Futurelessness and Commitment to Institutional Rules Among People in Jail

Abstract

The current study builds on prior work examining the association between futurelessness and commitment institutional rules among correctional populations. Using cross-sectional data from a sample of 413 people incarcerated in United States jails from 2018 to 2019, this study employs Ordinary Least Squares regression to examine the association between futurelessness and commitment to institutional rules controlling for various importation and deprivation factors previously linked with institutional misconduct. Results provide support for the importance of futurelessness for commitment to institutional rules, suggesting that this finding is consistent across correctional environments. In addition, findings suggest that an index measure of futurelessness is a stronger construct for testing futurelessness than single-item measures used in prior studies. Consistent with prior literature on futurelessness, our findings suggest that among people incarcerated in jail futurelessness is linked to a weaker commitment to institutional rules.

Keywords

futurelessness jail misconduct rule-breaking

Institutional rule breaking poses one of the greatest risks to the security of correctional facilities. Extant scholarship on misconduct has largely focused on how importation and deprivation factors impact institutional behavior (see, e.g., Cao et al., 1997; Gendreau et al., 1997; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012; Steiner et al., 2014; Zink, 1957), but tend to ignore how other factors that have been theoretically linked to offending generally may be related to institutional rule breaking. While importation and deprivation factors have clear empirical links to institutional offending behavior and attitudes (Steiner et al., 2014), nearly all of these factors can also be conceptualized within the framework of criminological theories of offending. As Steiner and colleagues point out, “. . .a better understanding of inmate misconduct might be gained by applying more general explanations of crime and deviance such as strain or control theories to the study of the phenomenon (Steiner et al., 2014, p. 468).” One factor that has various implications for offending behavior specifically but perhaps especially when linking traditional theories of crime and deviance to institutional rule breaking is the concept of futurelessness.

Futurelessness can be conceptualized as having little hope for the future, expectations of a shorter lifespan, and expectations of more negative life outcome. People experiencing futurelessness are generally less averse to risky activities because the consequences for their actions may seem too remote or even irrelevant. This has important implications for several theories of offending. For example, deterrence theory proposes that behavior can be controlled through fear of punishment certainty, severity, and celerity, but if an individual does not fear punishment because they see little hope for their future anyway, then deterrent-based policies are likely to have a limited impact. Similarly, theories of informal social control that rely on people’s commitment to social norms to maintain valued relationships (e.g., stakes in conformity such as parental status, romantic partnerships, and employment) may be less driven to maintain these relationship—and in turn less driven to follow social norms, if they see little hope for the future. Similar still, strain theories directly implicate the potential for feelings of hopelessness as a mediator between strain and deviant coping. In studies of incarcerated populations, confinement itself may create constant strain with varying degrees of futurelessness then affecting people’s commitment to institutional rules. While the concept of futurelessness has received scant empirical investigation, studies that have evaluated the concept demonstrate that individuals experiencing futurelessness tend to engage in riskier behaviors including rule breaking and crime (Anderson, 1999; Brezina et al., 2009; Piquero, 2016). Few studies, however, have explored the importance of these types of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions in relation to maladaptive behaviors in correctional facilities (though see Abderhalden et al., 2020).

Recent research highlights the importance of having hope for the future on commitment to following institutional rules in prisons (Abderhalden et al., 2020). However, Abderhalden et al. (2020)—similar to prior studies, used a single-item measure of futurelessness capturing a sense of hope for the future. Other studies (e.g., Piquero, 2016) have also used single-item indicators like expected age at death—with a shorter life-expectancy indicating a greater sense of futurelessness. The current study aims to build on prior research by examining futurelessness and commitment to institutional rules among people in jail and developing a more diverse measure of futurelessness which captures multiple components of the concept. These aims provide a contribution to the literature by demonstrating the relative importance of futurelessness among people incarcerated in jail (an institution quite different from prison), the ability of futurelessness to explain variation in commitment to institutional rules in conjunction with other importation and deprivation factors associated with misconduct (which also align with broader criminological theories of offending), and developing a measure of futurelessness for future studies to use while establishing which single-item measure predicts more variance in commitment to institutional rules. Prior to discussing the data and results of the current study we succinctly review the differences between prison and jail and why we might expect to see differences in the antecedents of rule breaking behavior between the two types of facilities, briefly review prior literature on institutional rule breaking in correctional facilities, and review the literature on the concept of futurelessness and its relationship to offending.

The Jail Environment

Jails are a critically important part of the correctional system in the United States. With over 10 million admissions annually, and a daily estimated population of 734,500 individuals (Zeng & Minton, 2021), jails cycle through more people annually than any other institutional correctional system. In addition, jails house individuals who are either serving short-term sentences (post-conviction), convicted but awaiting sentencing, awaiting formal court processing, or are being held while awaiting transfer between facilities. In sum, jails represent highly transient institutions where most people are waiting for further criminal justice processing. Prisons, on the other hand, house sentenced individuals who are serving a sentence longer than 12 months (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020).

The differences between prisons and jails, however, go beyond conviction status and sentence length. Jails are typically more chaotic in nature—as there is consistent turnover and transience (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). In addition, jails have less structured classification systems than prisons, meaning that individuals of various offense classifications (e.g., sexual, violent, non-violent, misdemeanor, violation of parole, etc.) can be housed together while in prisons higher risk individuals, those who may have a greater propensity to violence and other predatory behavior are separated from lower risk people. High turnover rates and classification issues may make the jail environment more dangerous and volatile (May et al., 2014). Finally, prisons often are able to offer more treatment, programming, and rehabilitation services, compared to jails. The aforementioned differences can be attributed, at least partially, to funding. While prisons are funded by state and federal government, jails are usually locally funded. Furthermore, shorter periods of incarceration do not allow for individuals to receive programming and follow it through completion (Lambert et al., 2018). Differences can also be attributed to who jails and prisons incarcerate. While nearly everyone in prison has spent at least some time in jail (while awaiting arraignment, trial, or transfer to prison post-sentencing), many people who cycle through jails will not be incarcerated prison. As Irwin (1985) details, jails are often used as a means for controlling a particular sect of the underclass, many of whom have definitions about social norms and deviance that differ greatly from society at large. Holding these people in jail, cycling them through the criminal justice system, acts a way of maintaining control over the ‘rabble’ (Irwin, 1985). In other words, not only are the structures of prisons and jails different, but there are likely a number of differences between many of the people who experience jail incarceration compared to those are eventually incarcerated in prison. Despite this, the majority of prior scholarship on the correctional system in the United States focuses on prisons leaving many people to question whether the findings of prison research will be similar for jails.

Institutional Rule Breaking

With the primary concern of correctional facilities being the the safety and security of incarcerated individuals and staff (Pizarro & Narag, 2008), incarcerated individuals are expected to obey the rules of the institution. Prior scholarship has linked several factors to why individuals obey, or disobey, institutional rules (Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2005; Merbitz et al., 1995; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009; Tahamont, 2019; Tewksbury et al., 2014). Much of this literature has used the correctional perspective of importation and deprivation models to explain misconduct (see Hochstetler & Delisi, 2005; Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando, 2002; Leigey, 2019; Steiner et al., 2014; Walters & Crawford, 2013). Importation models suggest that pre-incarceration factors are important for maladaptive behaviors within a facility, while the deprivation model suggest that poor adjustment to and iatrogenic effects of the facility lead to maladaptive behaviors.

Irwin and Cressey (1962) originally discussed the importance of importation within a conceptualization of bringing street level culture and values into the prison setting to explain why some individuals take on certain roles in prison while others take on different roles. Their importation model complimented the work of Sykes (1958) who identified a number of deprivations experienced in prisons, what he called pains of imprisonment: deprivation of liberty, autonomy, heterosexual relationships, goods and services, and security. From these original narrower definitions of importation and deprivation, researchers began noting the importance of other factors that might affect institutional behavior, especially rule breaking. Extending the propositions of Irwin and Cressey (1962) and Sykes (1958), these factors are generally divided into the two sets of factors they initially posited: importation factors—those characteristics, beliefs, and experiences that may affect institutional behavior, which occur prior to incarceration and deprivation factors—those pains of imprisonment initially identified by Sykes (1958) as well as other factors identified as resulting directly from the nature of incarceration that may impact institutional behavior.

Several common importation factors that have been associated with institutional rule breaking include: race, sex, age, criminal history, educational attainment, and parental status (Abderhalden et al., 2020; Bales & Miller, 2012; Bosma et al., 2020; Bottoms, 1999; Camp et al., 2003; Casey-Acevedo et al., 2004; Craddock, 1996; Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006; Cunningham et al., 2011; Gendreau et al., 1997; Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Harer & Langan, 2001; Harer & Steffensmeier,1996; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Kuanliang et al., 2008; Marcum et al., 2014; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008; Wooldredge et al., 2001). Criminal history is perhaps the importation factor most closely related to Irwin and Cressey’s original conceptualization. The theoretical explanation being that individuals who are more deeply entrenched in a criminal lifestyle will take on different roles while incarcerated and may be less inclined to obey institutional rules. The other factors listed above have been examined as a result of their proposed theoretical link (from broader criminological theory) to rule breaking. For example, control theories would suggest that factors such as educational attainment, parental status, and marriage should act as informal controls to rule breaking and different factors among these may differentially impact people at different points in their life, thus the importance of age (c.f., Laub & Sampson, 2003). Both pro-social and anti-social opportunities are associated with both sex and race and have also been identified as importation factors potentially associated with in-prison behavior and attitudes (Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando, 2002; Leigey, 2019).

As noted above, the deprivation model suggests that incarceration creates an environment for maladaptive behaviors through pains of imprisonment (Sykes, 1958). Prior literature has found that the factors such as broken social bonds, sentence length, and overcrowding affect institutional rule adherence (Abderhalden et al., 2020; Borgman, 1985; Bosma et al., 2020; Carlson & Cervera, 1992; Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2001; Casey-Acevedo et al., 2004; Cochran, 2012; Hensley et al., 2002; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; McShane & Williams, 1990; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009, 2013; Steiner et al., 2014). Each of these deprivations, as well as others (e.g., stigma, victimization, disenfranchisement, perceived injustice), could be linked with strain theories of offending (Agnew, 1992).

Given the conceptual link between importation/deprivation factors and general theories of offending and following the call by Steiner et al. (2014), researchers have begun directly conceptualizing the factors more traditionally analyzed as importations/deprivations within terms of general theories of offending. Blevins et al. (2010) directly posited how the propositions of General Strain Theory (GST) may provide explanations for institutional misconduct. Direct tests of GST in correctional settings are scant but have been generally supportive of the theories propositions. For example, in one of the most comprehensive studies conducted so far Jang (2020) found that crowding, victimization, and dissatisfaction with correctional officers were all associated with rule breaking in a sample of people incarcerated in a Korean prison. The latter of these strains, dissatisfaction with correctional officers, relates to other work employing GST among correctional populations (Liu et al., 2020). Bridging the work of procedural justice (Tyler, 2006) and GST (Agnew, 1992), Liu et al. (2020) found that individuals who experienced procedural injustice during parole had a higher criminal propensity—an attitudinal indicator of intention to commit crime. Importantly, depression (an emotion closely associated with a lack of hope for the future) appears to partially mediate this relationship, directly impacting criminal propensity (Liu et al., 2020). Other researchers (Alward et al., 2021; Baker et al., 2021; Nuno & Murrow, 2020) have also found a significant association between procedural justice and obligation to obey institutional rules in prisons and jails (though this work was not tested within the GST framework).

Still, most of the literature surrounding institutional misconduct is directed toward prison-based samples (Steiner et al., 2014). Jail-based samples have garnered significantly less discussion. Among the few studies that have looked at jail-based samples some similarities to prisons emerge in relation to importations and deprivations of incarceration. Vuk and Doležal (2020) examined how individual and jail-level behaviors related to idleness impact misconduct. Using the 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (n = 6,982), they found that visitation, more working time, and more TV watching are negatively associated with misconduct. Conversely, they found that more time spent on recreation and reading are positively associated with misconduct (Vuk & Doležal, 2020). When looking at more traditional importation and deprivation factors, they found that age, race, and criminal history are significantly related to misconduct for jail incarcerated individuals (Vuk & Doležal, 2020). While there appears to be some overlap in factors of significance between prison and jail based samples, there is little empirical work with jail based samples to have a full perspective on the different routines and functions of importation and deprivation factors.

Futurelessness and Offending

Although research directly testing general theories of offending in prisons and jails are rare, as noted above, the broader literature testing the importation/deprivation model suggest that general theories may help explain institutional deviance. Given the link between much of the importation/deprivation literature and control and strain theories, it is possible that other theoretically important factors related to offending in general will also be associated with rule breaking in correctional facilities. Futurelessness may represent an important theoretical factor for understanding rule breaking among people incarcerated in jail as the future for many of them is uncertain and the people who populate jails may be less future oriented given the broader structural and social issues they face (Irwin, 1985).

Much of the extant research establishing a relationship between futurelessness and offending in the general population is qualitative in nature; however, a small body of quantitative research has begun to emerge (Anderson, 1999; Brezina et al., 2009; Clinkinbeard, 2014; Haynie et al., 2014). For example, using the Pathways to Desistance study Piquero (2016) found that individuals who anticipated an earlier death were significantly more likely to recidivate. Other studies operationalizing futurelessness as the time-discounting of money (Piquero et al., 2018) and having a present-versus-future orientation (Kruger et al., 2018) have found a similar significant association between futurelessness and deviance. Among a sample of juveniles, Craig (2019) examined whether future orientation is a mediating factor between adverse childhood experience (ACE) and crime. They found that having a positive future orientation lowers the likelihood of reoffending, but they did not find support for future orientation mediating the relationship between ACE and offending (Craig, 2019). Meaning that futurelessness may operate in addition to these other theoretically relevant factors. Similarly, Petrich and Sullivan (2020) explored future orientation as a moderator for the relationship between impulse control and offending, also with a juvenile sample. Petrich and Sullivan (2020) were able to test the moderation of future orientation by impulse control on offending with longitudinal data from the Pathways to Desistance study. They found no support for a moderating interaction; however, they did find a significant association between future orientation and offending. Again, this suggests the possibility not that futurelessness attenuates or mediates other theoretically relevant factors and offending, but rather operates in addition to these factors. Tests of futurelessness, then, must consider other possible explanations of offending.

Perhaps most relevant to the present study, Abderhalden et al. (2020) examined futurelessness in relation to commitment to follow institutional rules among a sample of 2,927 people incarcerated in prison. They found that greater perceptions of futurelessness were associated with a weaker commitment to follow institutional rules. In addition, they tested the mediating relationship of risk perceptions (certainty and celerity), but found no evidence that risk perceptions mediated the association between futurelessness and commitment to institutional rules (Abderhalden et al., 2020). While prisons and jails share some similarities, as discussed above, the institutions and the people they house have different experiences and expectations. Prior research has yet to explore the association between futurelessness and commitment to institutional rules in jails despite the potential differences in future orientation among people incarcerated in jails compared those in prison or the general population.

Current Study

Given the established importance of importation and deprivation factors for explaining institutional behavior, their link to general explanations of offending, and the idea that general theories of offending should be tested in correctional facilities to explain institutional rule breaking, we aim to explore how futurelessness functions in relation to commitment to institutional rules within jails. First, we explore the association between futurelessness and commitment to institutional rules among people in jail by examining various single-item measures of futurelessness. Second, we expand on prior work by evaluating a multi-item index of futurelessness. Specifically, we aim to answer two research questions:

Is futurelessness related to jailed individuals’ commitment to institutional rules after controlling for variables that have been identified as importation and deprivation factors associated with rule breaking in prisons and jails?

Does a futurelessness index do a better job in explaining the relationship between futurelessness and individuals’ commitment to institutional rules than a single-item measure?

The answer to the first question provides us with a clearer understanding of whether futurelessness is associated with commitment to institutional rules net of the impact of importation and deprivation factors (and the control theory and strain theory variables they could be conceptually linked with). The answer to the second question provides future researchers with an evidence-based approach on how best to measure futurelessness. If a multi-item item index explains more variation in commitment to institutional rules than it represents the ideal approach. However, the single-item tests will provide researchers with the knowledge, should they be limited in space and survey time, of which individual measure of futurelessness may explain the most variation in commitment to institutional rules.

Method

To answer our research questions, we used data from self-report surveys of men and women incarcerated in two jails in Florida and Texas.¹ The survey was administered in 2018 (Florida) and 2019 (Texas) and asked about participants’ health and social characteristics. Within the facilities, a criterion sampling method was used, with the criterion of being over 18 years of age, being proficient in English, and not being housed in administrative segregation, or a mental health unit at the time of data collection. Surveys were self-administered via paper/pencil and distributed by the research team. All eligible participants were verbally informed of the nature of the survey and that the survey was completely voluntary and anonymous. In addition, respondents could keep a written consent form. Administration took place in the housing units. Ethical approval of the study was granted by the university Institutional Review Board and approved by the facilities.

In total, 36.8% of eligible respondents completed a survey. This response rate includes individuals in the administrative segregation and mental health units excluded from the study, as we do not have the specific count for individuals in those two units on the day of collection, but rather only have the total daily count for the facilities. Therefore, the response rate from who was eligible would actually be slightly higher, but 36.8% is still in line with other literature from self-report surveys in jail populations (see Fox et al., 2013; Trotter et al., 2018).

Measures

Commitment to institutional rules

Consistent with prior work (Abderhalden et al., 2020), the measure of commitment to institutional rules is made up of a three-item mean standardized index. This involves standardizing each item by subtracting the mean of that item from each individual response then taking the arithmetic mean of the three items by adding them together and dividing by the number of items. These items are, “I feel an obligation to obey the rules in this facility,” “I believe I should obey the orders of correctional officers,” and “I believe it’s okay to break the rules at this facility (reverse coded).” The four response categories for each item ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The internal reliability found in Abderhalden et al. (2020) was α = .75, we also tested the structure this index and found that in an exploratory factor analysis the items loaded onto a single factor (the factor loading for the three items were 0.80, 0.82, and 0.46, respectively) and had an α = .75.

Futurelessness measures and index

The work by Abderhalden et al. (2020), Piquero (2016), Anderson (1999), and Brezina et al. (2009), all suggested futurelessness means having “little hope” for the future, that futurelessness interventions should “foster hope,” and that “hope for the future” is what the construct of futurelessness should be measuring. As such, we use five items from the Beck’s Hopelessness Scale [BHS] (Beck et al., 1974) that are future oriented questions asking about an individual’s hope and enthusiasm for the future. The statements asked, “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm (BHS1),” “I might as well give up because there’s nothing I can do (BHS2),” “The future seems vague and uncertain (BHS3),” “When I look ahead to the future I expect I will be happier (BHS4),” and “All I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness rather than pleasantness (BHS5).” Response categories ranged on an agreement Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree. We test each of these items individually, but to expand on the limitations of prior work, we also combine these measures into a multi-item index of futurelessness. The higher the score, the more futurelessness an individual reported. The five items in this index come from the BHS, which has strong psychometric properties and has an extensive background in being a valid and reliable scale (see Dowd, 2004; Owen, 1992). The multi-item mean standardized index had an acceptable internal reliability (α = .80).

Importation and deprivation variables

Prior scholarship has linked several importation and deprivation variables to institutional misconduct (see Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando, 2002; Leigey, 2019) and obligation to obey (Abderhalden et al., 2020; Baker et al., 2021). As such, we also control for several importation and deprivation variables. The importation items we control for include age (measured continuously in years), self-reported gender (measured dichotomously men = 1), race/ethnicity (measured dichotomously white = 1), educational level (measured dichotomously completed high school or higher = 1), parental status (measured dichotomously has children = 1), offense which led to respondents’ current incarceration (measured dichotomously violent = 1).The deprivation measures controlled for include time served (continuous in days; truncated at 366),² if the individual has an expected definite release date³ (measured dichotomously yes = 1), and prior institutional misconduct (self-reported number of charges; truncated at 10).⁴ Descriptive statistics of all measures are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Analytic Sample (n = 413).

	Mean/proportion	SD	Min	Max
Commitment to rules	0.04	0.80	−2.54	1.01
BHS 1	1.57	0.81	1	4
BHS 2	1.58	0.85	1	4
BHS 3	2.09	0.98	1	4
BHS 4	1.64	0.83	1	4
BHS 5	1.73	0.87	1	4
Futurelessness index	−0.01	0.76	−0.83	2.63
Prior misconduct	0.97	2.05	0	10
Time served (in days)	130.24	123.98	1	366
Definite release date	0.70	0.46	0	1
Violent	0.22	0.42	0	1
Education	0.76	0.42	0	1
Parental status	0.73	0.44	0	1
Age	35.45	10.57	19	68
White	0.42	0.49	0	1
Sex	0.73	0.45	0	1

Analytic Strategy

The statistical software STATA (Statacorp version SE 16.1, Statacorp, 2020) was used to clean and analyze data. Prior to estimating the descriptive and inferential statistics, missing values analysis was conducted. After running Little’s MCAR (missing completely at random) test, data were suggested to not be MCAR (Jakobsen et al., 2017; Nussbaum, 2015). Therefore, the data is likely to be MAR (missing at random), suggesting that variables are correlated with other variables. Due to this finding, multiple imputation is not the appropriate method to use for data analysis (Nussbaum, 2015).

Descriptive analysis estimated summary statistics of the final analytic sample (n=413) (Table 1). To address the central research questions for this study, ordinary least squares regressions (OLS) was used. First, in five separate models individuals’ commitment to institutional rules was regressed on five single-item measures of futurelessness and the importation and deprivation controls. Finally, individual’s commitment to institutional rules was regressed on an index of futurelessness made up of the five separate futurelessness measures and the importation and deprivation controls. Both OLS models are two-tailed, and p-values less than .05 are considered statistically significant.

Results

Participants’ Characteristics

As shown in Table 1, among the final analytic sample (n = 413) 72.6% of respondents identify as male. The final analytic sample is 42% White identifying. Ages range from 19 to 73 (M = 35.45). A majority of the final sample has at least a high school education (76%). A large portion of the final sample are parents (73%). On average, respondents had spent 130 days in the jail, with 70% of the sample reporting that they had a definite release date. 22% of the sample were incarcerated due to a violent offense (e.g., assault, sexual assault, sexual battery, robbery, or homicide). Of the analytic sample, 30% reported having at least one incident of misconduct at the facility with the average number of self-reported incidents of misconduct being approximately 1.

Multivariate Analysis of Single-Item Measures

In Table 2, model 1 shows the results of regressing commitment to institutional rules on the first single-item measure of futurelessness (BHS1; future with hope and enthusiasm) and the controls. Findings indicate that this measure of futurelessness is significantly and negatively associated with commitment to institutional rules (b = −0.13, p < .01, β = −.13). This result is consistent with prior scholarship on futurelessness and commitment to institutional rules.

Table 2.

Futurelessness Individual Items and Jailed Individuals Commitment to Institutional Rules (n = 413).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4			Model 5
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
BHS1	−0.13*	0.05	−.13	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
BHS2	—	—	—	−0.20***	0.05	−.21	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
BHS3	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.12**	0.04	−.15	—	—	—	—	—	—
BHS4	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.22***	0.05	−.23	—	—	—
BHS5	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	−0.17***	0.05	−.19
Prior misconduct	−0.08***	0.02	−.20	−0.08***	0.02	−.21	−0.07**	0.02	−.18	−0.08***	0.02	−.20	−0.08***	0.02	−.21
Time served	−0.00*	0.00	−.11	−0.00*	0.02	−.11	−0.00*	0.00	−.13	−0.00*	0.00	−.12	−0.00*	0.00	−.12
Definite release date	0.06	0.09	.04	0.07	0.09	.04	0.06	0.09	.03	0.06	0.08	.04	0.06	0.09	.03
Violent	0.21*	0.09	.11	0.22**	0.09	.11	0.25**	0.08	.13	0.22**	0.08	.11	0.23**	0.09	.12
Education	0.02	0.10	.01	−0.00	0.09	−.00	0.02	0.09	.01	0.01	0.09	.01	−0.01	0.09	−.01
Parental status	0.04	0.08	.02	0.07	0.08	.04	0.03	0.08	.02	0.04	0.08	.02	0.01	0.08	.03
Age	0.01*	0.00	.10	0.01*	0.00	.09	0.01	0.00	.09	0.01*	0.00	.13	0.01	0.00	.10
White	0.19*	0.08	.12	0.22**	0.08	.14	0.24**	0.08	.15	0.21**	0.07	.13	0.23**	0.08	.14
Sex	−0.06	0.08	−.03	−0.06	0.08	−.03	−0.06	0.08	−.03	−0.05	0.08	−.03	−0.02	0.08	−.01
	R² = .13			R² = .15			R² = .14			R² = .16			R² = .15

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

In addition to finding support for futurelessness being significantly related to commitment to institutional rules, we also found several importation and deprivation factors to be significant. We found three importation variables to be significant, and positively, related to commitment to institutional rules. Individuals who identify as White (b = 0.19, p < .05, β = .12), older individuals (b = .01, p < .05, β = .10), and individuals with a violent offense (b = 0.21, p < .05, β = .11) are significantly less committed to institutional rules. Interestingly, two deprivation measures were found to be significantly and negatively related to commitment to institutional rules, prior self-reported misconduct (b = −0.08, p < .001, β = −.20) and time served (b = −.00, p < .05, β = −.11). This suggests that individuals with more prior misconduct report less commitment to institutional rules, and those with more time served are less committed to institutional rules. Standardized effects indicate that futurelessness, prior misconduct, and identifying as White have the largest effects on commitment to institutional rules compared to any other variable. This model explains 13% of the variance in commitment to institutional rules.

We find similar results with the other four single-item measures of futurelessness from the Beck’s Hopelessness Scale. BHS2, which asks about giving up, has more strength (b = −0.20, p < .001, β = −.21) than BHS1 (future with hope and enthusiasm) but slightly less than BHS4 (expect to be happier) (b = −0.22, p < .001, β = −.23). BHS4 was reverse coded, asking respondents to reply to the statement “When I look ahead to the future I expect I will be happier.” The importation and deprivation factors remain consistent throughout models 1-5, with the exception of age falling out of significance for models 3 and 5. All models explain between 13% and 16% of the variance in commitment to institutional rules.

Multivariate Analysis of Futurelessness Index

In Table 3, we present the results of regressing commitment to institutional rules on the futurelessness index and the controls. This model maintains all the same importation and deprivation items tested in the single-item models. Results indicate that the index of futurelessness is significantly and negatively associated with commitment to institutional rules (b = −0.26, p < .001, β = −.24). Further, the explanatory power of the futurelessness index is stronger than any of the individual single-item measures presented in Table 2. This finding suggests that considering an index that captures the construct of futurelessness more holistically may be a better approach for future work. It is also important to note that the findings presented in Table 3 are similar to those found in prior research examining people incarcerated in prison (Abderhalden et al., 2020). Specifically, futurelessness has a stronger effect on commitment to institutional rules than any other measure tested including prior institutional misconduct.

Table 3.

Futurelessness Index and Jailed Individuals Commitment to Institutional Rules (n = 413).

	b	SE	β
Futurelessness index	−0.26***	0.05	−.24
Prior misconduct	−0.08***	0.08	−.20
Time served	−0.00*	0.00	−.12
Definite release date	0.08	0.08	.05
Violent	0.22**	0.08	.11
Education	−0.01	0.09	−.00
Parental status	0.05	0.08	.03
Age	0.01*	0.00	.10
White	0.25***	0.08	.16
Sex	−0.05	0.08	−.03
	R² = .17

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Discussion and Conclusion

While rule adherence is critical for the safety and security of jails in the United States, there has been a paucity of scholarship exploring commitment to institutional rules among people in jail (Vuk & Doležal, 2020). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to use a sample of people incarcerated in jail to test perceptions of futurelessness and individuals’ commitment to institutional rules—though prior scholarship has been conducted with a prison-based sample (see, Abderhalden et al., 2020). Adding to the growing knowledge about futurelessness and offending populations, we found support for single-item measures of futurelessness, and stronger support for a multi-item index of futurelessness in relation to people’s commitment to institutional rules. However, in several of the single-item models of futurelessness, we found that prior institutional misconduct had the strongest association with commitment to institutional rules. When the index of futurelessness was tested, we find that futurelessness has the strongest relationship to commitment to institutional rules. Additionally, several importation factors (age, race/ethnicity, and offense type) and deprivation factors (prior institutional misconduct and time served) were also significantly related to commitment to institutional rules.

The main take away from this study is related to how futurelessness is associated with commitment to the institutional rules. Futurelessness operated in the manner we theoretically and empirically expected in every model, with less hope for the future being related to less commitment to institutional rules. This finding has important implications for theory and measurement. Studies examining how to promote rule-adherence in correctional settings should consider the importance of future orientations. Numerous theoretical explanations of offending behavior implicate how people perceive future outcomes in their decision to offend or obey the rules. For example, theories of rational choice suggest that individuals who weigh the future cost of an action greater than the immediate benefit should be less likely to offend. However, among individuals who perceive little hope for the future, future punishment may not act as an effective deterrent to immediate rewards. Similarly, those without hope for the future may be less likely to be constrained by the potential loss of social bonds that may come from offending or may have less reason to cope with experienced strains in non-deviant ways. Future studies testing theories of deviancy in correctional settings should consider the importance of futurelessness when attempting explain behavior.

In terms of measurement, as previously noted, we found that a multi-item index of futurelessness is a better predictor of commitment to institutional rules than any single-item measure that we explored. However, given the space and time constraints on surveys our findings also point to two individual items that, while not individually as a strong as the multi-item index, could act as reasonable measures of futurelessness. Both “I might as well give up because there’s nothing I can do (BHS2)” and a reverse-coded “When I look ahead to the future I expect I will be happier (BHS4)” are strong single-item indicators. Given the potential importance of future orientation for theoretical tests of deviance in correctional settings, the ability to add a single-item measure to a survey may prove beneficial for improved model specification without being forced to add an entire index to a survey instrument.

When individuals feel like they are futureless, they are more likely to disobey the rules of correctional facilities (Abderhalden et al., 2020; Baker et al., 2021). We posit that individuals’ experiences in jail may promote a negative future orientation. In particular, scholarship on how correctional officers treat incarcerated individuals demonstrates that misconduct, dehumanization, and denial of care can lead to an emotional trauma, which may reflect in greater futurelessness perceptions. Results from a recent study by Novisky et al. (2022) on correctional staff misconduct provide some evidence for policy and practice changes in this area. Novisky et al. (2022) interviewed 38 recently released men and women from prison to gain understanding and context surrounding experiences related to correctional staff misconduct. They found evidence of dehumanizing treatment and disdain from the correctional staff toward people who were incarcerated (Novisky et al., 2022). All of these instances of misconduct and denial of care/treatment suggest that poor correctional staff treatment can lead to direct physical and emotional taxation on an incarcerated individual and increase their feelings of having little hope for their future (i.e., futurelessness) (Novisky et al., 2022). In addition, if the actions of correctional officers are leading to feelings of futurelessness, that could in turn compound individuals’ lack of obligation to follow the rules of the facility. This means that correctional officers—and the policy and procedures of correctional facilities to promote needs-based treatment, can affect change in the emotional outlook of people in their care which in turn can promote greater rule adherence.

Some direct suggestions for policy include improving correctional staff training protocol and increasing individual awareness of correctional implications. To the first suggestion, Novisky et al. (2022) noted the importance and call for policy to enhance correctional staff training. We join in this call, noting that an improvement of correctional staff training can increase prosocial modeling (Dowden & Andrews, 2004) and, as noted by Novisky et al. (2022), the culture of professionalism by correctional staff can help to increase the overall fidelity of standards throughout facilities. We posit that professionalized correctional staff would also work to improving the humanization of incarcerated individuals through fair treatment and positive verbal communications.

To the second policy suggestion, programs should be introduced that work on transitional care and support from the beginning of jail incarceration through reentry. The vast majority of people in jail will eventually return to the community (Travis, 2005; Zeng, 2018). The stigma attached to incarceration often leaves individuals feeling as though their lives are ruined, and yet, with so many individuals experiencing jail incarceration in the United States annually, a positive orientation to the future may be helpful in successful reentry (Travis, 2005). Given that individuals in jail may feel futureless due to the looming implications of justice involvement on their ability to retain housing, employment, and education—all of which represent key concerns for people reentering society following incarceration (Baker et al., 2021; Mancini et al., 2016). If there was a programming policy implemented into jail facilities, through early transitional care information that detailed the transition back to the community and identified places to find support in securing these basic needs, it could increase people’s awareness that jail incarceration is not the end of their future. As such, if we can improve the education behind the consequences of jail incarceration while increasing hope for the future, we could potentially change how incarceration experiences affect reentry (Baker et al., 2021).

Findings should be interpreted with the awareness of this study’s limitations. First, this sample is not a representative sample of the U.S. jail population (Zeng & Minton, 2021). Second, related to the lack of representative nature of the sample, we would like to caution interpretation of the findings due to the small nature of the sample. While the response rate is above most other jail-based samples, in particular for self-reported primary data, we acknowledge that the sample itself is a relatively small sample. Future work should consider the representativeness of the sample, as well as try to secure a larger sample to get closer to the population of study. Third, given that cross-sectional research design was used for the survey, we do not know the temporal ordering of the behaviors we explore. Future research may want to look at these variables longitudinally to interpret causal relationships. In addition, future research may want to analyze how self-reported futurelessness is related to official reports of misconduct, not just self-reports. Fourth, this study excluded individuals in administrative segregation and mental health units, both of which may experience greater futurelessness and present higher risk for institutional misconduct (see Grassian, 2006). Future research should continue to expand on the operationalization of futurelessness, and perhaps also look at the differences between perceptions of fatalism and futurelessness on commitment to institutional rules (Anderson, 1994; Brezina et al., 2009; DuRant et al., 1994; Wilson & Daly, 1997).

Our study adds to the knowledge on futurelessness among individuals in correctional settings. The findings of this study support prior scholarship on futurelessness while building a new foundation for the operationalization of an index of futurelessness. Research in correctional settings should continue to draw on theoretical and empirically relevant information to best capture the mechanisms underlying individuals’ commitment to institutional rules, in an effort to make the safety and security better within these environments. Such efforts will continue to help build on our understanding of futurelessness and institutional misconduct which may help lead to actionable changes for policy makers and correctional stakeholders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Frances P. Abderhalden

Thomas Baker

Notes

References

Abderhalden

F. P.

Baker

Gordon

J. A.

(2020). Futurelessness, risk perceptions, and commitment to institutional rules among a sample of incarcerated men and women. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(6–7), 591–608.

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.

Alward

Baker

Gordon

(2021). Procedural justice and incarcerated people’s obligation to obey institutional rules: An examination of current, former, and never-gang members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, 1–12.

Anderson

(1994). The code of the streets. Atlantic Monthly, 273(5), 81–94.

Anderson

(1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner-city. W. W. Norton.

Baker

Abderhalden

F. P.

Alward

L. M.

Bedard

L. E.

(2021). Exploring the association between procedural justice in jails and incarcerated people’s commitment to institutional rules. Corrections, 6(3), 189–202.

Baker

Mitchell

M. M.

Gordon

J. A.

(2021). Prison visitation and concerns about reentry: Variations in frequency and quality of visits are associated with reentry concerns among people incarcerated in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(12), 1263–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211013516

Baker

Zgoba

Gordon

J. A.

(2021). Incarcerated for a sex offense: In-prison experiences and concerns about reentry. Sexual Abuse, 33, 135–156.

Bales

W. D.

Miller

C. H.

(2012). The impact of determinate sentencing on prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 394–403.

10.

Beck

A. T.

Weissman

Lester

Trexler

(1974). The measurement of pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861–865.

11.

Blevins

K. R.

Johnson Listwan

Cullen

F. T.

Lero Jonson

(2010). A general strain theory of prison violence and misconduct: An integrated model of inmate behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(2), 148–166.

12.

Borgman

(1985). The influence of family visiting upon boys’ behavior in a juvenile correctional institution. Child Welfare, 64(6), 629–638.

13.

Bosma

A. Q. C.

van Ginneken

E. F. J.

Sentse

Palmen

(2020). Examining prisoner misconduct: A multilevel test using personal characteristics, prison climate, and prison environment. Crime & Delinquency, 66(4), 451–484.

14.

Bottoms

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prison. In Tonry

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 26, pp. 205–282). University of Chicago Press.

15.

Brezina

Tekin

Topalli

(2009). “Might not be a tomorrow”: A multimethods approach to anticipated early death and youth crime. Criminology, 47(4), 1091–1129.

16.

Camp

S. D.

Gaes

G. G.

Langan

N. P.

Saylor

W. G.

(2003). The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 501–533.

17.

Cao

Zhao

Van Dine

(1997). Prison disciplinary tickets: A test of the deprivation and importation models. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(2), 103–113.

18.

Carlson

B. E.

Cervera

(1992). Inmates and their wives: Incarceration and family life. Greenwood.

19.

Casey-Acevedo

Bakken

(2001). The effect of time on the disciplinary adjustment of women in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(4), 489–497.

20.

Casey-Acevedo

Bakken

Karle

(2004). Children visiting mothers in prison: The effects on mothers’ behavior and disciplinary adjustment. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 418–430.

21.

Clinkinbeard

S. S.

(2014). What lies ahead: An exploration of future orientation, self-control, and delinquency. Criminal Justice Review, 39, 19–36.

22.

Cochran

J. C.

(2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 433–440.

23.

Craddock

(1996). A comparative study of male and female prison misconduct careers. The Prison Journal, 76, 60–82.

24.

Craig

J. M.

(2019). The potential mediating impact of future orientation on the ACE–crime relationship. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 17(2), 111–128.

25.

Cunningham

M. D.

Sorensen

J. R.

(2006). Nothing to lose? A comparative examination of prison misconduct rates among life-without-parole and other long-term high-security inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(6), 683–705.

26.

Cunningham

M. D.

Sorensen

J. R.

Vigen

M. P.

Woods

S. O.

(2011). Correlates and actuarial models of assaultive prison misconduct among violence-predicted capital offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(1), 5–25.

27.

Dowd

E. T.

(2004). Depression: Theory, assessment, and new directions in practice. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 4(2), 413–423.

28.

Dowden

Andrews

D. A.

(2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta- analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X03257765

29.

DuRant

R. H.

Cadenhead

Pendergrast

R. A.

Slavens

Linder

C. W.

(1994). Factors associated with the use of violence among urban black adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 84(4), 612–617.

30.

Fox

K. A.

Lane

Akers

R. L.

(2013). Understanding gang membership and crime victimization among jail inmates: Testing the effects of self-control. Crime & Delinquency, 59(5), 764–787.

31.

Gendreau

Goggin

C. E.

Law

M. A.

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

32.

Grassian

(2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 22, 325–383.

33.

Griffin

M. L.

Hepburn

J. R.

(2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 419–466.

34.

Harer

M. D.

Langan

N. P.

(2001). Gender differences in predictors of prison violence: Assessing the predictive validity of a risk classification system. Crime & Delinquency, 47(4), 513–536.

35.

Harer

M. D.

Steffensmeier

D. J.

(1996). Race and prison violence. Criminology, 34(3), 323–355.

36.

Haynie

D. L.

Soller

Williams

(2014). Anticipating early fatality: Friends,’ schoolmates’ and individual perceptions of fatality on adolescent risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 175–192.

37.

Hensley

Koscheski

Tewksbury

(2002). Does participation in conjugal visitations reduce prison violence in Mississippi? An exploratory study. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 52–65.

38.

Hochstetler

DeLisi

(2005). Importation, deprivation, and varieties of serving time: An integrated-lifestyle-exposure model of prison offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 257–266.

39.

Irwin

(1985). The jail. University of California Press

40.

Irwin

Cressey

D. R.

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

41.

Jakobsen

J. C.

Gluud

Wetterslev

Winkel

(2017). When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials–a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 1–10.

42.

Jang

S. J.

(2020). Prison strains, negative emotions, and deviance among prisoners in South Korea: A latent variable modeling test of general strain theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64, 1607–1636.

43.

Jiang

Fisher-Giorlando

(2002). Inmate misconduct: A test of the deprivation, importation, and situational models. The Prison Journal, 82, 335–358.

44.

Jiang

Winfree

L. T.

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

45.

Kruger

D. J.

Carrothers

Franzen

S. P.

Miller

A. L.

Reischl

T. M.

Stoddard

S. A.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2018). The role of present time perspective in predicting early adolescent violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 1893–1908.

46.

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

(2005). Marking time in the golden state: Women’s imprisonment in California. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Kuanliang

Sorensen

J. R.

Cunningham

M. D.

(2008). Juvenile inmates in an adult prison system: Rates of disciplinary misconduct and violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1186–1201.

48.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

III Hogan

N. L.

(2018). Exploring how workplace factors are associated with role strain among jail staff: A replication and expansion study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(7), 1008–1027.

49.

Laub

Sampson

(2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press.

50.

Leigey

M. E.

(2019). Female institutional misconduct: A test of deprivation, importation, and gendered importation theories. The Prison Journal, 99(3), 343–362.

51.

Liu

Visher

C. A.

O’Connell

D. J.

(2020). The strain from procedural injustice on parolees: Bridging procedural justice theory and general strain theory. Crime & Delinquency, 66, 250–276.

52.

Mancini

Baker

Sainju

K. D.

Golden

Bedard

L. E.

Gertz

(2016). Examining external support received in prison and concerns about reentry among incarcerated women. Feminist Criminology, 11, 163–190.

53.

Marcum

C. D.

Hilinski-Rosick

C. M.

Freiburger

T. L.

(2014). Examining the correlates of male and female inmate misconduct. Security Journal, 27, 284–303.

54.

May

D. C.

Applegate

B. K.

Ruddell

Wood

P. B.

(2014). Going to jail sucks (and it really doesn’t matter who you ask). American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9215-5

55.

McShane

M. D.

Williams

F. P.

III . (1990). Old and ornery: The disciplinary experiences of elderly prisoners. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34(3), 197–212.

56.

Merbitz

Jain

Good

G. L.

Jain

(1995). Reported head injury and disciplinary rule infractions in prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(3–4), 11–19.

57.

Novisky

M. A.

Narvey

C. S.

Piquero

A. R.

(2022). The keepers: Returning citizens’ experiences with prison staff misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(7), 1010–1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211028895

58.

Nuno

Morrow

W. J.

(2020). Assessing the process-based model of regulation within a jail setting: arrestees’ perceptions of procedural justice, trust and obligation to obey. Journal of Crime and Justice, 43, 676–691.

59.

Nussbaum

A. E.

(2015). Analysis of longitudinal latent-variables with two sources of measurement error [Doctoral dissertation, Southern Methodist University].

60.

Owen

S.V.

(1992) “Review of the Beck Hopelessness Scale.” Eleventh Mental Measurement Yearbook, 82–83.

61.

Petrich

D. M.

Sullivan

C. J.

(2020). Does future orientation moderate the relationship between impulse control and offending? Insights from a sample of serious young offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18(2), 156–178.

62.

Piquero

A. R.

(2016). “Take my license n’all that jive, I can’t see. . . 35”: Little hope for the future encourages offending over time. Justice Quarterly, 33, 73–99.

63.

Piquero

A. R.

Farrington

D. P.

Jennings

W. G.

(2018). Money now, money later: Linking time discounting and criminal convictions in the Cambridge study in delinquent development. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 1131–1142.

64.

Pizarro

J. M.

Narag

R. E.

(2008). Supermax prisons: What we know, what we do not know, and where we are going. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 23–42.

65.

Sawyer

Wagner

(2020). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020. Prison Policy Initiative, 24, 1–30.

66.

Schenk

A. M.

Fremouw

W. J.

(2012). Characteristics related to prison violence: A critical review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 430–442.

67.

StataCorp

L. P.

(2020). College station. TX, USA.

68.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2008). Inmate versus environmental effects on prison rule violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 438–456.

69.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2009). Rethinking the link between institutional crowding and inmate misconduct. The Prison Journal, 89(2), 205–233.

70.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2013). Implications of different outcome measures for an understanding of inmate misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 1234–1262.

71.

Steiner

Butler

H. D.

Ellison

J. M.

(2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 462–470.

72.

Sykes

G. M.

(1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton University Press.

73.

Tahamont

(2019). The effect of facility security classification on serious rules violation reports in California prisons: A regression discontinuity design. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(4), 767–796.

74.

Tewksbury

Connor

D. P.

Denney

A. S.

(2014). Disciplinary infractions behind bars: An exploration of importation and deprivation theories. Criminal Justice Review, 39(2), 201–218.

75.

Travis

(2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. The Urban Insitute.

76.

Trotter

R. T.

Lininger

M. R.

Camplain

Fofanov

V. Y.

Camplain

Baldwin

J. A.

(2018). A survey of health disparities, social determinants of health, and converging morbidities in a county jail: A cultural-ecological assessment of health conditions in jail populations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2500.

77.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

78.

Vuk

Doležal

(2020). Idleness and inmate misconduct: A new perspective on time use and behavior in local jails. Deviant Behavior, 41(11), 1347–1369.

79.

Walters

G. D.

Crawford

(2013). In and out of prison: Do importation factors predict all forms of misconduct or just the more serious ones? Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(6), 407–413.

80.

Wilson

Daly

(1997). Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. Bmj, 314(7089), 1271.

81.

Wooldredge

Griffin

Pratt

(2001). Considering hierarchical models for research on inmate behavior: Predicting misconduct with multilevel data. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 203–231.

82.

Zeng

(2018). Jail inmates in 2016. NCJ, 251210.

83.

Zeng

Minton

T. D.

(2021). Jail Inmates in 2019. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

84.

Zink

T. M.

(1957). Are prison troublemakers different? The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 433–434.