highlights the effects being exposed to victimization has on reentry. Unlike direct experiences of victimization, there generally is no record of exposure to victimization in prisoners’ records. Case managers should screen for exposure to victimization experiences so that they then can link resources to the community to offenders. This ability to identify those offenders in need of service is particularly dire given that consequences associated with witnessing victimization while incarcerated may exacerbate the barriers that already make the transition home difficult.

Risk assessment and treatment/intervention are needed both within correctional institutions and after release for psychological problems and strain that could negatively impact reentry. Treatment can be used to help prisoners cope with the negative emotions that result from witnessing victimization. Again, prisoners likely lack effective coping skills, and therefore, they are likely to act out in anger and frustration. Treatment, such as group therapy, can be a prosocial way of verbally expressing emotions and an opportunity to learn how to express emotions in ways that will not lead to crime.

In addition, screening prisoners and matching them to appropriate interventions is especially important. Even where post-release control is available, the control is more focused on surveillance and supervision and then on rehabilitation and providing assistance (Petersilia, 1999; Travis & Petersilia, 2001). Consequently, post-release programs should be more attuned to what is causing recidivism, which includes witnessing victimization in prison. As such, this risk factor should be included in risk assessments and intervention protocol.

Footnotes

Appendix

Notes

Jane C. Daquin, MS, is a PhD student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Georgia State University. Her research focuses the role of mental illness on prison misconduct and prison victimization, the institutional experiences of the aging prison population, and the effects of experienced and vicarious victimization of prisoners on post-release outcomes.

Leah E. Daigle, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. Her most recent research has centered on repeat sexual victimization of college women and the development and continuation of victimization across the life course. She is coauthor of Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course (2nd ed.) and Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women, which was awarded the 2011 Outstanding Book Award by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and author of Victimology: A Text/Reader and Victimology: The Essentials. Her research has also appeared in peer-reviewed journals, including Justice Quarterly, Victims and Offenders, The Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and The Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Shelley Johnson Listwan, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on the relationship between criminology and correctional rehabilitation, with an emphasis on individual-level differences. Her work has appeared in Justice Quarterly, Criminology and Public Policy, Crime & Delinquency, and the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.

References

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47-87.

Agnew

(2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19, 603-632.

Austin

Fabelo

Gunter

McGinnis

(2006). Sexual violence in the Texas prison system (Report No. NJC215774). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Beck

A. J.

Berzofsky

Caspar

Krebs

(2013). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2011-12 (Report No. NCJ 241399). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bell

C. C.

Jenkins

E. J.

(1991). Traumatic stress and children. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2, 175-188.

Berg

M. T.

Huebner

B. M.

(2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 382-410.

Blevins

K. R.

Listwan

S. J.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

(2010). A general strain theory of prison violence and misconduct: An integrated model of inmate behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 148-166.

Blitz

C. L.

Wolff

Shi

(2008). Physical victimization in prison: The role of mental illness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 385-393.

Boxer

Middlemass

Delorenzo

(2009). Exposure to violent crime during incarceration: Effects on psychological adjustment following release. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 793-807.

10.

Buka

S. L.

Stichick

T. L.

Birdthistle

Earls

F. J.

(2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298-310.

11.

Carson

E. A.

Golinelli

(2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991-2012 (Report No. NCJ 243920). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

12.

Chen

M. K.

Shapiro

J. M.

(2007). Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. American Law and Economic Review, 9, 1-29.

13.

Cid

(2009). Is imprisonment criminogenic? A comparative study of recidivism rates between prison and suspended prison sanctions. European Journal of Criminology, 6, 459-480.

14.

Clear

T. R.

Hardyman

P. L.

Stout

Lucken

Dammer

H. R.

(2000). The value of religion in prison: An inmate perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 53-74.

15.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

Stewart

E. A.

(2014). Does inmate behavior affect post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and adults. Justice Quarterly, 31, 1044-1073.

16.

Colbert

S. J.

Krause

(2009). Witnessing violence across the life course, depressive symptoms, and alcohol use among older persons. Health Education & Behavior, 36, 259-277.

17.

Copes

Higgins

G. E.

Tewksbury

Dabney

D. A.

(2011). Participation in the prison economy and likelihood of physical victimization. Victims & Offenders, 6, 1-18.

18.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

Nagin

D. S.

(2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 9, 48S-65S.

19.

Davies

(2002). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and implications for support services. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 7, 203-214.

20.

Diamond

Muller

R. T.

(2004). The relationship between witnessing parental conflict during childhood and later psychological adjustment among university students: Disentangling confounding risk factors. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 295-309.

21.

Drago

Galbiati

Vertova

(2011). Prison conditions and recidivism. American Law and Economics Review, 13, 103-130.

22.

Durose

M. R.

Cooper

A. D.

Snyder

H. N.

(2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (Report No. NCJ 244205). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

23.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

Boldizar

J. P.

(1993). The prevalence and consequences of exposure to violence among African-American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424-430.

24.

Fleisher

M. S.

Krienert

J. L.

(2009). The myth of prison rape: Sexual culture in American prisons. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

25.

Ford

J. D.

(1999). Disorders of extreme stress following war-zone military trauma: Associated features of posttraumatic stress disorder or comorbid but distinct syndromes? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 3-12.

26.

French

S. A.

Gendreau

(2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185-218.

27.

Gaylord-Harden

N. K.

Cunningham

J. A.

Zelencik

(2011). Effects of exposure to community violence on internalizing symptoms: Does desensitization to violence occur in African American youth? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 711-719.

28.

Gendreau

Little

Goggin

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

29.

Gibson

L. E.

Holt

J. C.

Fondacaro

K. M.

Tang

T. S.

Powell

T. A.

Turbitt

E. L.

(1999). An examination of antecedent traumas and psychiatric comorbidity among male inmates with PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 473-484.

30.

Goodstein

MacKenzie

D. L.

Shotland

R. L.

(1984). Personal control and inmate adjustment to prison. Criminology, 22, 343-369.

31.

Gorman-Smith

Henry

D. B.

Tolan

P. H.

(2004). Exposure to community violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33, 439-449.

32.

Harlow

C. W.

(2003). Education and correctional populations (Report No. NCJ 195670). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

33.

Helfgott

(1997). Ex-offender needs versus criminal opportunity in Seattle, Washington. Federal Probation, 61, 12-24.

34.

Hensley

Tewksbury

Castle

(2003). Characteristics of prison sexual assault targets in male Oklahoma correctional facilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 595-606.

35.

Hochstetler

Murphy

D. S.

Simons

R. L.

(2004). Damaged goods: Exploring predictors of distress in prison inmates. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 436-457.

36.

Hoffmann

J. P.

S. S.

(1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency and drug use: A strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 34, 46-78.

37.

Kerbs

J. J.

Jolley

J. M.

(2007). Inmate-on-inmate victimization among older male prisoners. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 187-218.

38.

Lahm

K. F.

(2009). Inmate assaults on prison staff: A multilevel examination of an overlooked form of prison violence. The Prison Journal, 89, 131-150.

39.

Lin

Grattet

Petersilia

(2010). “Back-end sentencing” and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48, 759-795.

40.

Listwan

S. J.

Colvin

Hanley

Flannery

(2010). Victimization, social support, and psychological well-being: A study of recently released prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1140-1159.

41.

Listwan

S. J.

Daigle

L. E.

Hartman

J. L.

Guastaferro

W. P.

(2014). Poly-victimization risk in prison: The influence of individual and institutional factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2458-2481.

42.

Listwan

S. J.

Hanley

Colvin

(2010). The prison experience and reentry: Examining the impact of victimization on coming home (Document No. 238083). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

43.

Loza

(2003). Predicting violent and nonviolent recidivism of incarcerated male offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 175-203.

44.

Maitland

A. S.

Sluder

R. D.

(1998). Victimization and youthful prison inmates: An empirical analysis. The Prison Journal, 78, 55-73.

45.

Maker

A. H.

Kemmelmeier

Peterson

(1998). Long-term psychological consequences in women of witnessing parental physical conflict and experiencing abuse in childhood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 574-589.

46.

Man

C. D.

Cronan

J. P.

(2001). Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indifference.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 92, 127-185.

47.

Martinez

Richters

J. E.

(1993). The NIMH community violence project: II. Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence exposure. Psychiatry, 56, 22-35.

48.

Mazerolle

Burton

V. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Evans

T. D.

Payne

G. L.

(2000). Strain, anger, and delinquent adaptations: Specifying general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 89-101.

49.

McCorkle

R. C.

(1993). Fear of victimization and symptoms of psychopathology among prison inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 27-41.

50.

Nagin

D. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

(2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115-200.

51.

Overlien

(2010). Children exposed to domestic violence: Conclusions from the literature and challenges ahead. Journal of Social Work, 10, 80-97.

52.

Perez

D. M.

Gover

A. R.

Tennyson

K. M.

Santos

S. D.

(2010). Individual and institutional characteristics related to inmate victimization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 378-394.

53.

Petersilia

(1999). Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. Crime and Justice, 26, 479-529.

54.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

55.

Rossman

B. B.

(2000). Time heals all: How much and for whom? Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 31-50.

56.

Ruback

B. R.

Carr

T. S.

Hopper

C. H.

(1986). Perceived control in prison: Its relation to reported crowding, stress, and symptoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 375-386.

57.

Smith

N. E.

Batiuk

M. E.

(1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The Prison Journal, 69, 29-38.

58.

Sykes

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

59.

Teasdale

Daigle

L. E.

Ballard

(2014). Trajectories of recurring victimization among people with major mental disorders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 987-1005.

60.

Travis

McBride

E. C.

Solomon

A. L.

(2003). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry (Report No. NCJ 204557). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

61.

Travis

Petersilia

(2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 291-313.

62.

Villettaz

Killias

Zoder

(2006). The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/22/

63.

Wolff

Shi

(2011). Patterns of victimization and feelings of safety inside prison: The experience of male and female inmates. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 29-55.

64.

Wolff

Shi

Siegel

(2009). Patterns of victimization among male and female inmates: Evidence of an enduring legacy. Violence and Victims, 24, 469-484.

65.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1994). Inmate crime and victimization in a southwestern correctional facility. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 367-381.

66.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1998). Inmate lifestyles and opportunities for victimization. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 480-502.

67.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1999). Inmate experiences and psychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 235-250.

68.

Wooldridge

(2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

69.

Wright

K. N.

(1991). The violent and victimized in the male prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16, 1-26.

70.

Zweig

J. M.

Yahner

Visher

C. A.

Lattimore

P. K.

(2014). Using general strain theory to explore the effects of prison victimization experiences on later offending and substance use. The Prison Journal, 95, 84-113.