Gender Differences in Predictors of Prison Violence: Assessing the Predictive Validity of a Risk Classification System

Abstract

Can the same risk classification instrument be used for both female and male prisoners?The authors answer this question using data for federal prisoners by comparing female and male prison violence rates and by comparing the predictive validity of a risk classification instrument used to predict female and male violence. The authors find women commit less violence and less serious violence than men. However, despite these gender differences, they find the same classification instrument predicts violent behavior equally well for women and men. Taken together, these results lead the authors to argue for correctional policies requiring separate classification systems for women and men.

The Effect of Drug Treatment on Inmate Misconduct in Federal Prisons

“…While the correlates of misconduct appear to be the same for men and women, the nature of the misconduct does not. Published research shows that female inmates commit infractions less frequently and that the type of infraction is less serious in nature than that committed by male inmates (Craddock, 1996;Faily & Roundtree, 1979;Harer & Langan, 2000;Ruback & Carr, 1984). This observation has interesting implications for the argument that drug treatment programs which were originally designed for male inmates are inappropriate for female inmates (Langan & Pelissier, 2000;Miller, 1984;Wellisch, Anglin, & Prendergast, 1991).…”

Erkek Hükümlülerde Tekrar Suç İşlemeye İlişkin Risk Faktörlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

“…Öte yandan potansiyel olarak tehdit edici olan cezaevi çevresi bu inanç sistemlerini sürdürüp pekiştirebilir (37,38).…”

Risk Markers for Sexual Predation and Victimization in Prison

“…As such, they demonstrate the importance of understanding prison sex differentially for men and women and developing programs that are responsive and receptive to these gender specific needs. When considered in the context of the extant literature, these differences support the premise of predictive diversity argued by and argue against the comparability position of Harer and Langan (2001) who assert that the contributory factors for prison violence are the same, albeit at different levels, for male and female inmates.…”

“…A large study of institutional violence within the federal prison system failed to confirm the existence of gender differences in risk markers for such violence. Harer and Langan (2001) found radical differences in the types of violence perpetrated by the two genders but when they applied the various risk markers to the different types of violent behavior, they found no differences in the types of risk factors that were most predictive cumulatively of institutional violence by both male and female inmates. The pertinent risk markers included type of detainment measures used by local authorities; whether current offenses involved violence and injury to a victim; history of escapes to flee custody or avoid prosecution; history of violence; precommitment status measures; age; criminal history including quantity and recency of offenses; and educational attainment at the time of incarceration.…”

“…Prisons risk classification schemes consistently reference prior offending and past violence as part of their security and placement assessment of individuals both while they are incarcerated and during placement in the community (Gaes et al, 2002;Gendreau, Goggin & Law, 1997;Gover, Perez & Jennings, 2008;Harer & Langan, 2001;Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996;Greenfeld & Snell, 1999;Kury & Smartt, 2002;Skeem & Louden, 2006). In the context of these assessments, some research indicates that these contributory factors to prison violence are the same for males and females (albeit at different levels) (Harer & Langan, 2001) while other research suggests that the predictive factors are significantly and in some instances inversely predictive of different kinds of institutional behavior across genders Gover et al, 2008). These inquiries have often emerged as elements of the scientific debate over importation theory and deprivation theory and the relative significance of pre-existent as contrasted to situational factors in predicting various aspects of prison adjustment (Faily & Roundtree, 1979;Craddock, 1996;Thompson & Loper, 2005 Study Analyses.…”