Exploring the Correspondence Between General Correctional Programming and Inmate Misconduct Using a Time-Course Framework

• Author: Jordan Papp,Shannon J. Linning,Ian A. Silver
• Published date: 01 February 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X21990811
• Date: 01 February 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X21990811

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(2-3) 209 –226

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X21990811

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Exploring the

Correspondence Between

General Correctional

Programming and Inmate

Misconduct Using a

Time-Course Framework

Shannon J. Linning1, Ian A. Silver2,3,

and Jordan Papp4

Abstract

Inmate misconduct continues to threaten safety and order within correctional institutions.

Yet few studies have examined its longitudinal nature. In this paper we explore the

correspondence between correctional programming and inmate misconduct. To do this,

we draw from Linning etal.’s time-course framework devised to improve the design and

evaluation of interventions by considering effects that can occur before, during, and after

programming. We provide the first empirical demonstration of their framework using

prisoner misconduct data collected from all Ohio prisons between January 2008 and

June 2012. A cross-lagged panel analysis provides support for the use of a time-course

framework. Results show that misconduct decreased during programming. However,

we observed increases in misconduct prior to and following exposure to programming.

Our results suggest that future work needs to improve our understanding of causal

mechanisms of inmate misconduct and when their effects are expected.

Keywords

prisoner misconduct, correctional programming, program evaluation, time-course

framework, initial backfire, anticipatory effects, residual effects

1Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

2Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

3University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

4University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Shannon J. Linning, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC

V5A 1S6, Canada.

Email: shannon_linning@sfu.ca

990811IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X21990811International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyLinning et al.

research-article2021

210 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 66(2-3)

Introduction

In recent decades, we have seen an increase in rehabilitative programming adminis-

tered by correctional institutions (MacKenzie & Lattimore, 2018). The goal has been

to provide resources and training to offenders that reduces their likelihood of recidi-

vism post-release and makes them productive members of society (Lipsey & Cullen,

2007). Yet correctional institutions are simultaneously tasked with providing security

to staff and inmates, maintaining order, and assuring sentences are carried out

(Bottoms, 1999). Accomplishing these is important to keep staff and inmates safe,

keep prison costs in check, and to provide an environment conducive to successful

offender rehabilitation.

Maintaining order continues to be a challenge. At an institutional level, prisons deal

with thousands of disciplinary infractions annually that collectively impose an

immense financial burden (Tewksbury et al., 2014). Inmate misconduct, such as fight-

ing, selling drugs, and disobeying staff orders, undermines rehabilitative efforts

(Steiner & Wooldredge, 2014). Some studies suggest that inmates who engage in

prison misconduct are more likely to recidivate post-release thus undermining the

rehabilitative goals of prisons (Cochran & Mears, 2017; Silver & Nedelec, 2018a).

Although many studies have examined the correlates of inmate misconduct, most

are cross-sectional and few evaluate the influence of programming (French &

Gendreau, 2006; Steiner et al., 2014). There is an emerging literature showing the

importance of assessing misconduct in a longitudinal manner (e.g., Cihan et al., 2017;

Cochran, 2012; Silver & Nedelec, 2018b), but it is still in infant stages. To date, no

studies have examined the longitudinal correspondence between prison programming

and misconduct. It is possible that correctional programming can influence the time

in which inmates engage in misconduct. For instance, inmates often apply for pro-

gramming. In anticipation of the program, they may go on their best behavior with

hopes of gaining entry. As such, prisons may experience fewer incidents of miscon-

duct in the weeks before a program starts. However, as we will discuss, programming

can also influence offender behavior at other time periods, namely during and after.

Thus, it is worthwhile to assess misconduct and programming at different time peri-

ods. This is the focus of our paper. To do this, we draw upon Linning et al.’s (2019)

time-course framework.

Linning et al. (2019) argued that although interventions can reap desired results

overall, more subtle effects can occur at different times, namely before, during, and

after implementation. Consequently, they proposed a time-course framework to guide

the design and evaluation of interventions in criminal justice, including correctional

programming. Finding additional tools that can help practitioners develop practices

that make order maintenance and correctional programming compatible are invalu-

able. Our paper provides the first known demonstration of this time-course frame-

work. Specifically, we explore various temporal effects concerning prisoner misconduct

associated with correctional programming using longitudinal data collected from pris-

ons in Ohio. We examine whether programming influences inmate misconduct in cus-

tody before, during, and after programming.