friend or foe? race, age, and inmate perceptions of inmate-staff relations

Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 297–312

0047-2352/00/$ – see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0047-2352(00)00044-1

Friend or foe?Race, age, and inmate perceptions of inmate-staff relations

Craig Hemmens

a,

*, James W. Marquart

b

a

Department of Criminal Justice Administration, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725-1955, USA

b

College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA

Abstract

The correctional research literature is rife with studies of inmate adjustment patterns. Early studies assumedinmates were part of a monolithic whole, though later research suggested factors such as race, age, and socioeco-nomic status affect inmate adjustment to prison life. This research focused on the relationship between age and race/ethnicity and perceptions of one aspect of the institutional experience, inmate-staff relations. A survey of recently re-leased Texas inmates revealed that race and age have a major impact on inmate perceptions of staff. © 2000

Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The prison experience has historically been meantto be unpleasant, and prisoners have been expected tosuffer to some degree. There is, however, some dis-pute in the correctional research literature as towhether prison has any impact whatsoever on today’sinmates. There is a general consensus in the correc-tional literature that institutionalization is a dehu-manizing and demoralizing experience (Goffman,1961; Irwin, 1980), but some research suggests thatsome inmates prefer prison to probation (Crouch,1993), and that some inmates fare better in prisonthan others (Goodstein & Wright, 1989; Goodstein &MacKenzie, 1984; Wright, 1991). Some research in-dicates sociodemographic characteristics such as raceand age may affect adjustment to prison, as well asperceptions of the institutional experience.

This article builds upon prior research on inmateadjustment patterns. A total of 775 recently releasedTexas inmates, or “exmates,” were surveyed aboutseveral aspects of the inmate-staff relationship. Theirresponses were examined and compared with a host ofsociodemographic and criminal history variables. This

article isolates and examines the effect of race and ageon inmate perceptions of inmate-staff relations.

Prior research

There is a substantial body of literature on inmateadjustment to prison (much of it focusing on race andage) as well as on inmate-staff relations. Each ofthese is examined in turn.

Inmate adjustment

Research on inmate adjustment to incarcerationdates from the pioneering study by Clemmer (1940)in which he developed the concept of “prisonization”to explain how prisoners become assimilated into theinformal social structure of the prison. Some subse-quent researchers built upon Clemmer’s work, focus-ing on the inmate subculture that developed aroundshared “pains of imprisonment” (Sykes, 1958),which unified the inmate population and created asubculture based on a set of norms and values in op-position to those espoused by the prison staff. Thisportrayal of prison life became known as the “depri-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 208-426-3407; fax: 208-426-4371.

E-mail address

: [email protected] (C. Hemmens).

298

C. Hemmens, J.W. Marquart / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 297–312

vation” model, and received mixed empirical sup-port. Grusky (1959), Wheeler (1961), Schrag (1961),Garabedian (1963), Wellford (1967), Berk (1968),Wilson (1968), Tittle (1968), and Street (1970) ex-amined the deprivation model in a variety of correc-tional institutions and found at least some support forit, although the degree of support varied by institu-tion type.

Other researchers (Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Ja-cobs, 1976; 1977; Thomas, 1977) decried the focuson the so-called pains of imprisonment and institu-tional factors as the key to understanding inmate ad-justment. They examined, instead, attributes and ex-periences that inmates brought with them to prison.They also argued that inmates brought into prisonvalues learned on the street, in the inner city (Carroll,1974; 1982). This was referred to as the “importationmodel.” There is empirical support for the importationmodel (Carroll, 1974; Faine, 1973; Jacobs, 1974; 1977;Lawson et al., 1996, Thomas, 1970; 1977; Wood et al.,1968). Researchers have studied a variety of extra-prison variables, including race, age, socioeconomicstatus, and criminal history, a number of which havebeen found to be related to inmate adjustment pat-terns. Race and age are prominent among these vari-ables. The focus of this article is on the impact ofrace and age on inmate perceptions of one aspect ofthe institutional experience, inmate-staff relations.

Race and inmate adjustment

Several studies have examined the racial hetero-geneity of the inmate population. Earlier studiesmade passing reference to racial differences and theirpotential impact on the prisoner subculture (Sykes,1958), and the picture generally painted was one ofinmate homogeneity. Regardless of whether such apicture was accurate then, indications are that it cer-tainly is not accurate today. Carroll (1974; 1982) andJacobs (1974; 1976; 1977) both detailed the changingnature of the inmate population, focusing particularlyon racial differences.

Jacobs’s description of Stateville prison portrayedBlack inmates as much more cohesive and unifiedthan White inmates. He argued that this racially-based group unity was a direct consequence of theBlack inmates’ shared preprison experiences withracism and discrimination in their lives in generaland the criminal justice system in particular (Jacobs,1976; 1977). Carroll posited that Blacks were suc-cessful in adjusting to prison not only because oftheir shared history of discrimination on the basis ofrace, but also because so many of them came toprison from the urban ghetto, where “making it” on

the streets required a greater degree of toughness(Carroll, 1982).

Goodstein and MacKenzie (1984) found thatWhite and Black inmates did vary on the degree ofprisonization and time spent in the criminal justicesystem. White inmates with multiple convictionswere more highly prisonized than Whites with oneconviction, while Black inmates remained at thesame level of prisonization regardless of the numberof convictions (Goodstein & MacKenzie, 1984).Black inmates were also more “radicalized” thanwere White inmates, regardless of the length of con-finement. These findings suggest there are significantdifferences between Black and White inmates, possi-bly because Blacks have suffered discrimination atthe hands of criminal justice actors at all levels of thesystem.

Several studies of racial differences in prison in-dicated that Black inmates are significantly morelikely than White inmates to be involved in conflictswith both staff and other inmates. Fuller and Orsagh(1977) found that Black inmates were more likelythan White inmates to be aggressors. Other studieshave also found that interracial conflict most ofteninvolves a Black aggressor and a White victim(Bowker, 1980; Lockwood, 1980; Wooden & Parker,1982). The evidence of racial differences on aggres-sive behavior is mixed, however. A number of otherstudies have found little or no support for the hypoth-esis that non-White inmates are in fact more aggres-sive or violent than are White inmates, when control-ling for other factors such as age, number of priorarrests, and drug and alcohol dependency (Ellis et al.,1974; Goodstein & MacKenzie, 1984; Wright, 1988;Zink, 1957;). In addition, while a number of studieshave found that Blacks are much more likely to be in-volved in conduct that which results in official con-demnation by the prison administration (Flanagan,1983; Ramirez, 1983), it has been suggested that ra-cial discrimination on the part of prison administra-tors or correctional officers may account for this dif-ferential (Flanagan, 1983; Howard et al., 1994; Poole& Regoli, 1980; Wright, 1988).

Other studies of racial differences in adaptation toprison indicated that White inmates may suffer fromhigher levels of stress and fear than Black inmates.One study found that White inmates are more likelythan Black inmates to injure themselves intentionally(Wright, 1988). Other studies showed that White in-mates had more psychological problems, includingbreakdowns (Johnson, 1987), and depression. Theremay be, however, alternative explanations for the differ-ence in adjustment by race. Goodstein and MacKenzie(1984) found no differences in the level of anxiety or


299

the likelihood of depression between Black and Whiteinmates.

Age and inmate adjustment

Age is frequently cited as an important explanatoryvariable in criminal justice (Gottfredson & Hirschi,1991). A number of studies of violence in prison sug-gested that age is an important factor in inmate ad-justment patterns. Age has been closely linked to thelikelihood of aggressive behavior in prison. As in-mates become older, there is a linear decline in thenumber of aggressive acts toward other inmates and/or correctional staff (Ekland-Olson et al., 1983; Por-porino & Zamble, 1984), which mirrors the age-crime relationship in the free world (Gottfredson &Hirschi, 1991; Nagin & Farrington, 1992).

A study of age and aggressive behavior in prisonby MacKenzie (1987) revealed a slightly more com-plex picture, however. Rather than a linear declinewith age, she found that the rate of aggressive behav-ior rose until the late twenties, then declined. In addi-tion, interpersonal conflicts with other inmates re-mained high for a longer period of time than didinterpersonal conflicts with correctional officers. Re-cent research suggests that age is related not only tothe likelihood of being involved in violent activity inprison, but also to perceptions of prison as safe ordangerous. Hemmens and Marquart (1999b) foundthat younger inmates were more likely to perceiveprison as a dangerous place than were older inmates.

Inmate-staff relations

Living in prison means losing control over muchof one’s life. Personal autonomy is replaced by therequirement that the individual obey the commandsof correctional staff. Inmate-staff relations thus com-prise a crucial aspect of the institutional experience,and have been the subject of correctional researchsince the 1930s. Early researchers assumed that in-mates had different norms and values than guards,and that guards and inmates distrusted one another.This research on the prison experience also tended todichotomize the prison setting, with inmates on oneside, guards on the other (Clemmer, 1940; Sykes,1958).

It was taken for granted by these early researchersthat inmates would have different norms and valuesthan guards, and that guards and inmates would dis-trust one another. Later research has suggested thatsuch a picture is overly simplistic. The Ramirez(1983) research indicated that staff and inmates sharesimilar attitudes concerning a variety of issues. TheMarquart (1986a, 1986b) participant observation re-search indicated that correctional officers who are in-

volved in daily interaction with inmates can establisha rapport with and an understanding of inmates.

Historically, correctional officers have beenWhite males with relatively low education levels,drawn in large part from rural areas, where manyprisons were first located (Clemmer; 1940; Jacobs;1977; Lombardo, 1982). Only recently has the pres-ence of minorities and females in the correctional of-ficer pool become noticeable. Studies of the impacton corrections of the changing correctional officerwork force have produced mixed findings. Somestudies indicated that minority officers have more pu-nitive attitudes towards inmates than White officers(Jacobs & Kraft, 1978), while other studies foundjust the opposite (Jurik, 1985) or no difference(Crouch & Alpert, 1982).

In regards to female correctional officers, severalstudies indicated that female officers do not hold sub-stantially different attitudes towards inmates thanmale officers (Cullen et al., 1985; Jurik, 1985; 1988;Jurik & Halemba, 1984). In addition, research sug-gests that while sexist attitudes still exist among in-mates and male officers (Crouch, 1985; Zimmer,1986), in general both inmates and male officers be-lieve female correctional officers can do their jobs aswell as male officers (Kissel & Katsampes, 1980;Walters, 1993).

The focus of the research presented in this articlewas on inmate attitudes towards and perceptions ofcorrectional officers, a relatively understudied aspectof the inmate-staff equation. Much of the prior re-search has focused on staff attitudes toward inmates.The composition of the Texas correctional officerforce has moved from what was characterized byMarquart (1986b) as a “good old boy” system domi-nated by White males from rural areas, to one with asubstantial number of minority and female correc-tional officers, many from more urban areas. Howhave inmates perceived this shift in the demographicmakeup of the Texas correctional officer force? Thisresearch sought to answer this question by examininginmate perceptions of female correctional officers,inmate-staff relations, and the use of force by correc-tional staff.

Methods

The data for this study were obtained from a sur-vey, administered over a six-week period, to 775 menreleased from incarceration in the Texas Departmentof Corrections—Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID).These former inmates, or “exmates,” were inter-viewed at the bus station in Huntsville, located twoblocks west of the Walls Unit. There are over one

300


hundred prisons in TDCJ-ID, though virtually all in-mates are processed and released through the frontentrance of the Walls Unit, located in the center ofHuntsville. They are provided with their personal be-longings, a small amount of cash, and a voucher for abus ticket to their destination. State law requires thatreleasees must return, via the bus, to the place wherethey were convicted and sentenced—this require-ment ensures that virtually all exmates will in fact goto the bus station upon release.

As the exmates approached the bus station to pur-chase their tickets, the interviewers approached andasked them to participate in the survey. No materialinducements were offered, and confidentiality wasassured. Some exmates agreed to submit to the inter-view at this time, others agreed to be interviewed af-ter obtaining their bus ticket, and still others agreedto be interviewed after first going to a nearby store orrestaurant. Some exmates initially refused to cooper-ate, but later changed their minds and were inter-viewed while they waited for the bus to arrive. It wasnot uncommon for exmates to initially refuse to par-ticipate, but then change their minds once they ob-served other exmates participating.

Some exmates refused to be interviewed, or werenot approached by the interviewers. Those who re-fused to be interviewed provided a variety of reasonsfor their refusal, ranging from distrust to apathy. In-terviewers did not approach every single exmate be-cause there were times when there were too many ex-mates and not enough interviewers. In addition, therewere days when no interviewers were available toconduct interviews with released inmates. The selec-tion of who to interview was random in that inter-viewers simply attempted to contact as many ex-mates as possible, given the limited number ofinterviewers and the large number of exmates.

According to TDCJ-ID data, 1,900 inmates werereleased during the interview period, and 775 inmatessubmitted to interviews. Assuming that virtually allof these 1,900 inmates passed through the bus stationon their way home, as required by law, this generateda response rate of 41 percent. No data were collectedon precisely why inmates refused to participate. Carewas taken to create a research design that would yieldaccurate responses and generalizable results, thoughthere are areas of concern, which may limit the use-fulness of this study and which should be noted.These include the issues of selection and responsebias.

Selection bias

A simple random sample provides, in theory, thebest approximation of the population (Maxfield &

Babbie, 1995). In this study, there was no attempt tocollect a simple random sample, but rather the inter-viewers approached as many members of the popula-tion under study (defined as all inmates released dur-ing the six-week period of study) as possible andsought to interview them. According to TDCJ-IDdata, 1,900 inmates were released during this six-week time period, and 775 inmates were in fact inter-viewed. This represents a response rate of 41 percent.This is an acceptable level, but the question remainswhether those who did not respond were systemati-cally different from the whole population. If so, thenselection bias would exist, limiting the generalizabil-ity and accuracy of the survey results (Maxfield &Babbie, 1995).

Steps taken to limit selection bias in this researchproject included: (1) contacting exmates as soon aspossible after their release from prison, so as to con-tact as much of the population as possible; (2) em-ploying interviewers of differing ages, races, andgenders, in an effort to match as closely as possiblethe demographic characteristics of the exmate popu-lation and thus foster a sense of commonality andtrust; (3) employing an interviewer who communi-cated with Spanish-speaking exmates, so as not to ex-clude non-English speaking members of the popula-tion; (4) reading the survey to exmates, so as not toexclude members of the population with nonexistentor negligible reading skills; and (5) making the sur-vey short and easy to respond to, so as to encourageexmates to participate. The survey was five pages inlength, and contained less than one hundred ques-tions. The portion of the survey from which the datafor this article was obtained contained fifty Likert-scale questions. A copy of the entire survey is in-cluded in the Appendix. These measures should havereduced the amount of selection bias to a level thatdoes not render the results meaningless.

Response bias

Related to selection bias is the problem of re-sponse bias, which may occur when a portion of thesample chooses not to participate in the survey(Fowler, 1993). Where selection bias involves the ex-clusion of possible respondents by the interviewer,response bias involves the exclusion of possible re-spondents by the potential respondents themselves.Nonresponse may bias a sample if nonrespondentsare systematically different from the sample that issurveyed (Babbie, 1995).

There were exmates in this survey who were con-tacted by the interviewers, but who chose not to par-ticipate. Some gave no reason for their refusal. Rea-sons given for refusing to participate included


301

general disinterest in the project (“What do I careabout some survey?”), suspicion of the interviewers’motives (“How do I know you don’t work for thestate?”), and a lack of time (“I just got out of prisonand I want to have some fun, not sit around and an-swer some stupid survey”). Specific numbers for rea-sons given for refusing to participate were not col-lected. Interviewers noted no apparent similarityamong those who refused to participate—no one ra-cial or ethnic group or age category seemed morelikely to refuse to participate. Sometimes men in agroup would not participate; sometimes men in agroup would all participate. There was no apprecia-ble pattern of nonresponse based on how, where, orwhen exmates were approached.

It was not possible to determine if certain groupsof exmates having similar but unobservable charac-teristics refused to participate. Examples may includesex offenders in general who chose not to participate,or Catholic offenders who chose not to participate.As the characteristics of “sex offender” and “Catho-lic” are not visible to the naked eye, and no informa-tion on offense type or religious affiliation was col-lected from offenders who did participate, there wasno way to no if members of these groups (or others)chose not to participate.

Statistical procedures

The data analysis included two steps. First, re-sponses to individual items were examined usinganalysis of variance (ANOVA). Second, a logisticalregression was conducted, incorporating all of the so-ciodemographic variables collected, to determinewhich individual variables remained in the equationwhen controlling for the effects of other variables.

Analysis of variance

Analysis of variance (or ANOVA) is a statisticalprocedure by which the ratio of variance betweengroup means is examined to determine the likelihoodthat a difference in mean scores occurred by chancealone. A more precise name for the procedure, it hasbeen suggested, would be “analysis of means” (Iver-son & Norpoth, 1987). ANOVA allows the re-searcher to identify relationships between variables,even if the observations are not all independent ofone another, or the variables interact, occurrencesthat violate the assumptions of multiple regression(Kachigan, 1991).

In this research, exmate responses on each of theindividual survey items were compared on the basisof sociodemographic and criminal history variables.Sociodemographic variables included race, age, edu-

cation level; criminal history variables included ageat first arrest, number of prior incarcerations, andnumber of years spent in prison. Selection of thesevariables was based on prior research (Goodstein &MacKenzie, 1984; MacKenzie, 1987; Wright, 1989;1991). ANOVA was used to determine whether thedifference in the mean scores of the various groups(race/ethnicity and four age categories) occurredthrough chance variation or whether there is a statis-tically significant relationship between the sociode-mographic/criminal history characteristic and re-sponses to the survey items.

It should be noted that while information concern-ing a host of sociodemographic and criminal historyvariables was collected, in this article the focus is ex-clusively on race and age. This is because, in most in-stances, the other variables failed to reveal a statisti-cally significant relationship between the variableand perceptions (Hemmens, 1998). These have there-fore been excluded from the presentation of results.Information concerning other aspects of the institu-tional experience, including perceptions of AIDSpolicies, race relations, and violence, was also col-lected. The relationship between various sociodemo-graphic and criminal history characteristics and per-ceptions of these issues was discussed elsewhere(Hemmens, 1998; Hemmens & Marquart, 1998;1999a; 1999b).

The possible range of scores on each item was from1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). A lowermean score indicated that an exmate group tended toagree with the statement; a higher mean score indicatedthat an exmate group tended to disagree with the state-ment. Items were reverse scored when necessary toachieve consistency of interpretation.

Logistic regression

Logistic regression, or logit, is useful for analysisof dichotomous variables that are not normally dis-tributed, and where the relationship between the de-pendent and independent variables is not linear. Lo-gistic regression allows the researcher to perform aregression-like analysis of data when the dependentvariable is dichotomous rather than continuous. Mul-tiple regression is not robust against the assumptionof the continuous linearity of the dependent variable(Menard, 1995).

Logistic regression was chosen for these data be-cause the narrow range of answers (1 to 4 on a modi-fied Likert scale) tended to produce very clear re-sponse patterns—exmates either agreed or disagreedwith most statements. Exmate responses were re-coded into two categories (agree/disagree), and logis-tic regression was performed. A backward elimina-

302


tion procedure was run, to determine which variablesremained in the equation. Backward regression pre-vents the exclusion of variables involved in sup-presser effects. A suppresser effect is when a variableappears to be statistically significant only when an-other variable is controlled. With backward elimina-tion, since both variables are already in the model,there is less risk of failing to find a relationship whenone in fact exists.

Findings

Sociodemographic characteristics of the exmate sample

First, the demographic characteristics of the ex-mate sample were analyzed and compared with stateand national data. Descriptive statistics for the socio-demographic and criminal history characteristics ofthe 775 male exmates who comprised the sample are

summarized in Table 1. Sample characteristics weresimilar to national level data regarding sociodemo-graphic characteristics of male inmates in 1994 (Gil-liard & Beck, 1996).

Blacks made up the largest racial/ethnic group inthe exmate sample, comprising almost one-half (48percent) of all respondents. Whites accounted for ap-proximately one-third (33.7 percent) of all respon-dents, while Hispanics made up just 17.2 percent ofthe sample. The racial/ethnic composition of the sam-ple was similar to that of inmates nationally. Nationalstatistics indicate 45.6 percent of inmates are White,and 48.2 percent are Black/minority (Gilliard &Beck, 1996).

The average age of the exmate sample was 33years. White exmates were slightly older, with amean age of 33.8 years, compared with a mean age of32.7 years for Black exmates, and 32.2 years for His-panic exmates. The difference in mean ages was notstatistically significant. Precise national statistics onage are not kept, but estimates of the number of in-mates by age category compiled by the U.S. Bureauof Justice Statistics suggests the mean age of the ex-mate sample is in line with national statistics. Ap-proximately 55 percent of all inmates nationally areage 32 or younger, while 45 percent are age 33 orolder (Snell, 1995). In addition, the median age of in-mates on admission (a figure that is available), was29 years in 1992 (Perkins, 1994).

The mean years of education completed for theexmate sample was just less than eleven years, or lessthan a high school degree (twelve years). Over one-half (55.4 percent) of all the exmates had not com-pleted high school. Slightly over one-quarter (28.8percent) of the exmates had a high school degree orGED, while15 percent had at least some college ex-perience. National statistics on inmate education lev-els indicate that roughly 40 percent of all male in-mates do not have so much as a high school degree,while slightly less than 47 percent have a high schooldegree, and slightly more than 13 percent have atleast some college experience (Snell, 1995). The me-dian education level nationally of inmates at admis-sion in 1992 was eleven years (Perkins, 1994). Thisclosely mirrors the exmate sample. Comparison ofthe exmate and national samples revealed exmates asa whole were somewhat less educated than inmatesnationally, with a greater percentage of exmates hav-ing failed to graduate from high school.

Perceptions of inmate-staff relations

Next, the responses to questions dealing with in-mate-staff relations were examined. The exmateswere divided into three racial groups: White, Black,

Table 1Sociodemographic and criminal history characteristics of the exmate sample

Characteristic Frequency Percent Mean

Race/ethnicityWhite 261 33.7Black 363 46.8Hispanic 133 17.2Other 17 2.2

Age 32.9819–29 289 37.330–39 326 42.140–49 119 15.450–72 36 4.6

Education level 10.96No high school degree 429 55.4High school degree 223 28.8Some college 87 11.2College degree 28 3.6

Prior incarcerations 2.440 351 45.31 61 7.82 215 27.73 or more 148 19.1

Years in prison 6.081–3 112 26.94–5 141 33.86–9 164 39.3

Age at first arrest 19.37under 17 379 48.918 88 11.419–21 111 14.322–29 128 16.530 or older 56 7.2


303

and Hispanic. Responses by racial/ethnic group werecompared to determine whether exmates of differentracial/ethnic groups held different perceptions of in-mate-staff relations.

Four age-group categories were also created: 19–29 years, 30–39 years, 40–49 years, and 50 and older.Responses by age category were compared to deter-mine whether exmates of different ages held differentperceptions of inmate-staff relations. Age categorieswere created to highlight age differences. Trackingresponses by individual years tended to mask differ-ences as the changes between one year and the nextwere very slight.

Exmates were asked their level of agreement witheight statements regarding correctional staff. ANOVAwas then conducted to determine statistically signifi-cant differences based on race and age. The eight state-ments and the responses to each statement are dis-played in Table 2.

Exmates appeared to share similar feelings aboutcorrectional officers and inmate-staff relations. Meanscores on the eight questions regarding perceptionsof correctional staff did not often vary significantlybased on most of the selected sociodemographic andcriminal history characteristics, such as educationlevel, socioeconomic status, and criminal history.The results for these items were thus excluded forease of presentation here. Only two variables re-vealed statistically significant results. These were ex-mate age and race (discussed following).

Age and perceptions

These results indicate that younger exmates tendto have more problems with correctional staff, be-lieve staff treat inmates in an inhumane fashion, feelnew guards are less qualified than in the past, andfeel that they were not well-treated in prison. Theyare also more likely to believe there are not enoughguards to ensure inmate safety, and that correctionalofficers use more force than is necessary.

On the item “I had very few problems with guardsin TDC” the difference in the mean score for exmatesin the 19–29 age category and exmates age 30 orolder was statistically significant at the .05 level. Inaddition, the difference in mean scores for exmates inthe 30–39 and 40–49 age category was statisticallysignificant at the .05 level. This indicates thatyounger inmates had more problems with correc-tional staff, and that as exmates age, the likelihood oftrouble with staff declines steadily, in a linear fash-ion. This finding is in accord with research that indi-cated younger inmates generally have more disciplin-ary infractions than do older inmates (Ellis, et al.,1974; Howard, et al., 1994; Zink, 1957).

Related to this finding is the observation thatyounger exmates were more likely to agree with thestatement “Prison guards often use too much force oninmates” (this item was reverse coded). The differ-ence in mean scores for exmates in the 19–29 agecategory and exmates in the older categories was sta-tistically significant at the .05 level, with exmates inthe 19–29 age category more likely to agree with thestatement. A possible explanation for this finding isthat younger inmates are more likely to be involvedin altercations with staff, and therefore be the subjectof use of force by correctional officers.

In accord with the finding that younger exmatesbelieve staff use excessive force, younger exmatesalso were more likely to believe that guards treat in-mates in an inhumane fashion. On the item “Mostguards in TDC treat inmates like they are less thanhuman,” the difference in the mean score for exmates inthe 19–29 age category and the other three categorieswas statistically significant at the .05 level (this itemwas reverse coded). On the item “Overall, they treatedme pretty good in TDC,” the difference in the meanscore for exmates in the 19–29 age category and theother three categories was statistically significant atthe .05 level. Younger exmates were clearly morelikely than were older exmates to feel they were notwell treated. This may be because correctional staffare harder on younger prisoners, or because youngerprisoners are less willing to accept what happens tothem in prison as proper, or because younger prison-ers are involved in more disciplinary infractions andresent being punished by correctional staff.

The differences in mean scores for the various agecategories on the item “TDC staff often act unfairlytowards inmates” were not statistically significant,although younger exmates did tend to agree with thestatement more than their older counterparts. Takentogether, responses to these three items suggest thatyounger exmates think they are treated

poorly

, but not

inappropriately.

It is unclear whether this is a reflectionof low self-esteem or simply a statistical artifact. Inaddition, it is worth noting that age is related to percep-tions in the free world as well. Younger citizens haveless positive attitudes towards police than do oldercitizens (Huang & Vaughn, 1996; Walker, 1992).

Given the tendency of younger exmates to feelthat they are poorly treated by correctional staff, theywere nonetheless more likely to feel that there are notenough correctional officers to ensure safety and se-curity in prisons. The difference in the mean score ofthe 19–29 age group and each of the older age groupswas statistically significant at the .05 level. In addi-tion, as exmate age increased, belief that there wereenough guards increased steadily, which suggests

304


Table 2Perceptions of inmate-staff relations using analysis of variance

I had very few problems with guards in TDC.

Race/ethnicity White Black Hispanic

N

260 363 132Mean 2.408 2.532 2.561

SD

.867 .867 .822

F

ratio

5

2.055;

F

probability

5

.1288

Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 50

1

N

289 325 118 28Mean 2.640 2.498*** 2.246** 2.143

a

SD

.887 .891 .703 .524

F

ratio

5

7.744;

F

probability

5

.000

Female guards do their job as well as male guards.


N

259 359 130Mean 2.398 2.320 2.346

SD

.792 .723 .723

F

ratio

5

.8188;

F

probability

5

.4413

Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 50

1

N

287 318 119 28Mean 2.317 2.393 2.387 2.143

SD

.758 .749 .678 .705

F

ratio

5

1.370;

F

probability

5

.2506

There are enough guards to provide safety and security for inmates.


N

259 362 130Mean 2.568 2.547 2.592

SD

.776 .773 .723

F

ratio

5

.1785;

F

probability

5

.8366

Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 50

1

N

287 322 119 28Mean 2.711 2.528* 2.437** 2.214

a

SD

.787 .745 .721 .568

F

ratio

5

7.085;

F

probability

5

.0001

The quality of new guards entering TDC today is as good as it ever was.


N

224 333 125Mean 2.808 2.796 2.856

SD

.711 .690 .631

F

ratio

5

.352;

F

probability

5

.7034

(

continued on next page)


305

Table 2(

continued

)

Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 50

1

N

260 295 105 28Mean 2.869 2.820 2.781 2.464

a,b

SD

.691 .669 .679 .637

F

ratio

5

3.145;

F

probability

5

.0247

TDC staff often act unfairly towards inmates.


N

255 359 132Mean 2.835 2.894 2.924

SD

.696 .701 .561

F

ratio

5

.917;

F

probability

5

.4003

Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 50

1

N

286 319 119 27Mean 2.923 2.871 2.849 2.593

SD

.671 .722 .591 .752

F

ratio

5

2.097;

F

probability

5

.0992

Overall, they treated me pretty good in TDC.


N

260 360 133Mean 2.300 2.386 2.300

SD

.623 .711 .623

F

ratio

5

1.3431;

F

probability

5

.2617

Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 50

1

N

288 324 118 28Mean 2.493 2.318* 2.220** 2.036

a

SD

.703 .654 .572 .429

F

ratio

5

8.483;

F

probability

5

.000

Most guards in TDC treat inmates like they are less than human.


N

260 362 133Mean 2.873 3.008 2.985

SD

.737 .700 .627

F ratio 5 2.936;F probability 5 .0537

Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 501

N 288 325 119 28Mean 3.101 2.932* 2.773** 2.714a

SD .699 .691 .657 .810F ratio 5 8.180;

F probability 5 .000

(continued on next page)

306 C. Hemmens, J.W. Marquart / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 297–312 Table 2(continued)

Prison guards often use too much force on inmates.


N 255 358 133Mean 2.576 2.821* 2.752SD .784 .746 .690F ratio 5 8.317;


Age 19–29 30–39 40–49 501

N 285 322 116 28Mean 2.853 2.683* 2.612** 2.571SD .778 .723 .695 .742F ratio 5 4.437;


In this table, the following notations indicate statistical significance at the .05 level between groups: 1,2 (*), 1,3 (**), 2,3(***), 1,4 (a), 2,4 (b). TDC 5 Texas Department of Corrections.

perhaps, that older exmates think there are too manyofficers getting into their business.

Related to the perception of whether there wereenough correctional officers was the perception ofthe quality of new officers. The mean scores for ex-mates in the 19–29, 30–39 age categories, and ex-mates in the 50 and older age category were statisti-cally significant at the .05 level, with the youngerexmates tending to disagree with the statement “Thequality of new guards entering TDC today is as goodas it ever was.” This finding suggests that the oldestexmates think new officers are not as qualified as of-ficers hired in the past, an interesting finding giventhat TDCJ-ID preservice training has increased ratherthan decreased in recent years.

Exmates were also asked whether they believedthat female correctional staff do their jobs as well asmale officers. The mean scores for the four agegroups did not reveal any statistically significant dif-ferences. In this case, a finding of no difference isperhaps as interesting as a finding of some differ-ence. Exmates were fairly unified in their estimationof the ability of female guards vis-à-vis male guards.The mean scores for the age categories fall around2.3, indicating a slight tendency towards agreementwith the statement “Female guards do their jobs as wellas male guards.” This finding is in accord with prior re-search on inmate attitudes (Kissel & Katsampes, 1980;Walters, 1993). Inmates seem to hold more positiveopinions of female correctional officers than do manymale staff. Prior research indicated male officers of-ten resent the introduction of female officers intotheir male world (Owen, 1985; Zimmer, 1986), and

frequently denigrate the job performance of femaleoffices (Jurik, 1985; Zupan, 1992).

Race and perceptionsThe relationship between race and perception of

inmate-staff relations turned up as statistically signif-icant on only one item: “Prison guards often use toomuch force on inmates.” On this item (which was re-verse coded), the mean score for Black exmates was2.8, while for White exmates it was 2.6. Black ex-mates, therefore, were more likely to agree with thestatement than White exmates. The Hispanic exmategroup had a mean score close to the Black exmates,but this was not statistically significant relative toWhite exmates. This finding is in accord with re-search conducted on attitudes of nonincarceratedpopulations. Black citizens appear to both trust thepolice less (Cole, 1999; Lasley, 1994), and believethat police use excessive force more often than Whitecitizens (Huang & Vaughn, 1996).

Black and White exmates had different percep-tions of use of force by correctional officers, thoughthey did not have substantially different perceptionsof whether correctional officers acted unfairly, ortreated inmates as “less than human,” which might beexpected.

Logistic regression analysis

Logistic regression was conducted, to determinethe impact of the various sociodemographic andcriminal history variables when controlling for theeffect of other variables. Table 3 displays the results

C. Hemmens, J.W. Marquart / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 297–312 307

of the logistic regression equations for the eight itemsregarding exmate perceptions of inmate-staff rela-tions. Race and age appeared as significant variablesin several items. They were also the only variables toremain in any equation.

These results suggest race/ethnicity is related toperceptions of inmate-staff relations, a fact obscuredby the ANOVA procedure. Race/ethnicity and ageboth play important roles in the logistic regressionmodels for the items regarding perceptions of in-mate-staff relations. Differences between White andBlack exmates remained in all but two of the eightequations, indicating White and Black exmates havevery different perceptions of the inmate-staff rela-tionship. Differences between White and Hispanicexmates remained in several equations as well, sug-gesting that race is a powerful predictor of percep-tions of this aspect of the institutional experience.

White exmates were somewhat more likely thanBlack exmates to agree with the statement “Overallthey treated me pretty good in TDC.” White exmateswere almost twice as likely as Black or Hispanic ex-mates to disagree with the statement “Most guards inTDC treat inmates like they are less than human.”White exmates were more than twice as likely asBlack or Hispanic exmates to disagree with the state-ment “Prison guards often use too much force on in-mates.” In addition, White exmates were 1.5 timesmore likely than Black exmates to agree with the state-ment “Female guards do their jobs as well as maleguards,” and 1.5 times more likely than Black exmatesto agree with the statement “There are enough guardsto provide safety and security for the inmates.” Fi-nally, White exmates were almost twice as likely asHispanic exmates to disagree with the statement “TDCstaff often act unfairly towards inmates.” All of thissuggests that White exmates have a higher opinion ofcorrectional staff than minority exmates.

Age also plays an important role in shaping per-ceptions of inmate-staff relations. Exmates weremore likely to agree with the statement “I had veryfew problems with the guards in TDC,” as they getolder. For each increase in age category, exmateswere approximately 1.5 times more likely to agreewith the statement. The same was true in regard tothe statement “Overall, they treated me pretty good inTDC.” Older exmates were also more likely to dis-agree with the statement “Most guards in TDC treatinmates like they are less than human.” Older ex-mates were also more likely to disagree with thestatement “Prison guards often use too much force oninmates.” These findings suggest that older exmatesare significantly more likely than younger exmates tohave positive opinions of correctional staff, feeling

that staff treat inmates decently. This correspondswith the ANOVA findings.

Conclusion

Examination of the exmate responses by race andage revealed some significant relationships betweenrace, age, and perceptions of the institutional experi-ence. Other factors (such as criminal history variables)consistently failed to show up as statistically signifi-cant in the ANOVA and do not remain in the logisticregression model, though two factors consistentlyshowed up in both the ANOVA and logit procedures:race/ethnicity and age. Age remained in virtually everyequation, while racial differences between White andBlack exmates remained in several equations as well.

Table 3Logistic regression on perception of inmate-staff items

Group B Wald S ROddsratio

I had very few problems with guards in TDC.

Age (B/W) 2.3412 11.467 .0007 2.1063 1.41Age (H/W) 2.3137 5.320 .0211 2.0799 1.39Age (H/B) 2.4962 16.672 .0000 2.1494 1.64

Female guards do their jobs as well as male guards.Race (B/W) .4125 5.879 .0153 .0698 1.51

There are enough guards to provide safety and security for inmates.

Race (B/W) 2.3412 11.465 .0007 2.1055 1.40Age (H/W) 2.3599 8.960 .0028 2.1150 1.43Age (H/B) 2.3976 11.436 .0007 2.1198 1.50

The quality of new guards entering TDC today is as good as it ever was.

Age (H/B) 2.2878 5.323 .0210 2.0776 1.33TDC staff often act unfairly towards inmates.

Race (H/W) 2.6414 5.868 .0154 2.0939 1.90Overall, they treated me pretty good in TDC.

Race (B/W) 2.3944 4.608 .0318 2.0550 1.48Age (B/W) 2.4496 14.812 .0001 2.1308 1.57Age (H/W) 2.3691 6.280 .0122 2.0955 1.45Age (H/B) 2.5681 18.573 .0000 2.1637 1.76

Most guards in TDC treat inmates like they are less than human.

Race (B/W) 2.6260 10.984 .0009 2.1135 1.87Age (B/W) 2.4003 13.253 .0003 2.1271 1.49Race (H/W) 2.7344 8.023 .0046 2.1142 2.08Age (H/B) 2.4918 13.060 .0003 2.1511 1.64

Prison guards often use too much force on inmates.Race (B/W) 2.8832 25.778 .0000 2.1713 2.42Age (B/W) 2.2550 6.0157 .0142 2.0704 1.29Race (H/W) 2.6960 9.756 .0018 2.1216 2.00Age (H/B) 2.3512 8.434 .0037 2.1030 1.42

TDC 5 Texas Department of Corrections; B 5 black;W 5 white; H 5 hispanic.

308 C. Hemmens, J.W. Marquart / Journal of Criminal Justice 28 (2000) 297–312

Regarding age, younger exmates also differedfrom older exmates in their perceptions of correc-tional staff and inmate-staff relations. Younger ex-mates reported having more problems with staff, andwere more likely to believe that correctional stafftreats them poorly: younger exmates tended to agreethat staff often acted unfairly, treated inmates as lessthan human, and used too much force on inmates. Allof this suggests that age is closely related to percep-tions of staff behavior and inmate-staff interactions.Whether younger exmates feel this way because theyare more often engaged in activity that is likely to bethe subject of staff reprisals, or because staff treatolder exmates with more care and respect, or becauseyounger exmates come into prison with different be-liefs about how they should be treated by staff is un-clear. Further research on these differences in percep-tion is clearly warranted.

Regarding race/ethnicity, the logistic regressionanalysis indicated that both Black and Hispanic ex-

mates are more likely than White exmates to feel cor-rectional staff treat inmates unfairly and/or poorly,and use excessive force. This finding is not altogethersurprising, given the long history of poor race rela-tions in Texas prisons (Marquart, 1986a, 1986b). Italso mirrors research findings in the free world,which indicate that minority populations have a morenegative perception of the criminal justice system ingeneral and the police in particular than do Whites(Cole, 1999; Huang & Vaughn, 1996; Walker, 1992).

These findings are in accord with prior research,which found that individual, extra-institutional vari-ables such as race play a major role in inmate adjust-ment patterns. In addition, this research added to theliterature a clearer picture of the impact of age, an un-derstudied variable, on inmate perceptions. Youngerand older inmates differ in their perceptions of prisonand this difference is often linear in nature, but par-ticularly pronounced when the youngest and oldestinmate age groups are compared.

Appendix: Parolee attitudes and expectations questionnaire

I. Attitudes towards prison and parole

I am going to read you some statements and I would like for you to tell me which response you would agree with: strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree.

Stronglyagree Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree

1. Doing time in Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) is pretty easy today.

1 2 3 4

2. I might be back in prison within the next year or two. 1 2 3 43. Offenders in Texas today know they won’t do much time. 1 2 3 44. Making it on parole today is easy. 1 2 3 45. Texas is tougher on offenders today than it used to be. 1 2 3 46. Prison is a good way to deal with most offenders. 1 2 3 47. I plan to follow most of my parole rules. 1 2 3 48. Prison work programs will help me get a job in the free world. 1 2 3 49. Being in the free world again is pretty scary. 1 2 3 4

10. I had very few problems with the guards in TDC. 1 2 3 411. I support the death penalty for people convicted of murder. 1 2 3 412. All inmates should be tested for the AIDS virus. 1 2 3 413. Female guards do their jobs as well as male guards. 1 2 3 414. The chances of getting the AIDS virus in TDC are very low. 1 2 3 415. I worried a lot about getting beaten up or attacked while I was

in TDC.1 2 3 4

16. Race is a big problem in TDC. 1 2 3 417. TDC made me more responsible. 1 2 3 418. TDC’s educational programs prepared me for the free world. 1 2 3 419. I almost never had any problems with other inmates while in

TDC.1 2 3 4

20. There are enough guards to provide safety and security for the inmates.

1 2 3 4

21. Inmates will change only if they are motivated to, no matter what TDC does.

1 2 3 4

(continued on next page)


Appendix: (continued)

Stronglyagree Agree Disagree

Stronglydisagree

22. My family thinks less of me since I’ve been in prison. 1 2 3 423. The quality of new guards entering TDC today is as good as

it ever was.1 2 3 4

24. All AIDS-infected inmates should be separate from the general population.

1 2 3 4

25. TDC staff often act unfairly towards inmates. 1 2 3 426. Overall, they treated me pretty good in TDC. 1 2 3 427. People with three felony convictions should be sentenced to

life without parole.1 2 3 4

28. I feel bad about going to prison. 1 2 3 429. Allowing inmates of different races to live in separate living

areas is a good idea.1 2 3 4

30. I plan to work with my parole officer to follow the terms of my parole.

1 2 3 4

31. Parolees like me will have a tough time in the free world. 1 2 3 432. Inmates in TDC do not have enough privacy. 1 2 3 433. Drugs/alcohol played a big role in landing me in prison. 1 2 3 434. Right now, it is too crowded in TDC. 1 2 3 435. The prison administration uses parole as a weapon against

inmates.1 2 3 4

36. Inmates have the right to know which other inmates in TDC have AIDS.

1 2 3 4

37. I think it will be harder on parole than it was to do time in TDC.

1 2 3 4

38. The standards used to evaluate me for parole are fair and objective.

1 2 3 4

39. Inmates attack other inmates very often. 1 2 3 440. Most guards in TDC treat inmates like they are less than

human.1 2 3 4

41. It is hard to maintain my own identity and be myself in prison.

1 2 3 4

42. Overall, it is pretty safe in TDC. 1 2 3 443. I generally feel that I am at least equal to others. 1 2 3 444. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 1 2 3 445. What happens to me is my own doing. 1 2 3 446. I find that one day I have one opinion of myself and on

another day I have another opinion.1 2 3 4

47. It is easier to make a living by doing crime than it is by obeying the law.

1 2 3 4

48. I consider myself a law-abiding citizen most of the time. 1 2 3 449. Prison guards often use too much force on inmates. 1 2 3 450. Inmates have a lot of control over what other inmates do

today.1 2 3 4

II. Activities in prison and descriptions of prison

1a. Did you go to school while in TDC?1b. If so, what grade level did you enroll in?1c. Why did you go to school while in TDC?2a. Did you have a job while in TDC?2b. If so, what kind(s) of job?2c. Why did you work while in TDC?

(continued)


Appendix: (continued)

3. What percentage of the inmates in TDC would you estimate are:Extremely dangerous?A little dangerous?Not dangerous?

4. What percentage of the inmates in TDC today do you think will end up back in prison?5. How many inmates were you good friends with in TDC?6. Are you going to stay in contact with any of the inmates you met in TDC?7. Please tell me the three best things about prison.8. Please tell me the three worst things about prison.9. If Texas was really interested in reducing crime, they would________?

III. Plans/expectations for the future1. What are your plans for the next 2–3 days?2. What are your plans after that–for the next thirty days?3. What are your long–range plans—for the next six months to a year?4. Do you have a job lined up yet?5. Do you have a place to stay lined up yet?6. Will you be living in the same place as before you went to TDC?7a. Where are you going to from here?7b. Will you be staying at a halfway house?7c. If yes (halfway house), where will you go after that?8. How long will you stay there (place after halfway house or first stop)?9. What do you think parole will be like?

IV. Demographic information1. How old are you?2. Which best describes your racial or ethnic group?

White 1 Asian 4Black 2 Indian 3Hispanic 3 Other 6

3. Where is the last place that you lived before you were sentenced to TDC?4. What was the highest grade level of school completed before you went to prison?5a. Have you served time in prison before this sentence?5b. If yes, how many years altogether have you spent in prison?5c. If yes, how many times have you been sentenced to prison?

Were you in TDC this time because of a parole violation or a new offense?6.7a. How long was your original sentence (if violator) / this sentence (if new offense)?7b. How long did you serve on this sentence?8. How much time did you serve in the county jail on this sentence?9. How old were you the first time you were ever arrested?

10. What is your current marital status?11a. Did you have a job when you were arrested for this offense?11b. If yes, what was your job?

References

Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research 6th ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Berk, B. (1968). Organizational goals and inmate organiza-tion. Am J Soc 71, 522–534.

Bowker, L. H. (1980). Prison Victimization. New York:Elsevier.

Carroll, L. (1974). Hacks, Blacks, and Cons. Lexington,MA: Lexington.

Carroll, L. (1982). Race, ethnicity, and the social order ofthe prison. In R. Johnson & H. Toch (Eds.), The Pains of

Imprisonment (pp. 181–203). Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublications.

Clemmer, D. (1940). The Prison Community. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cole, D. (1999). No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the Amer-ican Criminal Justice System. New York: The New Press.

Crouch, B. M. (1985). Pandora’s box: women in men’s pris-ons. J Crim Just 13, 535–548.

Crouch, B. M. (1993). Is incarceration really worse? analy-sis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation.Just Quart 10, 67–88.


Crouch, B. M. & Alpert, G. P. (1982). Prison guards’ atti-tudes towards components of the criminal justice sys-tem. Criminology 18, 227–236.

Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The so-cial dimensions of correctional officer stress. Just Quart2, 505–533.

Ekland-Olson, S., Supancic, M., Campbell, J., & Lenihan,K. J. (1983). Postrelease depression and the importanceof familial support. Criminology 21, 253–275.

Ellis, D., Grasmick, H. G., & Gilman, B. (1974). Violencein prisons: a sociological analysis. Am J Soc 80, 16–43.

Faine, J. R. (1973). A self-consistency approach to pris-onization. Soc Quart 14, 576–588.

Flanagan, T. J. (1983). Correlates of institutional miscon-duct among state prisoners. Criminology 21, 29–39.

Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey Research Methods. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Fuller, D. A., & Orsagh, T. (1977). Violence and victimiza-tion within a state prison system. Crim Just Rev 3, 35–55.

Garabedian, P. G. (1963). Social roles and processes of so-cialization in the prison community. Social Probs 11,139–152.

Gilliard, D. K., & Beck, A. J. (1996). Prison and Jail Inmates,1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Chicago, IL: Aldine de Gruyter.Goodstein, L., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1984). Racial differ-

ences in adjustment patterns of prison inmates—pris-onization, conflict, stress, and control. In D. Georges-Abeyie (Ed.), The Criminal Justice System and Blacks(pp. 271–306). New York: Clark Boardman Company.

Goodstein, L., & Wright, K. N. (1989). Inmate adjustmentto prison. In L. Goodstein & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.),The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy(pp. 229–251). New York: Plenum Press.

Gottfredson, D. M., & Hirschi, T. (1991). A General Theoryof Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grusky, O. (1959). Organizational goals and the behavior ofinformal leaders. Am J Soc 83, 59–67.

Hemmens, C. (1998). Life in the Joint and Beyond: An Ex-amination of Inmate Attitudes and Perceptions ofPrison, Parole, and Self at the Time of Release. Ph.D.diss. College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston StateUniversity: Huntsville, TX.

Hemmens, C., & Marquart, J. W. (1998). Fear and loathingin the joint: the impact of race and age on inmate sup-port for prison AIDS policies. Prison J 78, 133–151.

Hemmens, C., & Marquart, J. W. (1999a). The impact of in-mate characteristics on perceptions of race relations inprison. Int J Offender Ther & Comp Crim 43, 230–247.

Hemmens, C., & Marquart, J. W. (1999b). Straight time: in-mates’ perceptions of violence and victimization in theprison environment. J Offender Rehab 28, 1–21.

Howard, C., Winfree, L. T., Mays, G. L., Stohr, M. K., &Classon, D. L. (1994). Processing inmate disciplinaryinfractions in a federal correctional institution: legal andextralegal correlates of prison-based legal decisions.Prison J 73, 5–31.

Huang, W., & Vaughn, M. S. (1996). Support and confi-dence: public attitudes toward the police. In T. J. Flana-

gan & D. Longmire (Eds.), Americans View Crime andJustice: A National Public Opinion Survey (pp. 98–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in Turmoil. Boston, MA: Little,Brown & Company.

Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and theinmate culture. Soc Probs 10, 142–155.

Iverson, C. & Norpoth, C. (1987). Analysis of Variance.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Jacobs, J. B. (1974). Street gangs behind bars. Social Probs21, 395–409.

Jacobs, J. B. (1976). Stratification and conflict amongprison inmates. J Crim Law & Crim 66, 476–482.

Jacobs, J. B. (1977). Stateville. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Jacobs, J. B., & Kraft, L. (1978). Integrating the keepers: acomparison of Black and White prison guards in Illi-nois. Social Probs 25, 304–318.

Johnson, R. (1987). Hard Time: Understanding and Re-forming the Prison. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publish-ing Company.

Jurik, N. (1985). Individual and organizational determinantsof correctional officer attitudes towards inmates. Crimi-nology 23, 523–539.

Jurik, N. (1988). Striking a balance: female correctional of-ficers, gender role stereotypes, and male prisons. Soc In-quiry 58, 291–305.

Jurik, N., & Halemba, G. J. (1984). Gender, working condi-tions, and the job satisfaction of women in a nontradi-tional occupation: female correctional officers in men’sprisons. Soc Quart 25, 51–566.

Kachigan, S. K. (1991). Multivariate Statistical Analysis: AConceptual Introduction. New York: Radius Press.

Kissel, P. J., & Katsampes, P. L. (1980). The impact ofwoman correctional officers on the functioning of insti-tutions housing male inmates. J Offender Counseling,Ser & Rehab 4, 213–231.

Lasley, J. R. (1994). The impact of the Rodney King inci-dent on citizen attitudes toward police. Policing & Soci-ety 3, 245–255.

Lawson, D. P., Segrin, C., & Ward, T. D. (1996). The rela-tionship between prisonization and social skills amongprison inmates. Prison J 76, 293–309.

Lockwood, D. (1980). Prison Sexual Violence. New York:Elsevier.

Lombardo, L. X. (1982). Guards Imprisoned. Cincinnati,IL: Anderson Publishing Co.

MacKenzie, D. L. (1987). Age and adjustment to prison: in-teractions with attitudes and anxiety. Crim Just & Behav14, 427–447.

Marquart, J. W. (1986a). Doing research in prison: thestrengths and weaknesses of full participation as aguard. Just Quart 3, 15–32.

Marquart, J. W. (1986b). Prison guards and the use of phys-ical coercion as a mechanism of prisoner control. Crimi-nology 24, 347–366.

Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (1995). Research Methodsfor Criminal Justice and Criminology. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.


Menard, S. (1995). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Nagin, D. S., & Farrington, D. P. (1992). The onset and per-sistence of offending. Criminology 30, 501–523.

Owen, B. (1985). Race and gender relations among prisonworkers. Crime & Del 31, 147–159.

Perkins, C. (1994). National Corrections Reporting Program,1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1980). Race, institutionalrule-breaking, and disciplinary response: a study of dis-cretionary decision making in prison. Law & SocietyRev 14, 931–946.

Porporino, F., & Zamble, E. (1984). Coping with imprison-ment. Can J Crim 25, 403–421.

Ramirez, J. (1983). Race and the apprehension of inmatemisconduct. J Crim Just 11, 413–427.

Schrag, C. (1961). Some foundations for a theory of correc-tion in the prison. In D. Cressey (Ed.), The Prison (pp.309–358). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Snell, T. L. (1995). Correctional Populations in the UnitedStates, 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice.

Street, D. (1970). The inmate group in custodial and treat-ment settings. Am Soc Rev 33, 40–55.

Sykes, G. M. (1958). The Society of Captives: A Study of aMaximum Security Prison. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Thomas, C. W. (1970). Toward a more inclusive model ofthe inmate contraculture. Criminology 8, 251–262.

Thomas, C. W. (1977). Theoretical perspectives on pris-onization: a comparison of the importation and depriva-tion models. J Crim Law & Crim 68, 135–145.

Tittle, C. R. (1968). Inmate organization: sex differentiationand the influence of criminal subcultures. Am Soc Rev30, 492–504.

Walker, S. (1992). The Police in America. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Walters, S. (1993). Changing the guard: male correctionalofficers’ attitudes toward women as coworkers. J Of-fender Rehab 20, 47–60.

Wellford, C. (1967). Factors associated with adoption of theinmate code: a study of normative socialization. J CrimLaw, Crim & Police Sci 58, 197–203.

Wheeler, S. (1961). Socialization in correctional communi-ties. Am Soc Rev 26, 697–712.

Wilson, T. P. (1968). Patterns of management and adapta-tions to organizational roles: a study of prison inmates.Am J Soc 71, 146–157.

Wood, B. S., Wilson, G. G., Jessor, R., & Bogan, J. B.(1968). Trouble-making behavior in a correctional insti-tution: relationship to inmates’ definition of their situa-tion. Am J Orthopsych 36, 795–802.

Wooden, S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men Behind Bars: SexualExploitation in Prison. New York: Plenum Press.

Wright, K. N. (1988). The relationship of risk, needs, andpersonality classification systems and prison adjust-ment. Crim Just & Behav 15, 454–471.

Wright, K. N. (1989). Race and economic marginality in ex-plaining prison adjustment. J Res Crime & Del 26, 67–89.

Wright, K. N. (1991). A study of individual, environmental,and interactive effects in explaining adjustment toprison. Just Quart 8, 217–242.

Zimmer, L. (1986). Women Guarding Men. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Zink, T. M. (1957). Are prison troublemakers different? JCrim Law & Crim 48, 433–434.

Zupan, L. (1992). The progress of women correctional of-ficers in all-male Prisons. In I. Moyer (Ed.), The Chang-ing Roles of Women in the Criminal Justice System (pp.145–174). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

friend or foe? race, age, and inmate perceptions of inmate-staff relations

Documents