Research Note: Smoking in Prisons—A National Survey of Correctional Administrators in the United States

Vaughn, Michael S.; Carmen, Rolando V. del

doi:10.1177/0011128793039002007

Cited by 28 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 51 US prison systems that instituted policies restricting smoking, only two reported any increased violence, while increased inmate-inmate tensions were reported by 20% (Patrick and Marsh, 2001). Disturbances seem to be minimized when smoking bans are implemented with careful planning (Vaughn and Del Carmen, 1993b). An important outcome of smoking bans in correctional facilities relates to inmate health; when the Fairfax (Virginia) County Jail banned smoking, the number of infirmary visits dropped from 2200 to 1600 per month, despite an increase in the jail's population (Belkin, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both the American Jail Association and the American Correctional Association have adopted resolutions supporting nonsmoking policies in prisons and jails; however, these are recommendations rather than mandates (Vaughn and Del Carmen, 1993b). The potential impact of smoking restrictions in correctional facilities is considerable, given that these restrictions could affect approximately 10 million inmates in the US.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The potential impact of smoking restrictions in correctional facilities is considerable, given that these restrictions could affect approximately 10 million inmates in the US. Further, the rate of smoking among inmates in the US is high, averaging 62% (Vaughn and Del Carmen, 1993b), which may lead to very high SHS levels. This may be particularly true as overcrowding places an additional burden on existing ventilation systems, and as prison officials respond to overcrowding by placing inmates in areas not originally designed for housing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although more prisons are beginning to consider smoking bans, there are very few studies available about the process of implementing smoking restrictions in the penal system or their impact on inmates' exposure to SHS. A study of prison directors in all 50 US states revealed a high level of concern about smoking in their facilities (Vaughn and Del Carmen, 1993b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Inmate exposure to secondhand smoke in correctional facilities and the impact of smoking restrictions

Hammond¹,

Emmons

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was undertaken to measure the passive smoking exposure of prisoners at three correctional facilities in the US and to evaluate the effectiveness of a ban on smoking in reducing these exposures at two of these facilities. The average weekly concentration of nicotine was measured in fixed locations within the correctional facilities using passive samplers. Samples were collected before and after a smoking ban was instituted, and after the policy was modified to allow smoking outdoors. Samples were collected in the living areas, near where inmates slept and watched TV, and in selected central facilities, including dining halls, visiting rooms, booking areas, and learning centers. Average weekly concentrations of nicotine were measured in 84 locations while smoking was allowed; changes in these concentrations were measured with 112 weekly samples 4 and 9 months after the policy restricting smoking was implemented The average concentrations of nicotine were high while smoking was allowed: most living and sleeping areas averaged 3-11 mg/m 3 , but the gym that was used as a bunkroom averaged 25 mg/m 3 ; these values compare to an average of 2 mg/m 3 in the homes of smokers. The smoking ban significantly reduced nicotine concentrations in the living areas (Po0.01 at facility A and Po0.05 at facility B) to averages of 1.5-2.2 mg/m 3 ; all postban samples were less than 5 mg/m 3 . In conclusion, secondhand smoke concentrations in correctional facilities can be quite high; however, policies banning smoking are effective in reducing, but not eliminating, these exposures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inmate exposure to secondhand smoke in correctional facilities and the impact of smoking restrictions

Hammond¹,

Emmons

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) mandates smoking policies for psychiatric and residential hospitals,15 comparable standards are not required by either the American Correctional Association (ACA) or the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare (NCCHC). These organisations offer recommendations for non-smoking policies but do not enforce these guidelines 16. In a national survey of over 900 correctional facilities, 45% of institutions allowed some form of smoking, either by staff or inmates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking in correctional facilities: a survey of employees

Carpenter

Hughes²,

Solomon³

et al. 2001

Tob Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To assess level of endorsement and expected consequences of worksite smoking restriction policies among correctional employees. Design-Mailed survey to Vermont state correctional employees. Main outcome measures-Support for various policy alternatives for both staV and inmate smoking; expected consequences of restrictive smoking policies and smoking behaviour. Participants-321 of 640 (50%) state correctional employees responded. Results-Employees were somewhat receptive to smoking restrictions for inmates, but less supportive of staV smoking restrictions. A complete ban on inmate smoking both indoors and outdoors was supported by 56% and 49% of never and ex-smokers, respectively, but only 15% of current smokers (p < 0.01). A similar ban on employee smoking was supported by 38% of never and ex-smokers, but only 3% of current smokers (p < 0.01). Overall, employees were most supportive (52%) of a policy for themselves that banned indoor smoking and restricted it to certain areas outdoors. Current smokers were more likely to expect negative consequences as a result of further restrictions than were never or ex-smokers. Conclusions-Although our findings are limited by a low response rate, most employees support an indoor ban, but not a total ban on smoking. Employees generally favoured a policy that was slightly more restrictive than the current policy, but were less supportive of tighter smoking restrictions for themselves. However, a more restrictive smoking policy is likely to result in some degree of resistance among current smoking employees, who may require specific attention to address their opposition. (Tobacco Control 2001;10:38-42)

show abstract