Explaining disparities in prison misconduct: Why do some amass more adjudications than others? Dr Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, Dr Cate McNamee 31 August 2018 Strengthening Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

Prison Misconduct Three main theoretical perspectives used to understand the occurrence of prison misconduct: Deprivation (Sykes, 1958) Importation (Irwin & Cressey, 1962) Management (DiIulio, 1990) Studies indicate all play a role but considerable variation in predictors of misconduct (see Steiner et al., 2014).

Prison Misconduct Internationally, prison misconduct is often responded to by confinement, exclusion, forfeiture of privileges, or longer periods of imprisonment. Individuals involved in prison misconduct are at a higher risk of re- offending upon release (Brunton- Smith & Hopkins, 2013; Cochran et al., 2014; Trulson et al., 2011).

Present Study This study seeks to enhance our understanding of prison misconduct by: Examining why some people amass more adjudications than others. Investigating the role that individual, societal, and prison-related variables play in predicting the number of adjudications individuals amass. Exploring the predictors of prison misconduct in a jurisdiction that has not previously been examined. Offering suggestions for possible next steps to address the needs of those who amass large numbers of adjudications and reduce their risk of re-offending on release.

Methodology Research design: Cross-sectional administrative data. Measures Age Religion Nationality Race/ethnicity Offence history Self-reported medical history of mental health issues, addiction, behavioural problems, head injury and/or epilepsy; self-harm; communication, speech, hearing or vision impairments Postcode Total days spent in custody Total number of drug tests taken and passed Number of prison complaints submitted Number of visits an individual had completed throughout their time in prison Number of times an individual had been placed on the Supporting Prisoners at Risk Process (SPARS) due to concerns about self-harm or suicidal thoughts Total number of adjudications amassed throughout their time in prison up until the 22 November 2017 Research design: Cross-sectional administrative data. Sample: n=892 adult males detained in Maghaberry prison on 22 November 2017 (approximately 63% of the entire NI prison population). Procedure: In partnership with the prison, administrative data from the prison computerised system was used to create an anonymised dataset (see Table 1). Analysis: Negative binominal regression was used to analyse the data.

Findings

Findings

Findings A small number of individuals amassed a large number of adjudications, with 2% of the sample reporting over 100 adjudications. Individuals were more likely to amass adjudications if they were younger, lived in high crime neighbourhoods or outside of Northern Ireland, and reported complex needs (e.g. self-disclosed mental illness, history of addiction, impairments, head injury, epilepsy or having been judged to be at risk of self-harm while in prison). Those who complained more about the prison regime, had not yet taken a drug test, or did not pass all their drug tests were also more likely to amass adjudications.

Theoretical Implications Need to pay attention to how individual, prison and societal factors interact to influence disparities in the amount of adjudications individuals amass. Also, need to examine how cultural and political factors shape how prison misconduct is interpreted and responded to. An emphasis solely on individual responsibility, rationality and deterrability may limit the effectiveness of interventions with those amassing large numbers of adjudications due to their complex needs and limited capacity to control their behaviour, think rationally or be deterred.

Possible Next Steps Recognise the limitations of using practices emphasising rationality and deterrability with chronic offenders given their complex needs. Develop specific programmes designed to address the complex needs chronic offenders present with, as well as tackle relevant prison and societal related factors. Expand existing service provision to be better able to cope with the complex needs these individuals present with and challenge cultural and political views which may limit the interventions offered.

References Brunton-Smith, I. & Hopkins, K. (2013). The factors associated with proven re-offending following release from prison: findings from Waves 1 to 3 of SPCR. London: Ministry of Justice Analytical Services. Cochran, J. C., Mears, D. P., Bales, W. D., & Stewart, E. A. (2014). Does inmate behavior affect post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism relationship among youth and adults. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1044-1073. DiIulio, J. J. (1990). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York: The Free Press. Irwin, J., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social problems, 10(2), 142-155. Sykes, G. M. (2007). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton University Press. Trulson, C. R., DeLisi, M., & Marquart, J. W. (2011). Institutional misconduct, delinquent background, and rearrest frequency among serious and violent delinquent offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 57(5), 709-731.

Email: michelle.butler@qub.ac.uk