Counting Down

Introduction

Prisoner misconduct is a form of adaptation; the way an inmate adapts or does not adapt to the prison environment can directly affect his or her behavior and lead to increased disciplinary problems (Craddock, 1996). The longer one is incarcerated, the more “prisonized” one becomes (Wheeler, 1961). “Prisonization” occurs when inmates adhere to the rules of the “inmate code” (i.e., no snitching, keeping one’s cool, minding one’s business, etc.; Sykes & Messinger, 1960) and become entrenched within the inmate subculture, a culture that is in direct opposition to the conventional rules of the prison and society (Clemmer, 1940). The more “prisonized” one becomes, the more likely one will display problematic behaviors while incarcerated (Toch & Grant, 1989).

Traditional educational programs are correlated with decreased disciplinary infractions (Taylor, 1993). Yet, the effect of nontraditional programs and their relationship to decreased disciplinary infractions is unclear; evidence on the empirical relationship between these two variables is not well documented (Collica, 2010). Absent specific research in this area, this study investigated the role of two HIV prison-based peer programs (AIDS, Counseling, and Education [ACE] and CARE [Counseling, AIDS, Resource, and Education]) and their impact on prison disciplinary infractions. Working in an HIV peer program during incarceration can allow inmate peers to form conventional relationships, preventing one from becoming “prisonized.” Findings indicated that incarcerated women who worked as HIV peer educators were able to foster strong prosocial networks of support, thus preventing the negative impact of prisonization and diminishing the occasion for misbehavior. In sum, disciplinary infractions were kept quite low among peer workers.

Literature Review

In general, educational programs are correlated with diminished disciplinary behavior (Taylor, 1993); they monopolize the inmate’s time and serve to restrict the negative influences of prison life (Harer, 1995). Programs provide an incentive for inmates to stay out of trouble (Taylor, 1992), particularly if disciplinary action can lead to the removal from a desired program. Empirical studies conducted on prison-based vocational and academic education showed reduced levels of recidivism, increased employment, and a reduction in prison disciplinary problems (Gerber & Fritsch, 1995). Gaes, Flanagan, Motiuk, and Stewart (1999) argue, “Despite methodological shortcomings and challenges [of studies on this topic], the evidence suggests that carefully designed and administered education and work programs can improve inmates’ institutional behavior, reduce recidivism, and promote involvement in prosocial activities after release” (p. 398).

Some prison-based programs are more successful than others because they are separate from the rest of the facility (this minimizes distractions), they provide follow-up services (like job placement), and they provide skills that are highly marketable in today’s job market (Gerber & Fritsch, 1995). In a literature review on prison education, Linden and Perry (1982) found that programs will be most successful if they are “intensive,” if they can establish an “alternative community within the prison,” and if they offer “post-release services to inmates” (p. 55). Factors such as staff characteristics and the interactions between staff and inmates can be the difference between a successful program and an unsuccessful one (Koons, Burrow, Morash, & Bynum, 1997; Palmer, 1995). Attainable goals of prison programming are the cultivation of conventional conduct and relationships. Despite program focus, the staff that provides such programming may be the most important factor in a program’s ability to transform the offender.

Not all programs will work for all inmates and reasons for misconduct are varied. Program success and types of disciplinary infractions vary according to gender; this variation, in part, may be a consequence of women’s emotional make-up and their ability to form emotional attachments to others. As a result, correctional programming for women may need to focus on their specific needs and the specific reasons why they violate prison rules (Glover, Perez, & Jennings, 2008). Women as a whole, incarcerated or free, appear to be more closely connected with the people around them than their male counterparts. Although men may know more people than women, women appear to be more aware of problems with their friends and family, and more influenced by such problems, making them more “emotionally responsive” than men (Kessler & McLeod, 1984, p. 628). These emotional responses can be detrimental inside of the prison because such outbursts are likely to be perceived as a disciplinary problem.

In a report compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS; Stephan, 1989), over half of all inmates were found guilty of violating prison rules. The average rate of inmate infractions was 1.5 per year. Others found the rate of infractions to be much higher at 3.6 per year (Toch, Adams, & Grant, 1989). The BJS study found that those who were younger, incarcerated in larger institutions or maximum-security institutions, unmarried, serving time for a property offense or for a robbery, having a past history of incarceration, having been arrested for the first time as a juvenile, having less than a high school diploma or general educational development (GED), and having a history of drug misuse were more likely to receive infractions than other types of inmates.

Overall, it is really difficult to know the true rate of infractions among inmates, considering that the writing of an infraction is based entirely upon the discretion of the correctional officer or civilian staff member (Acevedo & Bakken, 2003). Inmates commit more infractions than recorded by official data and it appears that correctional officers do not officially report a majority of the infractions committed (Hewitt, Poole, & Regoli, 1984). Correctional officers decide which behavior constitutes a rule infraction and which inmate will be punished for which behavior (Poole & Regoli, 1980). There is little consistency in disciplining rule violators.

In general, female inmates are punished for minor rule-violating behavior more frequently than their male counterparts. Correctional staff believe that female inmates possess a different emotional make-up than male inmates (McClellan, 1994). There is an “assumption that women are irrational, compulsive and slightly neurotic” (Smart, 1976), in addition to being “too emotional,” “too manipulative,” and “too vocal” (Debell, 2001, p. 59). Women are more expressive and more communicative, while men are more closed and less verbal (Cranford & Williams, 1998). Women inmates are more expressive about their anger than male inmates (Suter, Bryne, Bryne, Howells, & Day, 2002). These expressions, although nonviolent in nature, may be perceived by staff as constituting a disciplinary infraction, such as insubordination, creating a disturbance, verbal harassment of an officer, or even inciting a riot. Because men and women express themselves differently, what may actually be a healthy way of releasing pent up emotions may be perceived as problematic behavior (i.e., emotional outburst) for the female inmate. Female offenders need a safe place to express healthy emotion. Therefore, staff training should focus on communicating effectively with female offenders to avoid unnecessary disciplinary action (DeBell, 2001; Pollock, 1984).

Even though the level of violence in female institutions is significantly lower compared with male institutions (Kruttschnitt & Krmpotich, 1990; Lindquist, 1980), research shows that female inmates are more likely to receive disciplinary infractions than male inmates (Cao, Zhao & Van Dine, 1997; Craddock, 1996; Stephan, 1989). Women commit less serious violations than men, even though they are cited for infractions more often (Acevedo & Bakken, 2003; Dalley, 1993; Jiang, 2005) and the reasons for the misconduct differs as well (Glover et al., 2008). In examining female rule violators, those that violated the rules upon commitment or shortly after tended to be younger, served longer sentences, committed a public order offense, had previous incarcerations, and were a parole or probation violator (Craddock, 1996). Some facilities may have a small group of chronic women offenders cited for violent behavior, but it is atypical of female offenders as a whole (Acevedo & Bakken, 2003). Females are more likely than males to be cited for nonviolent sexual offenses, while males are more likely to be cited for fighting offenses (Craddock, 1996). Male and female inmates are cited most often for disobeying a direct order (Tischler & Marquart, 1989). It is estimated, though, that females are twice as likely as males to be written up for such minor infractions (Eaton, 1993). Women incur approximately 2 infractions per year, while their male counterparts incur 1.4 per year (Stephan, 1989). Behavior that is often ignored in male facilities is severely enforced and punished in female institutions (Dobash, Dobash, & Gutteridge, 1986). Although women commit less serious infractions, they are punished more severely than male inmates (McClellan, 1994). Their behavior is no worse than that of their male counterparts, but their behavior comes to the attention of correctional staff more easily. Humphrey (1987) states, “When staff expect women to be more troublesome than men, and expand more energy in the detection and punishment of their misbehaviors, it is little wonder that women have high disciplinary rates” (p. 5).

Many factors are correlated with prison misconduct such as being young, male, less educated, lacking social networks, previous incarcerations, prison gang affiliations, family background factors, mental illness, violent histories, serving shorter sentences, serving determinate sentences, poor prison management, or racial composition (Bales & Miller, 2012; Berg & DeLisi, 2006; Camp, Gaes, Langan, & Sayor, 2003; Craddock, 1996; Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006, 2007; Cunningham, Sorensen, & Reidy, 2005; DeLisi, 2003; DeLisi, Truison, Marquart, Drury, & Kosloski, 2011; Goetting & Howsen, 1986; Griffin & Hepburn, 2013; Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996, 2006; James & Glaze, 2006; Kuanliang, Sorensen, & Cunningham, 2008; Sheldon, 1991; Steiner, 2009; Walters & Schlauch, 2007; Wooldredge, 1991). In contrast, those who are older, are employed at the time of arrest, have no previous incarcerations, have a high school diploma or higher, and are married have lower rates of disciplinary infractions (Toch, Adams, & Grant, 1989). Those with a long history of criminal behavior and substance abuse are more likely to acquire misbehavior reports, particularly at a young age (Jiang, 2005). However, older inmates with a drug offense and some education engaged in less violent behavior (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006). Consistent visitation from family reduces prison misconduct (Cochran, 2012). Yet, women who received visits from their children while incarcerated were most likely to display disruptive behavior (Acevedo, Bakken, & Karle, 2004). The repeated emotional separation from one’s children may be to blame.

One way to mitigate disciplinary misconduct is through participation in prison programming, which not only provides a hiatus from the mundane daily routine of prison life (Taylor, 1992) but also raises levels of self-esteem and confidence (Dhami, Ayton, & Lowenstein, 2007; Roundtree, Edwards, & Dawson, 1982; Tewksbury & Vito, 1994), while decreasing feelings of frustration (Tootoonchi, 1993). There is also the opportunity to promote conventional behavior that is supported through conventional relationships with other program participants and program staff (Collica, 2010). Inmates who participate in these programs serve as positive role models for other inmates (Taylor, 1992, 1993); it increases their self-esteem. Self-esteem is an important factor in maintaining a law-abiding lifestyle and it is an important part of rehabilitation and reintegration. This is particularly important for female offenders, often plagued with poor self-image (Tewksbury & Vito, 1994).

Nontraditional programming, such as HIV peer programming, may help to mitigate disciplinary misconduct for female offenders. The current study investigates two HIV prison-based peer education programs, ACE and CARE, and their impact on disciplinary infractions received by the HIV peer workers. Previously, many benefits have been attributed to these programs: They provide vital health educational and counseling services to inmates, they provide such services free of charge to the prison, they provide offenders with marketable job skills, they afford offenders with a higher purpose, and they lessen the effects of prisonization (Collica, 2007, 2010). Another rehabilitative effect that emerged from the study of these programs appeared to be their impact on inmate disciplinary rates. As one’s associates in prison can affect adjustment, being associated with programs like ACE/CARE can prevent periods of maladjustment at the beginning and end of one’s sentence, where disciplinary infractions are highest. The women in these programs provided leadership, support, and guidance for one another, and they helped to alleviate one another’s stress. As the women were viewed as role models by other inmates and correctional staff, they were not likely to jeopardize their position by engaging in unlawful or deviant behaviors. By cultivating strong conventional attachments and strong networks of support, positive associations with the women of ACE/CARE prevented or decreased disciplinary actions for women.

ACE and CARE

This study, based on the narratives of 49 female offenders, examined the effects of two HIV prison-based peer programs on inmate peers in NYS (New York State): The ACE Program located at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility (BHCF) and the CARE Program located at Taconic Correctional Facility (TCF). Bedford Hills Correctional Facility is the only maximum-security prison for women in NYS, holding approximately 800 inmates, and TCF, located across the street from BHCF, is a medium-security facility for women in NYS, holding approximately 400 inmates. ACE/CARE civilians work in both facilities. Both programs, established in the late 1980s, were created to deal with the AIDS epidemic in female prisons and provide a variety of services to inmate population such as support groups, education, crisis counseling, HIV testing, discharge planning, special events, professional trainings, etc. ACE educates more than 3,000 women annually and CARE educates approximately 600 women annually. When fully staffed, the programs consist of five civilians from a community-based organization; the number of inmate peers vary (anywhere from 4 to 9). Inmates in this sample worked for ACE/CARE for an average of 4 years, ranging from 6 months to 13 years and most were not HIV positive (86% and 14%, respectively). Inmates were trained to provide counseling, educational workshops, and facilitate support groups. In addition, they had permission to work with specialized prison groups such as the nursery mothers, those in the behavioral health unit and those in hospice.

Prospective peer workers must have, or be working toward, their GED. All are required to submit a resume, to have successfully completed the HIV professional training series (offered by CARE/ACE), undergo two interviews (one by the program coordinator and one by the other inmate peers), and teach a demonstration lesson. Prospective workers must have a good disciplinary record during the months directly preceding employment. Inmates with poor records are encouraged to maintain good behavior for a few months before reapplying. A poor disciplinary record, once hired, is grounds for dismissal. Upon securing a peer position, each inmate staff member is supervised by the ACE or CARE Coordinator. Together, the civilians and inmates not only deliver comprehensive HIV related services, they create a supportive and safe community-oriented environment within the prison.

Data and Method

Findings

Subjects were asked to rate their institutional records. They categorized their disciplinary history as excellent (69%), good (16%), fair (4%), or poor (10%). Ninety-two percent of participants said they did not see themselves as a disciplinary problem, and 86% did not feel others viewed them as a disciplinary problem. Interestingly, only 20% never received any tickets while imprisoned. One inmate, “Blissful” (ACE), said she was too scared to commit any disciplinary infractions, which is why she never received any tickets; she was able to seek solace in the ACE Program:

I was too scared to get any tickets. I didn’t get any tickets at all. I was a role model inmate. I was 19 when I was arrested and 21 when I was convicted and sentenced and I was really scared. I needed to make my time as easy as possible and I was petrified when I got to Bedford. It was bad enough being in prison, I didn’t need to make things worse for myself while I was there. Then I met some of the women in ACE and they were the ones that told me that I would be O.K.

The types of infractions can prove to be more important than the number (see Table 1 for number and type of tickets reported). Many of the women recalled the incidences that led up to their tickets. Most of their infractions were minor to moderate in nature. As one woman reported,

The three Tier I tickets were for no radio permit, no fan permit, and passing cigarettes to a keeplock. The two Tier II tickets were for interfering with staff duties. There was ice on my cell wall and I refused to lock in until the heat was turned on, and [the third was for] contraband. I had spiral notebooks, rulers, hair beads, bleach, and a photo album binder in my cell. (Big Sis/ACE)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Ticket Number and Type.

No. of occurrences	0	1-3	4-6	7-9	10 or more	Unknown
Tier I	71%	18%	10%	0%	0%	4%
Tier II	25%	39%	14%	6%	14%	2%
Tier III	71%	17%	8%	0%	0%	2%

One woman’s three tier tickets occurred after she left Bedford and her employment with ACE subsequently ended:

I received two Tier IIIs after ACE. The first one was in Albion for kiting mail (having mail sent to a third party). I was writing to my friend in Bedford who ended up dying there. I would do it again if I had to do over. She was my friend, my family. The second Tier III was at Beacon. I had outside clearance and I got in trouble for accepting a pack of cigarettes from a civilian. I lost my clearance but I got it back. (Ice/ACE)

In looking at the effect that ACE/CARE had on rates of disciplinary infractions among participants, more than half the participants (51%) had a decrease in the number of tickets they received after joining ACE/CARE. Forty-seven percent did not experience any changes, as the rate of infractions among this group was low before working for ACE/CARE (a requirement for employment), and one woman (Sad), who was a severe disciplinary problem and atypical of this sample, was fired from her position. Only two of the women stated that they did not believe that their decrease in infractions was related to their work in ACE/CARE. “Sad,” who was removed from the ACE program for disciplinary behavior, had an extremely high rate of tickets. She had incurred 10 times the amount of infractions incurred by the other women and had the highest rate of infractions (and most serious infractions) compared with all of the other study participants. In spite of her high number of infractions, she too achieved a decrease in infractions when working for ACE:

I was in SHU 3 times for a dirty urine, once before, once during and once after ACE for 30 days each. I don’t know how many times I have been keep-locked—a lot. It was usually for verbal harassment and disobeying a direct order. Most of them were before ACE. (Sad/ACE)

The remainder of women attributed their good discipline directly to ACE/CARE. Some attributed their good behavior directly to the influence of their ACE/CARE peer sisters:

We would keep each other on the up and up. If someone was straying, we would say what’s up, what’s going on? If we had to, we would kick them out of the program. Everything about you reflected upon the program. You could not just leave the room and say that you weren’t in ACE so you could do whatever you wanted. ACE followed us everywhere at every time and we had to be mindful of our behavior. (Sarabanda/ACE)

Others attributed their good behavior to the ACE/CARE civilian staff:

We knew that we were not supposed to get into trouble. If we had, she [the CARE civilian supervisor] would have stuck by us but if the administration said that she had to fire us, she would have no choice but to let us go. (Shak/CARE)

As the women were very aware that their behavior reflected upon the program, their peers, and the civilian staff, questions were asked to determine whether they thought the civilians and peers would be upset with them if they committed a disciplinary infraction. In regard to their peers, 69% said their peers would be upset with them and 14% said it would depend on the nature of the infraction. Many of the women believed that inmates would often receive tickets in prison, even if the disciplinary infraction was not justified. Their peers would be upset with them if it was a situation that could have been avoided. However, it was difficult not to receive a ticket:

We all had our share[of infractions]. It is easy to get a disciplinary infraction in here. You can get one for breathing wrong. You can get one because you are the victim of an officer having a bad day. (Compassionate/ACE)

Whether they were right or wrong, the women believed that even if their peers were upset with their behavior, they would not relinquish their support. When asked if it would bother them if their coworkers were upset with them, 59% said “yes” and 8% said “somewhat.” Those women who stated “yes” perceived the peers to be a family unit and they would not want them to be upset or disappointed. The notion of being a role model was echoed several times and appeared to have a tremendous impact on decision making. For those women that stated “no” (33%), there was a feeling that they were responsible for their own decisions and they hoped that their peers would be understanding:

I don’t think they would be upset as much as they would be shocked. How could she? What happened? They would be more shocked than upset. (Blissful/ACE)

I don’t know if they would be upset as much as disappointed. I would not really be upset because I would get what the hand called for. There were unwritten expectations placed on us. The women who didn’t work for CARE looked up to us and the correctional staff placed expectations on us—we had privileges. (Shak/CARE)

We had agreed as a staff that we didn’t always need civilians there in the program. We would often discuss our role in the facility with one another and we knew that we had to maintain a clean disciplinary in order to keep our image. We had to be an example to others and that meant not having a disciplinary record. (Scarlet/ACE)

More of the women expressed a higher level of concern when these same questions were related to their ACE/CARE supervisor. When asked if their supervisor would be upset with them if they committed a disciplinary infraction, 92% stated “yes,” 4% stated “no,” 2% stated that they “did not know,” and 2% stated that it “depended” on the situation. When asked if it would bother them if their supervisor was upset with them, 78% said “yes.” They were concerned that they would disappoint their supervisor and lose her respect; it was important to have her view them in a positive way:

My supervisor and I built a relationship based on mutual respect and I value her opinion of what she thinks of me. (Big Sis/ACE & CARE)

She wouldn’t tolerate it because she felt that she gave us enough lead-way and we shouldn’t take advantage of that. She would never want us to embarrass the program. An ACE staff member was supposed to conduct herself in a positive way. It would bother me, it would have bothered all of us because we would have felt like we were letting her down, letting ourselves down and letting the program down. (Scarlet/ACE)

Those that stated “no” did not believe that the civilians, no matter how dedicated, could ever truly understand the inner workings of the prison system and the issues inmates had to endure on a daily basis, particularly because they were allowed to go home everyday.

Peer workers felt supported by their peers, the civilian staff and the overall program, which appeared to help with staying out of trouble:

You could forget about prison for awhile. There was also the camaraderie. We were a big support group. (Georgia/ACE)

When respondents were asked if they thought their time in prison would have been different if they had not worked for ACE/CARE, 78% said “yes,” 12% said “no,” and 10% said that they were not sure. If they were not involved with ACE/CARE, the women believed that their time would have passed more slowly, they would have been in more trouble in the prison setting, they would have not been able to help others, and they would not have experienced a strong sense of community:

I don’t think I would have changed as much as a person, I wouldn’t have grown as much. I would still be in the same place as when I came in. Through my work with ACE I was able to see other people’s sides and I had experiences that changed my mind. I became much more open minded and willing to listen even if I didn’t agree or understand. (Volcano/ACE)

I probably would have gotten into more trouble. CARE kept me busy. It caught my interest. I loved to learn and I loved to teach. Every week I would learn something new and I looked forward to doing it. It really enriched my life. (No Excuses/CARE)

I think I would have got in more trouble. I had a lot of issues that I was unable to express. I just held them in and if I wasn’t working for CARE, I think I would still be in denial about a lot of things. (Waiting/CARE)

Stress can contribute to maladjustment problems (Wright, 1999) and the peers felt that the ACE/CARE peers/civilian staff were very helpful during stressful times in their lives. When asked if they found their coworkers to be helpful during stressful times, 30% said “all” of them were helpful, 43% said “most,” 25% said “some,” and only 2% said “none.” When asked if they found the ACE/CARE civilian staff to be supportive during stressful times, 59% said “all,” 22% said “most,” 12% said “some,” and only 6% said “none.”

They were my biggest support system when my daughter died . . . The ACE women were really there for me because it was my most difficult time. (Volcano/ACE)

My last 2 years at Bedford were horrible and ACE said that they would always take me back if I wanted to come back. They were loyal to me and I really appreciated that. (Annie/ACE)

It appeared that the perceptions of inmate population and prison staff had an effect on how the women perceived themselves. These positive perceptions gave the women confidence and made them feel as if they were making a positive difference in the lives of others. When asked if they believed they were perceived differently than other inmates by prison staff because of their work in ACE/CARE, 74% stated “yes,” 14% said that they were not sure if they were perceived differently, and 10% stated that they did not think that they were perceived differently than other inmates. More than one half of the sample (53%) thought that they were perceived as more dependable, more educated, more respected, or more trustworthy than other inmates. They also felt they were perceived as role models and held to a higher standard than other inmates.

It was a privilege to work for the CARE Program and they expected more from you because you worked for CARE. You were supposed to act in a certain way at all times. You were supposed to be a role model at all times. (Free/CARE)

When asked if they thought they were perceived differently by other inmates because of their work in ACE/CARE, 94% said “yes,” while 4% said they did not know if they were perceived differently. Seventy-one percent of subjects believed they were viewed as more knowledgeable, more trustworthy, and more supportive, than other inmates. They also felt that they were viewed as role models by other inmates:

When they saw me, they would say she works for ACE. She does the workshops. You can talk to her, you can trust her. Many of the women have trust issues but they felt safe talking to us. (Blissful/ACE)

They saw me as a role model. They could turn to me in confidence if they needed information or if they were going through something without worrying that I would tell everyone in the facility. (Tyler/ACE)

Tickets received during ACE/CARE employment were quite low. On average, the women received 5.17 tickets prior to working for ACE/CARE (.59 Tier Is, 4.10 Tier IIs, .52 Tier IIIs) and they only received, on average, 1 ticket (.95) during the time they worked for ACE/CARE (.19 Tier Is, .70 Tier IIs, .10 Tier III). This shows a substantial decrease in the rate of infractions after joining the ACE/CARE staff. Overall, when utilizing a paired samples t test, the decrease in the rate of disciplinary infractions proved to be statistically significant (t = 2.918, df = 46, two-tailed significance p = .005, 95% confidence interval = 1.30 to 7.11), illustrating a correlation between working for an HIV prison-based peer education program and better institutional conduct (see Figure 1). For those women that received tickets (80% of the sample), most of the infractions (53%) were for minor rule-violating behaviors, such as smoking, illegal exchange (i.e., giving something/receiving something from another inmate), contraband (i.e., mostly hygiene items or food items that they were not allowed to have), disobeying a direct order, or being out of place. Twenty-four percent were for assault and/or fighting or a “DG” (i.e., degenerative act, meaning having physical contact with another inmate), and one woman, who had the highest rate of disciplinary infractions, received most of her tickets for dirty urines. In comparison with national rates of disciplinary infractions among all inmates, the rate of infractions among ACE/CARE inmates (1 per year) was lower than the national average (1.5 per year; Stephan, 1989). In comparison with all female offenders, the rate of infractions among ACE/CARE peers (1 per year) was also lower than the national average for female inmates (2 per year; Stephan, 1989).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Disciplinary behavior and working as an HIV peer.

For many Tier II and Tier III infractions, inmates can be punished by being “keep-locked.” When an inmate is on keep-lock status, they are locked in their cell for 23 out of 24 hr per day. Forty-seven percent of the sample population reported being on keep-lock status; however, most were locked prior to working for ACE/CARE. Out of the 23 women who reported being placed on keep-lock status, three could not remember how many times they had been keep-locked, and hence, they were not included in the following analysis. For the remaining 20 women, the rate of keep-lock decreased substantially after an inmate began working for ACE/CARE, and these results proved to be statistically significant (t = 2.289, df = 19, two-tailed significance p = .034, 95% confidence interval = [0.1627, 3.6373]). Some of the women spoke about their experiences with serving time in keep-lock:

I had seven tickets, all Tier IIs [before CARE]. Two Tier IIs were for fighting and I was keep-locked 7 days for each fight. I was keep-locked on another Tier II for 20 days for disobeying a direct order and I received three other Tier IIs for disobeying a direct order. (Sky/CARE)

I had three or four tickets, all Tier IIs. Two were for DGs and two were for out of place. Most of the tickets were before ACE. (Annie/ACE)

Twenty-two percent (n = 11) of the women reported serving SHU (Special Housing Unit) time during their incarceration. SHU, which is strict solitary confinement, is located in a separate part of the facility at BHCF, and inmates are locked in a cell for 23 out of 24 hr a day and receive minimal to no privileges. TCF does not have SHU. Inmates at TCF designated for SHU will be sent to BHCF. Eight of these women served their SHU sentence(s) prior to working for ACE/CARE, one served a SHU sentence during the time she worked for ACE for having a fight with another inmate, and one inmate served a SHU sentence before and during the time she was employed with ACE, which was also for fighting. Two women, Power and Yasmeen, reported being placed in administrative segregation, but this was after they had left the ACE Program. Power described her disciplinary history, which showed a remarkable improvement after joining ACE:

I had a bad disciplinary, but it was mostly in the beginning of my sentence. I probably had about 34 tickets, it’s really hard to remember but most were before I started working for ACE. I had two assaults on staff, both were Tier IIIs. For the first assault, I served 4 months in SHU and for the second one, I served 60 days in keep-lock. The third, Tier III was for getting a package in another inmate’s name and I don’t remember what the fourth one was for. I received one ticket during the time I worked for ACE. This girl was dying and her mother was sent on the draft up to Bedford. I took her mom to see her in IPC (In Patient Care) and I got a ticket for that. (Power/ACE & CARE)

Yasmeen made a correlation between her poor disciplinary record and traumatic life events that occurred during her incarceration, such as the rape of her daughter. The severity of her disciplinary improved considerably during and after her ACE employment.

Comparisons between groups (i.e., those that stayed in ACE/CARE until their release verses those that left the program prior to release and those that created ACE/CARE verses those that were not involved in the creation of ACE/CARE), did not yield statistically significant differences.

Discussion

This study, based on quantitative and qualitative analyses, was able to show that working in a HIV prison-based peer program was correlated with institutional success via low disciplinary infractions. Peers received reduced rates of prison disciplinary infractions while working for ACE/CARE. In the literature, a lack of institutional success or maladjustment was correlated with rates of prison disciplinary infractions (Cao et al., 1997; Flanagan, 1980; Lindquist, 1980; Mackenzie & Goldstein, 1985; Wolfgang, 1961; Wright, 1999). By looking specifically at disciplinary rates, this sample achieved high rates of institutional success. Most stated that their disciplinary record was excellent (69%), most did not perceive themselves to be a disciplinary problem (92%), and most did not think others perceived them as a disciplinary problem (86%). In regard to their rate of prison infractions, more than one half (51%) had a decrease in the number of the tickets they received after joining ACE/CARE, while 47% experienced no change in rates of disciplinary infractions. Of the women who received infractions during their incarceration, only two stated that they did not believe that their decrease in infractions was related to their work in ACE/CARE. It should be noted that all of the women who did not experience a change in rates of problematic behavior were not disciplinary problems prior to seeking employment with ACE/CARE. For those that did experience a change, this reduction demonstrates that even the most problematic inmates are subject to behavior change when in a supportive environment.

Overall, the peers received 5.17 tickets prior to working for ACE/CARE and .95 tickets during the time they worked for ACE/CARE; most of these tickets were for minor to moderate rule-violating behavior. A substantial decrease in tickets was incurred by this sample after employment with ACE/CARE and these differences proved to be statistically significant. On average, these women received less infractions than most other inmates in the United States (1 per year compared with 1.5 per year, respectively) and less infractions than other female inmates in the United States (1 per year compared with 2 per year, respectively; Stephan, 1989). ² This finding illustrates that there are correlating effects between working for an HIV prison-based peer education program and better institutional conduct.

Implications

This research helped to provide evidence that nontraditional programs, such as HIV prison-based peer programming, positively affects prison behavior. Little research has been conducted on nontraditional prison-based programming; this study demonstrates that the same effects derived from traditional educational and vocational programming can be derived from nontraditional prison programming. A few researchers have pointed to the beneficial effects of peer programs on the peers themselves, but the evidence was anecdotal at best. Neglecting this important area led to a gap in the knowledge base surrounding peer education programs in prison. This study helped to bridge the gap between prior research and anecdotal evidence by shedding light on a neglected issue. The results are beneficial for prison administrators who may not have the time or the money to implement/expand a traditional vocational/educational program. Nontraditional programs can serve as a replacement/supplement and still have an appreciable effect on the rate of recidivism, especially considering that high rates of disciplinary infractions in prison are correlated with repeat offending upon release (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996). As nontraditional programs are often managed and funded by community-based not-for-profit agencies, the costs to the Department of Corrections are minimal.

This research also adds to the literature on prisonization and rates of maladjustment among female inmates. The way an inmate adapts to the prison environment and the role they adopt while incarcerated to ameliorate the pains of imprisonment (Heffernan, 1972; Schrag, 1944; Sykes & Messinger, 1960) can have a direct effect on rates of disciplinary infractions. The network of support created by ACE and CARE protected many peer workers from adhering to the norms inherent in the inmate subculture, which affected the rate of prison infractions. Less disciplinary infractions equate to safer facilities (i.e., less inmate-to-inmate violence, inmate-to-officer violence, etc.). In addition, it minimizes the costs associated with having to process such disciplinary infractions, estimated by some researchers to cost as much as US$970 per infraction (Lovell & Jemelka, 1996).

The success of such programs prove that there is not only a need to maintain funding for existing programs, but there is a need to expand funding to implement and enhance HIV prison programs in all facilities, particularly for female inmates. Female facilities suffer from a paucity of prison programming, and because their needs tend to be more diverse and more substantial than the needs of their male counterparts, increasing and expanding such programming is essential. The call for female-specific prison-based programming can be addressed through modeling HIV peer programs like ACE and CARE.

Limitations

There are several limitations to the current study. First, the sample was not a random sample because it was an already established program within the prison. In an attempt to generalize findings to the population, demographics from the sample were compared with demographics for the entire incarcerated female population in New York State. It is unknown if these findings are generalizable to populations outside of this sample. Second, there was an issue of selection-bias, particularly when using snowball sampling. Only women who were involved in the same social networks were included in the sample. Nonetheless, out of approximately 65 women identified who ever worked for ACE/CARE, 49 were interviewed. Women not included were deported, deceased, or unable to be located. Hence, 75% of all women who worked for both programs participated in this study. Snowball sampling, though not ideal, was the only way to locate subjects. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not keep records on peer workers. Third, there was no true comparison or true control group in this study. As the women in the sample were so diverse in terms of age, race, sentence length, and crime, it was not feasible to obtain another set of inmates or formerly incarcerated women that matched the sample groups’ diverse attributes. It was also not feasible to have another group of inmates taken from their regularly scheduled programs to participate in a comparison group, as this would have disrupted the daily schedule of the prison facility. Without a control or comparison group, it is difficult to determine whether results can be linked directly to working in the ACE/CARE program. Rather, comparisons were made between groups. Fourth, self-reported data may not be the most reliable source of information (see Maxfield & Babbie, 1998). It is believed that the author was able to gain the trust of the respondents because she was well known among female inmates in this field. It is unlikely that they lied to her; to ensure confidentiality, respondents were only reported through code names of their choosing. In addition, other research found evidence of validity in inmate perceptions of misconduct when compared with official reports of prison misconduct (Daggett & Camp, 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2013). Finally, the results generated from the statistical tests used within this research design should be interpreted with prudence. Critical values can be affected by sample size (Bachman & Paternoster, 1997).

Future Research

The effects of nontraditional prison-based programming on inmates and their institutional behavior appear promising. Involvement in nontraditional prosocial prison activities can ameliorate rule-breaking conduct and assist in the reinforcement of conventional behavior. The women in this study did not jeopardize their position by engaging in unlawful or deviant behaviors. Results showed that working in programs like ACE/CARE prevented periods of maladjustment and subsequent disciplinary infractions during incarceration. More research should be conducted in this area to enhance the reliability of these results. As such programming illustrates positive effects on maladjustment, program administrators may want to develop similar types of programs in other facilities. Although this study featured HIV programming, there is no reason to believe that other types of nontraditional programming, if managed effectively, would not create the same results. An updated national study that examines the rate of disciplinary infractions between men and women is also warranted.