Risk for Disciplinary Infractions Among Incarcerated Male Youths

Abstract

The authors examine the contribution of disorder to disciplinary infractions among incarcerated male youths. In all, 176 youths recently admitted to a secure assessment center self-administered the Voice Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-IV. Demographic and justice-related data were abstracted from official records. Younger boys, minority youths, and those who stayed longer were found to infract more. Controlling for these factors, infraction risk was significantly lowered by anxiety, affective disorder, disruptive behavior, or substance use disorder (vs. no disorder), as well as more or more types of disorder. Youths with mental health concerns were less likely to infract. Results highlight the importance of employing systematic and universal screening rather than relying on observable management problems to identify mental health needs.

Disciplinary Infractions Behind Bars

“…Examination of the relationship between importation and deprivation characteristics and receipt of any type of disciplinary infraction, throughout one calendar year, revealed that an inmate's age at prison admission, gang affiliation status, number of received visits, and criminal offense conviction were significant predictors. Consistent with earlier research, which found that younger inmates engaged more frequently in misconduct behind bars (Griffin & Hepburn, 2006;McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008;Walters & Schlauch, 2008;Welsh et al, 2007;Wooldredge et al, 2001), younger inmates in the present study were also more likely to receive any type of disciplinary infraction. Race, educational level, and marital status were not statistically significant in either model.…”

“…Future studies should seek to better understand this relationship. At the same time, it is recognized that time incarcerated and institutional security level have been identified in previous research as factors of deprivation (Berk & de Leeuw, 1999;Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007;Dhami et al, 2007;Gaes, Wallace, Gilman, Klein-Saffran, & Suppa, 2002;Goodstein, MacKenzie, & Shotland, 1984;Gover et al, 2008;Griffin & Hepburn, 2006;Jiang et al, 2005;Jiang & Winfree, 2006;Kuanliang et al, 2008;McCorkle et al, 1994;McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008;Proctor, 1994;Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008;Tischler & Marquart, 1989;Wright, 1991). However, the data did not provide for analyses of such measures, thus serving as a limitation of this study.…”

“…Further demonstrating existing differences between races regarding disciplinary infractions, Drury and DeLisi (2011) reported that Whites were less likely to commit violent misconduct and possess a weapon. Others have also found that Whites are less likely than all other races to commit disciplinary infractions, especially violent infractions (Bales & Miller, 2012;McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008;Morris et al, 2010;Jiang et al, 2005;Jiang & Winfree, 2006;Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008).…”

Angry Inmates Are Violent Inmates: A Poisson Regression Approach to Youthful Offenders

“…The importation model of inmate behavior posits that pre-confinement characteristics and behaviors contribute to inmate misconduct (Irwin & Cressey, 1962), and decades of research have shown that individual-level risk factors, such as prior arrests and convictions, gang history, active criminal justice status, substance abuse history, recurrent prison confinements, and others (Byrne & Hummer, 2007;Cao, Zhao, & Van Dine, 1997;Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007;DeLisi, Berg, & Hochstetler, 2004;Fox, 1958;Gaes, Wallace, Gilman, Klein-Saffran, & Suppa, 2002;Griffin & Hepburn, 2006;Hochstetler & DeLisi, 2005;Trulson, DeLisi, & Marquart, in press;Trulson, Marquart, & Kawucha, 2006;cf., DeLisi et al, 2009;McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008) are associated with institutional misconduct and inmate violence. Less research has studied inmates' psychosocial characteristics, such as anger vis-à-vis criminal history as these variables relate to misconduct.…”

“…Prior research indicates that young age, male gender, and/or racial minority status are predictive of institutional misconduct (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006;Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996;Kuanliang, Sorsen, & Cunningham, 2008;McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008;McShane & Williams, 1989;Myers & Levy, 1978;Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008cf. Craddock, 1996;Goetting & Howsen, 1986;Harer & Langan, 2001;Lahm, 2008;Trulson, DeLisi, Caudill, Belshaw, & Marquart, 2010), thus it is important that these variables are specified in multivariate models.…”