Inmates and Prison Involvement With Drugs

Abstract

Using data from one Midwestern state, the present study focuses on the importation and deprivation characteristics of 543 adult inmates to identify the types of inmates who participate in drug-related behavior during their incarceration. Overall, findings reveal that currently or formerly married inmates, as well as those engaged in general prison misconduct, were more likely to be involved in drug-related activity behind bars. Limitations, directions for future research, and implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords

drugs drugs inside prisons prison misconduct disciplinary infraction

Introduction

Inmates confined inside prisons across the United States are forbidden from possessing, using, and distributing illicit drugs. The rationale behind prohibiting drugs in the general population is often based on their negative effects (Inciardi, 2008; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2010). In a similar vein, administrators of correctional institutions recognize that drugs are problematic inside prisons for at least three reasons. First, the presence of drugs may lead to institutional violence (Feucht & Keyser, 1999; Prendergast, Campos, Farabee, Evans, & Martinez, 2004). Inmates who use drugs may subsequently behave in aggressive and hostile ways that facilitate violent acts. At the same time, the distribution of drugs supports violence behind bars, as debts and disagreements between drug dealers and clients are often resolved through assaults and killings (Pollock, 2013). Further, physical force may become a standard response used by drug dealers who must react to competitors, informants, thieves, and inmates who are unwilling to involve themselves and their visitors in drug smuggling. Second, inmates who use drugs while incarcerated may experience emotional and physical complications, including anxiety, depression, paranoia, and panic attacks (Williamson et al., 1997), and they may spread infectious diseases, such as HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, throughout correctional institutions. Intravenous drug users behind bars, for instance, commonly share needles and other equipment (Dolan, Wodak, Hall, Gaughwin, & Rae, 1996; Shewan, Gemmell, & Davies, 1994).

Third, the financial costs associated with institutional drug activity emerge as perhaps the most salient concern. In terms of violence that results from the presence of drugs, such disruptive activity inside prisons may lead to greater expenses associated with its negative repercussions, like inmate and staff member injury and destruction of property and infrastructure. Each incident of inmate misconduct, on average, costs approximately $1,000 (Lovell & Jemelka, 1996). The liabilities posed by inmate misconduct, resulting litigation, and the potential need for constructing higher security prisons are likely to make such costs even greater (Tewksbury, Connor, & Denney, 2014). Further, inmates with emotional and physical complications (e.g., infectious diseases) may require long-term care, including various medications for treatment, creating a significant financial burden. Inmates with HIV may cost correctional systems at least $10,000 each year, on top of the annual expenses of housing them (Potter & Rosky, 2014). Moreover, liabilities may be presented if inmates contract infectious diseases or develop other health issues due to drug activity while incarcerated, increasing financial responsibility.

Because drug-related pursuits by inmates are considered activities that may lead to institutional violence, health problems, and significant financial costs, such behavior is universally defined as illegal inside U.S. correctional institutions. This does not mean, however, that inmates universally refrain from drug-related activity while incarcerated. Conditions of confinement may increase the desire to engage in drug-related behavior (Stark, Herrmann, Ehrhardt, & Bienzle, 2006; Swann & James, 1998), and illicit drugs are often pervasive inside prisons and entrenched in prison culture (Cope, 2000; Gillespie, 2005; Inciardi, Lockwood, & Quinlan, 1993). Indeed, despite their inability to openly possess, use, and distribute drugs inside prisons, some inmates may be willing to risk institutional detection and punishment to become involved in drug-related pursuits. Inmates who engage in such activity behind bars may also be more likely to continue such pursuits after confinement and ultimately return to prisons. Thus, identifying the types of inmates who are most likely to be involved in drug-related activity behind bars is an important issue to address, as it may help to alleviate problems associated with institutional security, inmate health, correctional expenditures, and inmate reentry.

Theoretical Framework

Throughout the past half-century, two chief explanations have arisen with respect to inmate behavior. These are importation and deprivation theories. Importation theory refers to demographic attributes and socialization experiences, which criminal offenders carry with them into prisons (Giallombardo, 1966; Irwin, 1981; Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Schrag, 1961; Wheeler, 1961). It is asserted that these characteristics and experiences are primary causal factors that explain inmate misconduct (Poole & Regoli, 1980). Because they often have deeper social meanings and experiences attached to them (Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Schrag, 1961; Thomas, 1977), demographic characteristics are the most common proxies for importation theory (e.g., Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando, 2002; Wooldredge, 1991).

Deprivation theory refers to the reality of inmates being removed from society and forced to adapt to the “pains of imprisonment.”¹ Such individuals who experience these losses may be unable to cope with confinement, and they may deal with incarceration by embracing an inmate subculture that opposes prison administrators and staff members (Cao, Zhao, & Van Dine, 1997; Clemmer, 1940; Goffman, 1961; Sykes, 1958). While experiencing these pains of imprisonment, inmates are believed to respond in various ways, and this may include participation in institutional misconduct (Berg & DeLisi, 2006; Cao et al., 1997; McCorkle, Miethe, & Drass, 1995). Inmate drug-related activity may be the outcome of their inability to cope with the stresses of confinement and/or their desire to defy prison officials who are perceived as oppressive.

Importation and Inmate Behavior

Importation theory may help with an understanding of how inmate characteristics and experiences prior to incarceration may affect their subsequent behavior inside prisons. Specifically, as discussed below, specific demographics and characteristics of inmates before their incarceration may influence their decisions to engage in drug-related misconduct behind bars. These factors are attributes that inmates possess before entering prisons, suggesting their applicability to the importation perspective.

Age

Age has been found to be the most important indicator for the likelihood of general misconduct behind bars (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006, 2007; Flanagan, 1983; Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Kuanliang, Sorensen, & Cunningham, 2008; Morris, Longmire, Buffington-Vollum, & Vollum, 2010; Sorensen & Cunningham, 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008; Welsh, McGrain, Salamatin, & Zajac, 2007; Wooldredge, Griffin, & Pratt, 2001). Specifically, a significant negative relationship has been found between age and an inmate’s likelihood for institutional misconduct (Bales & Miller, 2012; Jiang, Fisher-Giorlando, & Mo, 2005; Morris et al., 2010; Walters, 2007; Walters & Schlauch, 2008). That is, as inmates become older, such individuals are less likely to receive disciplinary infractions (Griffin & Hepburn, 2006).

It remains unclear whether or not age is relevant for predicting drug-related misconduct. When drug-related offenses are examined separately from other types of prison misconduct, the influence of age on drug-related misbehavior is not consistent. Butler, Levy, Dolan, and Kaldor (2003) found that being between 24 and 40 years of age was associated with a high risk of drug use while incarcerated. Studies based on self-reported drug use (Gillespie, 2005) and receipts of disciplinary infractions (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996; Jiang, 2005) suggest that age is related to institutional drug-related behavior. For instance, Jiang (2005) revealed that inmates who were younger and White were more likely to receive disciplinary infractions for drug-related violations, while inmates who were younger and Black were more likely to receive disciplinary infractions for violations that were not drug related. However, age did not predict drug offenses in some other research (Morris et al., 2010; Van Voorhis, 1994), while other studies have revealed that age was not exclusively relevant to drug-related misconduct; age similarly influenced other forms of misconduct (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009a, 2009b). In light of these inconsistencies across studies, age was considered in the present study. Younger inmates, once incarcerated, are expected to be more likely to participate in drug-related misconduct, as they may be more likely to engage in nonconformist behavior outside of prisons (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; Laub & Sampson, 2003).

Race

Besides age, an inmate’s race has been the most frequently examined demographic characteristic regarding the potential for institutional misconduct (Bales & Miller, 2012; Drury & DeLisi, 2011; Finn, 1995; Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Hewitt, Poole, & Regoli, 1984; Jiang et al., 2005; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Lembo, 1969; McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008; Morris et al., 2010; Poole & Regoli, 1980; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008, 2009b; Wolff, Shi, & Blitz, 2008; Wooldredge et al., 2001; Worrall & Morris, 2011). However, studies have shown mixed results. Griffin and Hepburn (2006) reported that Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than Whites to have been found guilty of making threats against others. Also, younger Whites were more likely than younger Blacks and/or Hispanics to commit assault (Griffin & Hepburn, 2006). Drury and DeLisi (2011) reported that Whites were less likely to commit violent misconduct and possess a weapon, and other researchers have also found that Whites are less likely than all other races to commit disciplinary infractions, especially violent infractions (Bales & Miller, 2012; McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008; Morris et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2005; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008).

Poole and Regoli (1980) reported that White and Black inmates equally participated in deviance while incarcerated; however, this finding may be attributed to their use of self-report data. Similarly, Hewitt et al. (1984) found a weak relationship between inmate race and disciplinary infractions. White and Black inmates averaged the same number of disciplinary infractions, although Whites were more likely to engage in conspiracy, contraband possession, and sex-related infractions.

The effects of an inmate’s race may differ by type of misconduct. Steiner and Wooldredge (2009b) and Harer and Steffensmeier (1996) found that Black inmates were more likely to engage in assaults while incarcerated, but less likely to commit drug offenses. The finding that Black inmates were less likely to commit drug offenses was echoed in other research (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009a). However, race did not predict drug misconduct in other studies (Morris et al., 2010; Van Voorhis, 1994), but was relevant to other forms of misconduct among capital inmates (Morris et al., 2010). Race may affect drug-related misconduct inside prisons, as cultural attitudes toward crime and obedience to authority, which form in society and subsequently influence actions behind bars, may be based on experiences unique to Whites and Nonwhites (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996; Wooldredge et al., 2001).

Educational level

Education has been infrequently examined as a demographic predictor of institutional misconduct. Wright (1991) found that inmates who did not progress beyond high school had fewer instances of physical misconduct, suggesting that more education contributes to a higher risk of committing disciplinary infractions. Conversely, Cunningham and Sorensen (2006) found that inmates who scored lower on an education test were more likely to be involved in prison misconduct. Moreover, lower scores on the Test for Adult Basic Education were related to a higher overall likelihood of inmate involvement in institutional misbehavior (Kuanliang et al., 2008). With respect to drug-related misconduct specifically, Morris and colleagues (2010) found that inmates with more educational attainment received fewer disciplinary write-ups. Other studies that have examined drug-related offenses separately from other forms of prison misconduct, though, did not include education in their models (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009a, 2009b; Van Voorhis, 1994). The above findings demonstrate that education may be relevant for predicting drug-related behavior among inmates. More highly educated inmates may be more likely to refrain from drug-related misconduct, as they may be more likely to live in outside society as conformists.

Marital status

Similar to education, marital status has rarely been examined in relation to predicting an inmate’s likelihood for misconduct behind bars. The available studies assessing marital status have produced inconsistent findings. Jiang et al. (2005) found that inmates who were married were less likely to receive disciplinary infractions compared with unmarried inmates. Further, they found that being married decreased an inmate’s overall potential for receiving disciplinary infractions by 14% (Jiang et al., 2005). Jiang and Winfree (2006) reported an even greater decrease – a 23% reduction in disciplinary incidents among married inmates. However, Steiner and Wooldredge (2009b) found that marriage did not affect drug-related behavior, but decreased the likelihood of assaults and other nonviolent misconduct. Other investigations that examined drug-related misconduct separately have not included marital status in their analyses (Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996; Morris et al., 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009a; Van Voorhis, 1994). Thus, with these inconsistencies, the present study considered marriage as an influence on drug-related pursuits behind bars. When individuals are married, it may suggest that they are strongly committed to conventional goals and therefore more likely to refrain from drug-related misconduct while incarcerated (Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Wooldredge et al., 2001).

Criminal history

Prior research highlights that specific offenses on the outside (e.g., homicide) do not necessarily coincide with misconduct on the inside (Bales & Miller, 2012; Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007; Cunningham, Sorensen, Vigen, & Woods, 2011; Sorensen & Cunningham, 2010; Wooldredge et al., 2001). Although this relationship does not necessarily occur, one study found that those with a history of violent offenses are more likely to engage in general prison misconduct (Griffin & Hepburn, 2006). Perhaps the strongest predictor of illicit drug use during incarceration is drug use on the outside before incarceration. Strang and colleagues (2006) indicated that drug use inside prisons was most likely to take place among inmates who used drugs in the month prior to their incarceration. Similarly, Jiang (2005) found that drug use before incarceration by inmates had a stronger effect on their receipt of any type of prison drug violation than their receipt of any type of nondrug violation. However, Steiner and Wooldredge (2009a) found that prearrest drug use related to all types of misconduct, not just drug-related offenses.

Although the present study does not examine drug use before incarceration, it does consider an inmate’s most serious criminal offense conviction leading to incarceration, including drug convictions. Mixed results are found in sparse research that utilizes inmates’ most serious conviction as a predictor of drug-related misconduct. Steiner and Wooldredge (2009b) found that incarceration for a drug offense was not related to drug-related misconduct, but incarceration for a drug offense predicted assaults and other nonviolent offenses by inmates. Incarceration for a violent offense predicted only assaults. However, in a different study, Steiner and Wooldredge (2009a) revealed that incarceration for a drug offense and incarceration for a violent offense predicted assaultive behavior, but did not predict drug-related misconduct. Due to the limited availability of findings, the present study examined the impact of type of conviction leading to incarceration on drug-related misconduct. Inmates convicted of drug offenses in society may be more likely to engage in drug-related misconduct while incarcerated because they import this behavior (Jiang, 2005; Strang et al., 2006).

Gang affiliation

Whether or not an inmate is affiliated with a gang before incarceration is an additional factor that may predict behavior during incarceration (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006; Drury & DeLisi, 2011; Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Kuanliang et al., 2008; Sorensen & Cunningham, 2010; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008). Both suspected and confirmed gang membership has been shown to increase one’s likelihood of prison misconduct by as much as 24% (Sorensen & Cunningham, 2010). In addition, Kuanliang et al. (2008) found that incarcerated gang members were twice as likely to receive disciplinary infractions compared with other inmates. An inmate’s gang membership has also been shown to interact with other importation characteristics, further exacerbating the impact that gang membership has on the likelihood for rule violations. Drury and DeLisi (2011) found that inmates who were members of a street gang and had a homicide offense were more likely to possess a deadly weapon, commit major institutional violations, disobey officers, and damage property. Similarly, Cunningham and Sorensen (2007) discovered that one’s gang affiliation interacted with prior prison terms, resulting in a 35% higher likelihood of disciplinary infractions.

When considered in relation to the likelihood of specific types of prison misconduct, gang affiliation appears to be particularly relevant to drug-related offenses. Harer and Steffensmeier (1996) reported that their measure of gang activity was not related to violence behind bars, but increased the odds of drug-related misconduct. At the same time, Morris and colleagues (2010) found that gang affiliation predicted contraband, sex, and drug offenses, but failed to influence violent, security-related, and property misconduct. Thus, based on its apparent importance to predicting drug-related misconduct, a measure of gang affiliation was included in the present study. It is expected that gang members will have higher odds of participating in drug-related misconduct, as their gang loyalty on the streets could transfer over to life while incarcerated, prompting them to challenge prison rules and regulations (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006; Drury & DeLisi, 2011).

Biological sex

Butler and colleagues (2003) found that female inmates were more likely to have a high risk of drug use while incarcerated compared with male inmates. However, Clarke, Stein, Hanna, Sobota, and Rich (2001) found that males were more likely to engage in drug use inside prisons. Such inconsistency suggests that biological sex is an important factor to examine in regard to drug-related misconduct. Men may be more likely to involve themselves in drug-related pursuits behind bars, however, as they use illicit drugs at a higher frequency and in larger amounts compared with women in outside society (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1997).

Deprivation and Inmate Behavior

Although importation theory is a plausible explanation for prison misconduct and drug-related misbehavior, a competing explanation is deprivation theory. This perspective suggests that the hardships of prison life encourage deviant behavior within prisons (Sykes, 1958). Specifically, inmates may become involved in drug-related pursuits to cope with the pains of imprisonment and/or to defy authority.

Visitation

Some research indicates that whether or not inmates receive visits behind bars may be particularly relevant for predicting their institutional behavior. Individuals locked inside prisons are deprived of social relationships with members of the outside world. There is reason to believe that prison visits from loved ones may influence inmate behavior. Inmates who receive visits from family and friends are better adjusted to prison environments, as evidenced by fewer instances of institutional misconduct (Borgman, 1985; Cochran, 2012; Tewksbury et al., 2014). Receiving visits has also been linked to lower recidivism rates upon release (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2011). And yet, Siennick, Mears, and Bales (2013) found that the likelihood of receiving a disciplinary infraction declined in anticipation of visits, increased following visits, and then gradually decreased to average levels. This pattern was consistent across different types of misconduct, but was strongest for contraband offenses, which included drug-related infractions. The present study utilized a measure of visits to further examine its relevance to drug-related infractions. It is expected that inmates with fewer visits will be more likely to engage in drug-related activity to cope with the loss of social relationships on the outside.

Prison admission type and other disciplinary infractions

Whether inmates are serving time for a new commitment as opposed to a revocation of community supervision and the number of disciplinary infractions (excluding drug-related misconduct) they have committed are important measures of deprivation because these factors inform the conditions under which inmates are confined. Although no previously identified study utilized prison admission type, inmates who are new commitments may experience imprisonment differently than inmates who were formerly living in the community under supervision. It may be that inmates who had a taste of freedom on community supervision, but were then confined, experience stronger pains of imprisonment, increasing their likelihood of engaging in drug-related pursuits to cope. With respect to other disciplinary infractions, inmates who engage in more misconduct generally may be more likely to also participate in illicit drug-related behavior during their incarceration because the pains of imprisonment have caused them to respond by breaking other institutional rules and regulations. Inmates who received a greater total number of disciplinary infractions have been found to be more likely to participate in same-sex sexual activity while incarcerated (Tewksbury & Connor, 2014). Thus, to explore their roles in drug-related misconduct, the present study considered measures of prison admission type and disciplinary infractions.

Method

Data

The target population for the study focused on adult inmates who were incarcerated inside state-operated prisons located in one Midwestern jurisdiction in the United States. Data were compiled by the Department of Corrections for the respective state, were subsequently provided to the authors as one electronic data set, and included official institutional records for inmates under its custody. The data set contained inmate demographics, criminal and incarceration histories, visitation records, and disciplinary infractions. Prior to the receipt of data, all procedures were reviewed by the second author’s institutional review board to ensure that ethical standards were met.

Sample and Sampling Procedure

The initial sample consisted of 620 adult inmates (i.e., those contained in the data set) across 10 correctional institutions (representing minimum, medium, and maximum security housing units), all of whom were both admitted to a prison during the 2009 calendar year and incarcerated for all 365 continuous days in the 2011 calendar year. This cohort of inmates represented all prisoners admitted to these prisons in 2009 and was specifically identified so as to have individuals who were acclimated to incarceration and for whom the length of time behind bars was not varying. However, for the present study, which focused on identifying inmates known to participate in drug-related misconduct while incarcerated, the sample was appropriate. It was important not to have inmates in the sample who were new to prison life or incarcerated for especially lengthy periods. This is because adjustment to aspects of prison life, including drug-related behavior, varies across the incarceration period, with the first and last 6 to 12 months being unique from the normative experience of confinement (Jones & Schmid, 2000; Santos, 2006). Before the study period of interest (i.e., the 2011 calendar year), each inmate was incarcerated for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 24 months, which provided a sample of individuals who were fully acclimated to living inside a correctional institution and its associated routines (Jones & Schmid, 2000).

Measures

Dependent measure

The dependent variable used in the present study was a dichotomous measure of whether or not an inmate received a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct during the 1-year study period. Drug-related disciplinary infractions received by an inmate included being intoxicated, possession of drugs, and misuse of medication. Although drug-related behavior in this sample may appear to be low at first glance (see Table 1), such a rate is not unusual inside prisons (Feucht & Keyser, 1999). Drug-related misconduct infractions were separated from the total number of disciplinary infractions and the total number of the most minor disciplinary infractions (see below for a description of these measures) to prevent spurious relationships.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Measures in the Present Study.

Measure	%	M	SD
Any drug-related infractions
Yes (1)	4.8
No (0)	95.2
Importation
Biological sex
Male (1)	94.4
Female (0)	5.6
Race
White (1)	69.5
Nonwhite (0)	30.5
Marital status
Married, divorced, or widowed (1)	22.0
Single, never married (0)	78.0
Age at prison admission		32.52	10.99
Educational level
High school or higher (1)	84.8
Less than high school (0)	15.2
Gang member
Yes (1)	21.9
No (0)	78.1
Drug offender
Yes (1)	27.3
No (0)	72.7
Public order offender
Yes (1)	3.7
No (0)	96.3
Violent offender
Yes (1)	38.4
No (0)	61.6
Property offender
Yes (1)	18.1
No (0)	81.9
Deprivation
Prison admission type
Revocation (1)	28.7
New commitment (0)	71.3
Total disciplinary infractions (log)		0.34	0.39
Total minor disciplinary infractions (log)		0.05	0.13
Visits (log)		0.57	0.53

Independent measures

Independent variables in the present study included 10 importation characteristics and four deprivation measures. Importation variables consisted of an inmate’s biological sex, race, marital status, age at prison admission for the current period of incarceration, and highest educational level completed, as well as whether or not an inmate was designated as a gang member and whether an inmate’s most serious criminal offense conviction leading to incarceration was a drug offense, public order offense, violent offense, or a property offense. These factors were attributes that inmates possessed before entering prisons, suggesting their applicability to the importation perspective.

Biological sex was coded as a dichotomous measure (female = 0, male = 1).² In the original data set, less than 5% of the sample was classified as neither White nor Black. As such, race was also coded as dichotomous measure (White = 0, Nonwhite = 1). In addition, marital status was coded as a dichotomous variable (single/never married = 0, married/divorced/widowed = 1). Age at prison admission for the current period of incarceration was a continuous measure. An inmate’s educational level was coded as a dichotomous variable (less than high school = 0, high school or higher = 1). Inmates in this sample were more highly educated than state prison inmates nationally (Harlow, 2003). Whether or not an inmate was designated as a gang member was a dichotomous variable (no = 0, yes = 1). An inmate’s most serious criminal offense conviction leading to incarceration (i.e., drug, public order, violent, and property) was treated as a dichotomous variable (no = 0, yes = 1).

Deprivation measures consisted of prison admission type, total number of disciplinary infractions received during the 1-year study period, total number of the most minor (of five levels) disciplinary infractions received during the 1-year study period, and total number of visits received during the 1-year study period. These factors informed the conditions under which inmates were confined, suggesting their applicability to the deprivation perspective. Prison admission type indicated whether an inmate was serving time for a new commitment (coded as 0) or revocation of parole, probation, or work release (coded as 1). The total number of disciplinary infractions, most minor disciplinary infractions, and visits received during the 1-year study period were continuous, ratio-level measures. In terms of visitation while incarcerated, data for the present study originated from a Department of Corrections with liberal visitation policies. All prisons operated by this correctional agency permitted inmates to receive visits at least 4 days per week.

Visual examination of histograms for total disciplinary infractions, most minor disciplinary infractions, and visits indicated that the distribution shapes of these measures were positively skewed. For total disciplinary infractions, 19 scores were detected as extreme outliers using a box plot and were subsequently excluded. Twenty-nine scores were also identified as extremes and were removed from the distribution of most minor disciplinary infractions, and 34 scores were excluded from the distribution of total visits as extreme outliers. Thus, the final sample was 543 inmates. A log transformation to base 10 was performed on the remaining scores of each of these variables to reduce asymmetry. Following these adjustments, the distribution of total disciplinary infractions, most minor disciplinary infractions, and visits were brought closer to normality. These transformed scales were used in later bivariate and multivariate analyses.

Findings

Following preliminary data screening, zero-order correlations among the measures used in the present study were computed. Two deprivation variables were related to the receipt of any drug-related disciplinary infraction. The total number of disciplinary infractions (logged) was positively associated (r = .24, p < .001) with drug-related misconduct. In other words, as an inmate’s number of disciplinary infractions (excluding drug-related misconduct) increased, so did their odds of committing drug-related misconduct. At the same time, the total number of the minor disciplinary infractions (logged) was positively associated (r = .13, p < .001) with drug-related misconduct. In other words, as an inmate’s number of minor disciplinary infractions (excluding drug-related misconduct) increased, so too did an inmate’s odds of perpetrating drug-related misconduct. Associations between these measures and drug-related infractions were in the expected direction. However, the remaining variables were not statistically related to drug-related misconduct. All the correlations are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations for Measures in the Present Study.

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Any drug-related infractions	1.00
Importation
2. Biological sex	−.07	1.00
3. Race	.05	.03	1.00
4. Marital status	.07	−.05	.17**	1.00
5. Age at prison admission	−.02	.01	.13**	.51**	1.00
6. Educational level	−.03	−.01	.08*	−.02	−.06	1.00
7. Gang member	.04	.11**	−.23**	−.14**	−.23**	−.05	1.00
8. Drug offender	−.05	−.02	.02	.06	.10**	−.03	.01	1.00
9. Public order offender	.07	.04	−.03	−.01	−.01	−.01	.04	−.12**	1.00
10. Violent offender	−.01	.02	.04	−.01	−.06	.02	−.09*	−.62**	−.20**	1.00
11. Property offender	.05	−.03	−.06	−.06	−.03	.01	.09*	−.28**	−.09*	−.47**	1.00
Deprivation
12. Prison admission type	−.04	−.06	.01	−.05	−.05	.09*	.01	.18**	.02	−.26**	.11**	1.00
13. Total disciplinary infractions (log)	.24**	−.03	−.04	−.16**	−.30**	−.04	.22**	−.10*	.06	.03	.04	.04	1.00
14. Total minor disciplinary infractions (log)	.13**	−.02	−.06	.01	−.06	−.01	.11**	−.06	−.01	.09*	−.04	.01	.39**	1.00
15. Visits (log)	.02	−.08*	.19**	.06	−.09*	.15**	−.10*	.10*	−.02	.01	−.11**	−.05	−.10*	−.01	1.00

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

Next, to examine the ways in which importation and deprivation factors may differentially affect whether or not an inmate received a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct during the 1-year study period, binary logistic regression was utilized. Because the dependent variable was dichotomous, the use of logistic regression was appropriate (Pampel, 2000). Tolerance values for all measures were computed, and all tolerance levels were 0.65 or higher (Menard, 1995).

Table 3 shows that the model was significant (χ² = 54.83, p = .001), which indicated that the independent measures, taken as a whole, provided a statistically significant explanation for the change in likelihood of an inmate receiving a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct. The strength of the association between the predictor variables and drug misconduct was moderate (Nagelkerke’s R² = .34). Only two of the 13 measures assessed were statistically significant indicators of an inmate’s receipt of a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct.³ With respect to the importation variables, currently or formerly married inmates had 299% greater odds of receiving a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct than single, never married inmates. In terms of the deprivation measures, for each additional (logged) disciplinary infraction (excluding drug-related misconduct) received during the 1-year study period, inmates had 4,588% greater odds of receiving a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct. Biological sex, race, age, educational level, gang member status, most serious criminal offense conviction leading to incarceration, prison admission type, total minor disciplinary infractions, and visits were not statistically significant predictors of drug-related misconduct.⁴

Table 3.

Predictors of Drug-Related Misconduct Relative to Drug Offenders (N = 543).

Measure	B	SE	Exp(β)	Tolerance
Importation
Biological sex	−1.13	0.81	0.32	0.95
Race	0.98	0.72	2.66	0.88
Marital status	1.39*	0.63	3.99	0.74
Age at prison admission	0.03	0.03	1.03	0.65
Educational level	−0.17	0.60	0.85	0.94
Gang member	0.10	0.61	1.10	0.85
Public order offender	1.18	1.06	3.27	0.91
Violent offender	−0.08	0.68	0.93	0.65
Property offender	0.60	0.76	1.81	0.71
Deprivation
Prison admission type	−0.73	0.67	0.48	0.88
Total disciplinary infractions (log)	3.85*	0.84	46.88	0.73
Total minor disciplinary infractions (log)	1.30	1.35	3.68	0.82
Visits (log)	0.30	0.53	1.35	0.87
Constant	−6.92	1.75

Note. χ² = 54.83 (p = .001), df = 13, Nagelkerke’s R² = .34.

p < .05.

Discussion

The present study focused on importation and deprivation characteristics of individuals confined inside prisons to identify the types of inmates who were more likely to participate in drug-related misconduct during their incarceration. This research found that the importation and deprivation perspectives explained some differences that existed between inmates who engaged in drug activity behind bars and inmates who did not engage in drug activity behind bars. However, importation and deprivation variables often did not differentially predict whether or not inmates participated in drug-related misconduct while incarcerated. The results of this examination lend support to the existing literature, suggest directions for future research, and offer policy implications.

Findings revealed that one importation characteristic and one deprivation characteristic predicted inmates’ receipt of a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct, net of other measures. Specifically, currently or formerly married inmates had 299% greater odds of receiving a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct than single, never married inmates. This appears to be a new finding in the literature concerning drug-related activity during incarceration. There is evidence to suggest that marriage is accompanied by decreases in binge drinking and marijuana use outside of prisons (Duncan, Wilkerson, & England, 2006) and other drug-related behavior inside prisons (Jiang et al., 2005; Jiang & Winfree, 2006). However, on the inside, inmates who are presently or formerly married may have a larger social network from which to recruit accomplices for purposes of introducing drugs into correctional institutions. This may include spouses, former spouses, or relationships with others that developed through marriage. It may be that presently or formerly married individuals have lost more relationships due to their incarceration and the abundance of community contacts they are accustomed to, and such deprivation may make it more difficult to cope with confinement. It should be pointed out that the dichotomous measure of marital status included married, divorced, and widowed inmates in one category relative to single/never married inmates. Compared with other studies, this was an atypical way to operationalize marital status, and this could explain the difference in findings from other research. Nonetheless, from an importation perspective, the measure of marital status advanced the idea that drug-related behavior may be present among currently or formerly married individuals behind bars.

The total number of disciplinary infractions received by an inmate during the 1-year study period was the only deprivation measure that influenced his or her likelihood of receiving a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct. Specifically, for each additional (logged) disciplinary infraction (for any type of violation of institutional rules and regulations besides drug-related offenses) received, the odds of inmates receiving a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct were increased by 4,588%. This finding is congruent with prior research, which has found that inmates who received a greater total number of disciplinary infractions were more likely to participate in same-sex sexual activity while incarcerated (Tewksbury & Connor, 2014). It makes sense that inmates who are willing to engage in other types of acts that violate institutional rules and regulations may also participate in prohibited drug-related behavior inside prisons. Losses experienced through the receipt of disciplinary infractions during incarceration may well prompt additional drug-related misconduct as such misbehavior may represent alternative efforts to satisfy needs that are unmet through existing deprivations.

Limitations

This research was not without limitations. The sample was drawn from only adult inmates in one Midwestern prison system. As a result, these findings may not apply to juveniles and inmates in the custody of other jurisdictions. Because findings were based on inmates who were incarcerated for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 2 years prior to the study period of interest, generalizability from this sample may be limited. Also, the interpretation of findings should be considered in light of the fact that a limited number of inmates received a disciplinary infraction for drug-related behavior. At the same time, the relationship between visitation and receipt of a disciplinary infraction for drug-related misconduct may not be entirely conclusive, as some inmates with fewer visits may have lost their visitation privileges due to participation in drug-related activity inside prisons. Moreover, adjustment for the correlated error among inmates confined within the same prison was not possible, because the data set did not include information regarding specific locations where inmates were housed. Further, because this study relied on official data from a correctional agency, the use of drug-related disciplinary infractions as a measure of possessing, using, and distributing illicit drugs while incarcerated may underestimate the prevalence of drug activity behind bars. The data, which were based on institutional records, did not consider drug-related misconduct that was unknown or unreported by prison officials. Variations in inmate management and supervision may be reflected more than differences in actual behavior (Morris et al., 2010). Multiple indicators of inmate misconduct (Van Voorhis, 1994), although unavailable to the authors in the present study, may achieve a more accurate picture of drug-related activity behind bars. Finally, it is worth noting that most of the variables used in this study were only proxy indicators of importation and deprivation concepts.

Conclusion

The findings from this study showed that currently or formerly married inmates and those engaged in general prison misconduct were more likely to be involved in drug-related behavior while incarcerated. Thus, correctional institutions, agencies, and systems that wish to address inmate drug-related behavior inside prisons should direct educational, intervention, and monitoring efforts at these inmates to combat problems of institutional security, inmate health, and financial costs, as well as inmate post-release success, which may be associated with drugs inside prisons. Drug treatment (Butzin, O’Connell, Martin, & Inciardi, 2006; Wexler, DeLeon, Thomas, Kressel, & Peters, 1999) and drug testing (Feucht & Keyser, 1999; Prendergast et al., 2004) programs for inmates may reduce drug-related behavior during incarceration and after release, and it is incumbent on prison administrators to ensure that these inmates are made a priority with respect to exposure to such strategies. At the same time, because importation and deprivation measures predicted drug-related misconduct, it may be important for prison administrators and staff members to understand the differing attitudes, beliefs, experiences, norms, and values that inmates possess prior to their incarceration, as well as their experienced pains while confined, to better manage their future behavior on the inside. Diversity training and other modes of helping prison employees to understand and become sensitive to the influence of outside culture may assist in curbing institutional misconduct. Inmate programs that minimize deprivations and maximize prosocial coping strategies should be utilized. Ultimately, by making certain that inmates with a proclivity toward drug-related behavior refrain from possessing, using, and distributing illicit drugs, highly efficient and safer prisons may be promoted that are more conducive to inmate rehabilitation, and more inmates may subsequently return to the free world with reduced chances of backsliding into criminal behavior.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

David Patrick Connor, PhD, is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice at Seattle University. His research focuses on inmate experiences, sex offender management, and social deviance.

Richard Tewksbury, PhD, is a professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville. His research centers on institutional corrections, sex offender registration and notification, and gender and sexuality.

References

Bales

W. D.

Mears

D. P.

(2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 287-321.

Bales

W. D.

Miller

C. H.

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

Berg

M. T.

DeLisi

(2006). The correctional melting pot: Race, ethnicity, citizenship, and prison violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 631-642.

Borgman

(1985). Influence of family visiting upon boys’ behavior in a juvenile correctional institution. Child Welfare, 64, 629-638.

Butler

Levy

Dolan

Kaldor

(2003). Drug use and its correlates in an Australian prisoner population. Addiction Research and Theory, 11, 89-101.

Butzin

C. A.

O’Connell

D. J.

Martin

S. S.

Inciardi

J. A.

(2006). Effect of drug treatment during work release on new arrests and incarcerations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 557-565.

Cao

Zhao

Van Dine

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

Clarke

J. G.

Stein

M. D.

Hanna

Sobota

Rich

(2001). Active and former injection drug users report of HIV risk behaviors during periods of incarceration. Substance Abuse, 22, 209-216.

Clemmer

(1940). The prison community. New York, NY: Rinehart.

10.

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, 433-440.

11.

Cope

(2000). Drug use in prison: The experience of young offenders. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 7, 355-366.

12.

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, 683-705.

13.

Cunningham

M. D.

Sorensen

J. R.

(2007). Predictive factors for violent misconduct in close custody. The Prison Journal, 87, 241-253.

14.

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, 5-25.

15.

Dolan

Wodak

Hall

Gaughwin

Rae

(1996). HIV risk behaviors of IDUs before, during, and after imprisonment in New South Wales. Addiction Research and Theory, 4, 151-160.

16.

Drury

A. J.

DeLisi

(2011). Gangkill: An exploratory empirical assessment of gang membership, homicide offending, and prison misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 130-146.

17.

Duncan

G. J.

Wilkerson

England

(2006). Cleaning up their act: The effects of marriage and cohabitation on licit and illicit drug use. Demography, 43, 691-710.

18.

Duwe

Clark

(2011). Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 271-296.

19.

Feucht

T. E.

Keyser

(1999). Reducing drug use in prisons: Pennsylvania’s approach. National Institute of Justice Journal, 241, 10-15.

20.

Finn

M. A.

(1995). Disciplinary incidents in prison: Effects of race, economic status, urban residence, prior imprisonment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22, 143-156.

21.

Flanagan

T. J.

(1983). Correlates of institutional misconduct among state prisoners: A research note. Criminology, 21, 29-39.

22.

Giallombardo

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

23.

Gillespie

(2005). A multilevel model of drug abuse inside prison. The Prison Journal, 85, 223-246.

24.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

25.

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, 419-448.

26.

Harer

M. D.

Steffensmeier

D. J.

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

27.

Harlow

C. W.

(2003). Education and correctional populations. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

28.

Hewitt

J. D.

Poole

E. D.

Regoli

R. M.

(1984). Research note: Self-reported and observed rule-breaking in prison: A look at disciplinary response. Justice Quarterly, 1, 437-447.

29.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

(1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552-584.

30.

Inciardi

J. A.

(2008). The War on Drugs IV: The continuing saga of the mysteries and miseries of intoxication, addiction, crime and public policy. Boston, MA: Pearson.

31.

Inciardi

J. A.

Lockwood

Quinlan

J. A.

(1993). Drug use in prison: Patterns, processes, and implications for treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 119-129.

32.

Irwin

J. K.

(1981). Sociological studies of the impact of long-term confinement. In Ward

D. A.

Schoen

K. F.

(Eds.), Confinement in maximum custody: New last-resort prisons in the United States and Europe (pp. 49-60). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

33.

Irwin

J. K.

Cressey

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

34.

Jiang

(2005). Impact of drug use on inmate misconduct: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 153-163.

35.

Jiang

Fisher-Giorlando

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

36.

Jiang

Fisher-Giorlando

(2005). Social support and inmate violations. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 71-86.

37.

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.

38.

Johnston

L. D.

O’Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

(1997). The monitoring of the future study (1975-1997). Monograph. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

39.

Jones

Schmid

(2000). Doing time: Prison experience and identity among first-time inmates. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.

40.

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, 1186-1201.

41.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

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

42.

Lembo

J. J.

(1969). Research notes: The relationship of institutional disciplinary infractions and the inmate’s personal contact with the outside community. Criminology, 7, 50-54.

43.

Lovell

Jemelka

(1996). When inmates misbehave: The costs of discipline. The Prison Journal, 76, 165-179.

44.

McCorkle

Miethe

Drass

(1995). The roots of prison violence: A test of the deprivation, management, and “not-so-total” institution models. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 317-331.

45.

McReynolds

L. S.

Wasserman

G. A.

(2008). Risk for disciplinary infractions among incarcerated male youths: Influence of psychiatric disorder. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1174-1185.

46.

Menard

(1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47.

Morris

R. G.

Longmire

D. R.

Buffington-Vollum

Vollum

(2010). Institutional misconduct and differential parole eligibility among capital inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 417-438.

48.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2010). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction. Washington, DC: Author.

49.

Pampel

F. C.

(2000). Logistic regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

50.

Pollock

J. M.

(2013). Prisons and prison life: Costs and consequences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

51.

Poole

E. D.

Regoli

R. M.

(1980). Race, institutional rule breaking, and disciplinary response: A study of discretionary decision making in prison. Law & Society Review, 14, 931-946.

52.

Potter

R. H.

Rosky

(2014). Health issues. In Marcum

C. D.

Castle

T. L.

(Eds.), Sex in prison: Myths and realities (pp. 113-128). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

53.

Prendergast

M. L.

Campos

Farabee

Evans

W. K.

Martinez

(2004). Reducing substance use in prison: The California Department of Corrections Drug Reduction Strategy Project. The Prison Journal, 84, 265-280.

54.

Santos

M. G.

(2006). Inside: Life behind bars in America. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.

55.

Schrag

(1961). A preliminary criminal typology. Pacific Sociological Review, 4, 11-16.

56.

Shewan

Gemmell

Davies

J. B.

(1994). Prison as a modifier of drug using behavior. Addiction Research and Theory, 2, 203-215.

57.

Siennick

S. E.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2013). Here and gone: Anticipation and separation effects of prison visits on inmate infractions. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 417-444.

58.

Sorensen

Cunningham

M. D.

(2010). Conviction offense and prison violence: A comparative study of murderers and other offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 103-125.

59.

Stark

Herrmann

Ehrhardt

Bienzle

(2006). A syringe exchange programme in prison as prevention strategy against HIV infection and hepatitis B and C in Berlin, Germany. Epidemiology and Infection, 134, 814-819.

60.

Steiner

Wooldredge

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

61.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2009a). Implications of different outcome measures for an understanding of inmate misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 1234-1262.

62.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2009b). The relevance of inmate race/ethnicity versus population composition for understanding prison rule violations. Punishment and Society, 11, 459-489.

63.

Strang

Gossop

Heuston

Green

Whiteley

Maden

(2006). Persistence of drug use during imprisonment: Relationship of drug type, recency of use, and severity of dependence to use of heroin, cocaine, and amphetamine in prison. Addiction, 101, 1125-1132.

64.

Swann

James

(1998). The effect of the prison environment upon inmate drug taking behavior. The Howard Journal, 37, 252-265.

65.

Sykes

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

66.

Tewksbury

Connor

D. P.

(2014). Who is having sex inside prison? Deviant Behavior, 35, 993-1005.

67.

Tewksbury

Connor

D. P.

Denney

A. S.

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

68.

Thomas

(1977). Theoretical perspectives on prisonization: A comparison of the importation and deprivation models. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68, 135-145.

69.

Van Voorhis

. (1994). Measuring prison disciplinary problems: A multiple indicators approach to understanding prison adjustment. Justice Quarterly, 11, 679-709.

70.

Walters

G. D.

(2007). Predicting institutional adjustment with the lifestyle criminality screening form and the antisocial features and aggression scales of the PAI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 99-105.

71.

Walters

G. D.

Schlauch

(2008). The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles and level of service inventory-revised: Screening version as predictors of official and self-reported disciplinary infractions. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 454-462.

72.

Welsh

W. N.

McGrain

Salamatin

Zajac

(2007). Effects of prison drug treatment on inmate misconduct: A repeated measures analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 600-615.

73.

Wexler

H. K.

DeLeon

Thomas

Kressel

Peters

(1999). The Amity prison TC evaluation: Reincarceration outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 147-167.

74.

Wheeler

(1961). Socialization in correctional communities. American Sociological Review, 26, 697-712.

75.

Williamson

Gossop

Powis

Griffiths

Fountain

Strang

(1997). Adverse effects of stimulant drugs in a community sample of drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 44, 87-94.

76.

Wolff

Shi

Blitz

C. L.

(2008). Racial and ethnic disparities in types and sources of victimization inside prison. The Prison Journal, 88, 451-472.

77.

Wooldredge

(1991). Correlates of deviant behavior among inmates of U.S. correctional facilities. Journal of Crime and Justice, 14, 1-25.

78.

Wooldredge

Griffin

Pratt

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

79.

Worrall

J. L.

Morris

R. G.

(2011). Inmate custody levels and prison rule violations. The Prison Journal, 91, 131-157.

80.

Wright

K. N.

(1991). A study of individual, environmental, and interactive effects in explaining adjustment to prison. Justice Quarterly, 8, 217-242.