Prisoner Behavior, Staff Response: Using Prison Discipline Records
AuthorSchafer, N. E.
MetadataShow full item record
Other identifiersJC 8406
AbstractOfficial prison misconduct records are used to test some of the assumptions inherent in previous research based upon such records. Many of these studies used prison data to measure changes in prisoner behavior, while others used them to indicate changes in the actions and attitudes of prison staff. Analysis of one prison's official discipline records over a 30-month period reveals flaws in both approaches. The same data cannot serve to draw conclusions about both groups though they can provide information about both when supplemented with other research methods. Conclusions drawn from official prison misconduct records are more reliable when used to assess the end of the prison discipline process — assessing discretionary decisionmaking by staff — than at the beginning of the process — evaluating prisoner behavior.
DescriptionThis study is based on official monthly summaries of violations reviewed by the prison discipline committee that were collected over a twenty-month period (September 1978 to May 1980) at the Indiana Reformatory, a maximum security prison for adult male felons.
Table of Contents[Introduction] / Background of the Study / A Case Study of Prison Discipline Records / Conclusion / Notes / References / Figures
PublisherJustice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage
CitationSchafer, N.E. (1984). "Prisoner Behavior, Staff Response: Using Prison Discipline Records". Revision of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chicago, Mar 1984.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Discretion, Due Process, and the Prison Discipline CommitteeSchafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1985-04)Prison discipline received considerable attention from both the courts and professional organizations during the decade of the 1970s. It was widely assumed that the due process requirements which resulted from judicial review coupled with the promulgation of model discipline standards and procedures would limit the broad discretionary authority found in the traditional prison disciplinary process. A case study of the activities of one prison discipline committee suggests that these external pressures have had less impact on decision-making than such internal pressures as overcrowding. Due process requirements have not greatly inhibited the exercise of discretion in the prison discipline process.
Technical Memorandum: Site Assessment and Site Evaluation [Fire Island Prison Feasibility Study]UAA School of Engineering (School of Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, 1986-01)This report provides a preliminary assessment and evaluation of a site on Fire Island for a proposed correctional facility. Fire Island is an island in Cook Inlet lying off the western coast of Anchorage, Alaska. The report includes photos of aerial and surficial views of the island and discusses physical and environmental factors on the island including climate, topography, geology and soils, seismicity, and slide potentials; facility site evaluation; utility availability including water, wastewater and solid waste disposal, electricty, and communications; transportation and site access, legal factors including potential constitutional violations (cruel and unusual punishment), prison security, and access to prisons; and estimated facility and project costs. A bibliography of land and facility studies of Fire Island is included.
Prison Visiting Policies and Practices [manuscript]Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1991-01)Based on empirical evidence that visiting is significantly related to parole success, correctional administrators have begun to view family visits as one component of the rehabilitation process. Several authorities have encouraged correctional institutions to maximize visiting opportunities. Previous studies have noted geographical and architectural limits to such maximization. This paper reports the results of a national survey of visiting policies and draws comparisons with surveys reported in 1978 and 1954 to determine the extent to which prisons have increased efforts to make visiting a priority.