Running Head: Prison Culture and Recidivism

Prison Culture, Overcrowding, and RecidivismAndy Mennella

Western Washington UniversityFall 2011

Prison Culture and Recidivism

The more I read about American prison culture, the more grotesque it seems.

Overcrowding in prisons has been rising at a consistent and alarming rate, and some

now contain twice- or even three times as many inmates as designed (Keenhold,

2008). Many know about prison overcrowding, but few fully understand the

consequences of this issue. Unfortunately, the disease of over-capacity in prisons has

many hidden symptoms, causes, and effects that commonly get overlooked and

misinterpreted. Also, many problems stem from a negative prison environment.

Several American prison systems fail in creating a positive culture between inmates

and guards. These both negatively impact the prison culture, and increase violence

inside prisons. (Dervan, 2011). Thankfully, some recent steps have been taken to

address this problem and reduce the common hostile culture in prison.

Within our country there are some drastic differences in types of prison culture.

Lucian E. Dervan, a respected Stanford professor, toured both state and federal prison

systems and saw shocking and radical differences between the two organizations. He

examined differences of structure, security, living conditions, programming, and moral

obligations to the treatment of inmates. If these factors are negative, a negative

response will follow from the inmates. His overall belief is that it is, “morally correct to

create positive prison environments rather than permit prisons to become warehouses

for societal outcasts.”(Dervan, p.414)

One of the biggest problems in prisons is overcrowding, which leads to less

structure, fewer programs, and an unsafe environment. Examining the American state

prison culture gives an insight to the type of environment that causes negative

reaction. The maximum-security state prison Dervan explores has 3,500 inmates in it.

2

Prison Culture and Recidivism

The growing continues, even though the prison was designed for 2,000 inmates.

Dervan explains the state prison “demonstrates the long-term and wide-spread

negative consequences of dramatic underfunding and lack of commitment to

establishing any sense of community or purpose for inmates.”(Dervan, p. 419).

Connecting this to an article about another state prison, Alexander Michelle describes

the state prison as a “giant game of survivor.”(Michelle, 2011, p. 6). She is discussing

the Californian San Quentin State Prison where overcrowding got to the point where

they had 360 men locked up in an old gym. This overcrowding creates a state that lives

are being threatened and needs are violated. In state prisons, it is common to have a

GED and work program, but Dervan explains that neither are widespread or effective.

The work is tedious and typically non-skilled, very few get to participate in it. (Dervan,

p. 420)

The federal prison system is much better structured and more positive. Along

with better living conditions, the prison has a strong education and work system to

keep the inmates busy. Well-maintained and organized cells matched the orderly

prisoners, who are given comfortable living conditions. (Dervan, p.416) With the

choice of getting an education or skilled work opportunities, these inmates are not

only kept busy, but given a purpose and skills applicable to the outside world.

Keenhold agrees with this when stating, “after well thought-out studies, we have

learned that by increasing lock-down time, limiting programs, curtailing activities, etc.,

can only increase problems with the inmate population…”(Keenhold, 2008, p. 83). He

proceeds on by explaining that a more effective way of handling inmate behavior is to

control, not contain it. Dervan’s method is not about controlling the inmate’s behavior

3

Prison Culture and Recidivism

like Keenhold states, but to give the inmate a chance to create a positive environment.

The federal prison that he examined had that sense of community, and focused more

on rehabilitation than punishment. This is evident when he describes the creation of

advanced electronic cables as one of the work opportunities given to the inmates: “Far

from a mundane assignment, the prisoners I observed were highly engaged in their

trade and exhibited skills that would make them competitive in the technology job

markets after their release.”(Dervan, p. 417). After reading this positive experience in

the federal prison system, it seems clear that to create a truly beneficial correctional

facility, inmates need to be given constructive opportunities found at the federal level.

A balance of needs and privileges are necessary to create a beneficial prison

environment that will foster good behavior. Keenhold discusses three direct

supervision principles that need to be enforced, especially in an overcrowded prison

system. These include manageable and cost effective operations, effective control, and

supervision. If the majority of the inmates needs are met by the prison, communication

with family and visitors is prevalent, and privileges are given, the inmate is much more

likely to follow the system. (Keenhold, p. 86). Along with this, Dervan describes his

personal observations about the incentive of privileges. In cases like the state prisons,

which lacked education and skilled work, prisoners have “no incentive –other than

avoiding segregation- to follow institutional regulations and avoid violence.”(Dervan,

p. 420)

The Attica prison rising in 1971 changed many perspectives on the prison culture

aspect as a whole. The predominantly black inmates were subjected to violence and

racism in their daily prison-lives. Treated as less than human beings, the prisoners

4

Prison Culture and Recidivism

revolted around the similar idea: “If we can’t live as men, we sure as hell can die as

men.”(Towlson, 2006). Dervan connected what he saw in the state prison to the

idleness and disengagement, which started the Attica prison riots. He states that

“officials in New York quickly realized after the riots that prisoners with little to do and

few incentives to cooperate create a highly flammable and dangerous

situation.”(Dervan, p.422) Because the New York governor did not want that to be

repeated, he changed the system in two ways. All inmates were housed in single cells,

and all had important school or work assignments. But still, recently there have been

varying but similar stories, such as 2004, where many prisoners in Texas engaged in a

hunger strike to support the rights of prisoners.

Many prisons respond to violent trends in their facility by hiring more guards

and getting more weapons to ‘fight’ off the violence. Evidence suggests the solution to

violent trends in prison is not more enforcement, but a restructure of the prison itself.

Hiring more guards to maintain order is also not a cost effective solution to a problem

that already has a proven and tested answer. “The cycle then perpetuates itself as

shifting additional funding to increase the number of guards means, making it

impossible to invest in better living spaces and beneficial education and work

programs”(Dervan 423).

Both overcrowding and the absence of a welcoming, positive environment

negatively impact the culture of the prison. In the article “Cruel and Unusual Prisons”,

Alexander claims a large-scale shift needs to be made, “…so we’re not just tinkering

with the system but instead are galvanizing a movement.” (Alexander, p.8). Housing

inmates in crowded environments and not providing the positive culture offered at the

5

Prison Culture and Recidivism

federal level infringes on human rights. Based on what Dervan states, prisoners in the

US Federal system are not having a problem with negative prison culture. Although

this is a good step, unfortunately as of January 1, 2010 only 208,118 inmates out of

1,612,171 are in federal prisons. (Prison Count, The Pew Center on the States, 2010).

Less than eight percent of American prisoners are in the well-structured and positive

federal system.

One approach to handling prison issues is to stop the root of the overcrowding

problem, rather than to focus on it’s consequences. Until the mid-1970s, the American

justice system was designed to focus on rehabilitation over punishment. Placing

prisoners in psychological counseling and occupational skill development, focus was

directed to reintegration into society. Unfortunately “since then, rehabilitation has

taken a back seat to a ‘get tough on crime’ approach that sees punishment as prison’s

main function” (Benson, 2003). The impact of this barely affected crime rates, but

skyrocketed prison population growth. According to Alexander, “if our nation were to

return to the rates of incarceration we had in the 1970s, we would have to release four

out of five people behind bars…”(Michelle, 2011). Recently, overcrowding has been

recognized as a pressing issue, and steps have been taken to reverse it. In the article,

“Prison Overcrowding: Sentencing Judge as Social Worker”, judge Michael T. Jones

discusses a trend from personal experience to help the current state of the correctional

system. Alternative sentencing has been utilized for many cases recently. First, the

emphasis is put less on punishment, and more focus on underlying causes,

rehabilitation, and correctly re-entering society. Secondly, Jones states that it can

strongly reduce overcrowding, by not incarcerating non-violent criminals who pose no

6

Prison Culture and Recidivism

serious threat to society. He quotes the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure when

saying, “Judges…should consider alternatives to long-term institutional confinement or

incarceration…” (Jones, 2009, p.493). Finally, alternative sentencing saves the prison

system money, which can be redirected to serving the state of crowded inmates.

Some examples of alternative sentencing that Jones discusses are drug court,

alcohol training, driver’s courses, or anger management. This recent change in

sentencing has raised questions about the qualifications of the judges. Jones states that

because it is relatively new, often the judges will not know what will work or what

sentence is appropriate. He claims that “The ever increasing problem of crime in

America and the resulting overcrowded jails and prisons have forced judges to explore

options beyond their expertise and to venture into fields beyond their training.”(Jones,

p.496). In the interview about cruel and unusual punishments, Alexander believes that

part of this galvanizing movement is the redirection of punishment to rehabilitation.

She discusses changing the education system and dispelling myths about the prison

system. Alternative sentencing that Jones and Alexander are discussing will play a huge

role in the positive change of prisons. It will have much more of a positive impact if

new judges in training are qualified and consistent with alternative sentencing. Jones

describes the difference between a social worker and a lawyer by expressing their

goals and point. He explains, “this fundamental difference between the two professions

may be summed up as ‘tell me more’ versus ‘get to the point’”(Jones, 495). Working

more like a social worker and directing people to different facilities and programs

attacks the problem of overpopulation in prisons at the root.

An alarming percent of prisoners released from their sentence end up back in jail.

7

Prison Culture and Recidivism

Because the state prison system is releasing the inmates back into society with little or

no more job related skills, it may be difficult for them to fill the gap that prison makes

with a job. Also, negative prison environment may have a lasting effect on the inmates.

Psychological studies show that “…healthy individuals could become sadistic or

depressed when placed in a prison-like environment” (Benson, 2003). Prisoners

placed in maximum-security prisons have shown higher levels of anxiety and

depression. These negative effects can have a long-term impact on inmates and

recidivism rates.

Upon reading what beneficial outcomes a strong sense of community and respect

can originate from in a positive environment, it seems like the worst system of dealing

with criminals is exactly how the US state system is run. The federal system fosters a

positive, learning environment that gives the inmates new skills. They are more likely

to get a job outside of prison, and less likely to return. It all boils down to the golden

rule. A healthy prison environment stems from the system that treats inmates like

human beings, giving them reasonable living situations and opportunities to grow.

Dervan supports this with personal qualitative observations: “prisoners were

subjected to abhorrent living conditions and no efforts were made to treat them with a

modicum of respect or provide them with even a scintilla of meaningful stimulation

during the day, the prison environment was poisoned and violence ran

rampant.”(Dervan, p.426). Keenhold, Alexander, Dervan, and others agree upon the

importance of a positive environment to have a successful prison.

Research Proposal

8

Prison Culture and Recidivism

According to Confronting Confinement, a 2006 U.S. prison study by the

Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, “within three years of their

release, 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated.”

(Confronting Confinement, 2006). As previously explained, environment has a

significant impact on the success of prisons. I hope to find a deeper connection

between recidivism rates and prison culture. To connect the two and substantiatelize

the aeffect of negative prison environment, I need to research reciprocity rates of

varying prison situations. I will examine the reciprocity rates of both the federal and

state prison systems, to give statistics to how well the incarceration is working. This

examination will give insight to whether the correctional facility is working towards

reentering society, or more towards punishment. I hope to find a high recidivism rate

with a negative prison culture, as well as a low recidivism rate with a more positive

prison environment. This will help me to provide statistics to display evidence that a

positive prison culture will reduce recidivism rates.

In order to complete this research, I will examine five federal and five state

prisons. Because there are already statistics of recidivism rates, the gap of research is

in how beneficial the prisons are to their inmate’s success. Giving each of the ten

prisons I examine a rating out of 100 will allow me to compare the rating of the prison

with it’s correlated recidivism rate. This method will only work if there is a significant

difference of quality of prisons that I analyze. Similar to how Lucian Dervan analyzed

the prisons he saw, I will also make assessments based on six factors: structure,

security, order, living conditions, programming, and moral obligations to the treatment

of inmates. Through qualitative observation and interviews with inmates and guards at

9

Prison Culture and Recidivism

each prison, I will be able to successfully rate the system according to the six factors

mentioned above.

I plan on setting up interviews with prison guards as well as inmates. Optimally,

both of the people I interview from these groups will be selected at random. I am

unsure of how accommodating the prisons will be of me taking their time. A weakness

of this sample is the inmates and guards willingness to work with me. I cannot force

them to give me insight, and I must be wary of a skewed perspective on the prison. The

people who agree to talk to me are possibly the ones who are not shut down and have

a better attitude. However, interviewing both guards and inmates must be done to

place an accurate rating on the prison.

While I conduct my interviews, I must keep in mind that my six assessments are

an attempt to put quantitative data to qualitative observations. For example,

measuring structure or living conditions is a scale that is not set in stone, I must expect

ambiguous answers. In order to operationalize my topic, I have research questions that

I will ask during each interview. This will have the interviewee rate their specific

prison experience in each of the six aspects. For instance, on the topic of

‘programming’, I will ask each person “on a scale of 1-10, rate the availability and

prevalence of education and work programming in this prison.” Utilizing this method

will give me trends on the different beliefs of the prisoners and guards.

Although there is research done on the causes of recidivism rates, I hope to

conduct specific work, directly link the psychological impact of prison culture to re-

entering society. Specifically focused on the difference of recidivism rates between

state and federal prisons, I seek to find numerical data that shows the effect of

10

Prison Culture and Recidivism

incarceration.

Once all my data is collected to rate each prison, I will begin to collaborate it to

make meaning. My scaling questions will be simple to compile together: separated by

each prison, as well as by role (guard/inmate). First, I will separate by role to see if

there are any patterns and differences of thinking by the two groups. Later I can

combine both together to give the overall rating of the prison. The difficult questions

will be the open-ended questions with many varying answers. For example, in the

interview when I ask them about the treatment of inmates by the guards, I will have to

organize the responses from ‘very bad’ to ‘excellent’. In addition to the data that I

collect, I must also receive the recidivism rates for each prison that I involve. They all

have recordings of who is release and who has relapsed back into prison. I will want to

look at the recidivism rates for each of these prisons for at least the past five years.

Once I align the recidivism rates with the data that I have collected, I can start

analyzing my results.

Some limitations are included in my studies. First, as I stated before, the people

who agree to be interviewed might be the certain type of people who have a strong

opinion about the prison. It might draw a certain crowd that would not give a pure

sample. Second, the ambiguity of the term ‘positive’ brings some challenges. What one

prisoner views as positive may be negative in another’s eyes. If I am trying to combine

the opinions of both prisoners and guards, their idea of positive may be polar

opposites. Third, much of this data relies on my interpretation of what my

interviewees say. No single person can be fully unbiased, so I would like to perform

this data collection with a group of people. Finally, differences of gender, age, and race

11

Prison Culture and Recidivism

might have an impact on certain prison systems in part of the country. What I will be

looking for is an overall theme of beliefs.

If there are any links that arise when I am analyzing my data, they may be used to

evaluate the effectiveness of prison system. As I stated earlier, I wish to compare

federal and state prison environment with recidivism. I am going to utilize SPSS to find

comparisons of each recidivism rate with its correlating prison rating. My goal is to

create a graph that demonstrates the relationship between prisons with a lower

overall total score and higher recidivism rates. As the prison ratings increase, I

anticipate the recidivism rates to decline. This will show that issues of prison culture

have a large impact not only inside prison walls, but outside as well.

The American Prisons Report from 2006 claimed that more than 95% of current

inmates will be released back into society. (Confronting Confinement, 2006) As I

highlight before, the trend is that more than 52% of these prisoners released are going

to end back up in jail. If our system is hurting the prisoners instead of focusing on

rehabilitation and reentering society, it is clearly evident that a change must be made.

There is a direct correlation of these high recidivism rates and the environment that

the prisons foster.

Resources:

12

Prison Culture and Recidivism

Alexander, Michelle. (2011). “Cruel & Unusual Prisons”, The Nation, 292(25): p.6-8. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Benson, Etienne. (2003). “Rehabilitate or Punish?”, American Psychological Association, 34(7): p46. Retrieved November 9, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx.

Dervan, Lucian E. (2011). “American Prison Culture in an International Context: An Examination of Prisons in America, the Netherlands, and Israel”, Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22(2): p413-428. Retrieved October 12, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Jones, Michael T. (2009). “Prison Overcrowding: The Sentencing Judge as Social Worker”, Widener Law Journal, 18(2): p491-498. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Keenhold, David G. (2008). “Managing Direct Supervision Jails When They Become Overcrowded”, American Jails, 22(1): p83-88. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Logan, C., (1992). "Well Kept: Comparing Quality of Confinement in Private and Public Prisons." 83 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 577-613.

Towlson, Linda. (2008). “1971 Attica Prison Uprising”, Retrieved October 27, 2011, from http://libcom.org/history/1971-the-attica-prison-uprising .

U.S. Commission on Safety and Abuse in Prisons, Confronting Confinement (2006). Retrieved November 26, 2011, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933722.html

Walmsley, Roy. (2005). “Prison Health Care and the Extent of Prison Overcrowding”, International Journal of Prisoner Health, 1(1): p9-12. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Prison Count.(2010). Retrieved October 12, 2011, from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Prison_Count_2010

13