Maintaining Safety in the Prison Environment: A Multilevel Analysis of Inmate Victimisation in Assaults

• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Author: Mark V. A. Howard,Jennifer J. Galouzis,Simon P. Corben,Alessandra Raudino
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X19871633
• Date: 01 August 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19871633

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2020, Vol. 64(10-11) 1091 –1113

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X19871633

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Original Manuscript

Maintaining Safety in the

Prison Environment: A

Multilevel Analysis of

Inmate Victimisation

in Assaults

Mark V. A. Howard1, Simon P. Corben1,

Alessandra Raudino1, and Jennifer J. Galouzis1

Abstract

Theoretical models of victimisation emphasise the importance of context. However,

few studies have assessed the influence of prison environmental variables on inmate

harm in physical assaults. This study used a multilevel model approach to examine

individual- and facility-level factors associated with the incidence of assaults among

inmates housed at correctional centres in New South Wales, Australia. Results

supported proposals that institutional routines and conditions may have an influence

on risk. Inmates, who spent less time in employment, were placed in special housing

arrangements such as protection, or were located in sites with higher security

designations or longer routine hours out of cells were more likely to be harmed

in assaults. In addition, more than 40% of variance in assaults was associated with

differences across correctional centre sites. We draw on routine activities theory

to explain relationships between different prison contexts, provision of guardianship,

and exposure to motivated offenders in assault outcomes.

Keywords

inmate assault, inmate violence, victimisation, prison environment, routine activities,

institutional misconduct

1Corrective Services NSW, Sydney, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Mark V. A. Howard, Corrective Services NSW, Level 5, 20 Lee Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000,

Australia.

Email: mark.howard@justice.nsw.gov.au

871633IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X19871633International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyHoward et al.

research-article2019

1092 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(10-11)

A central priority of prison administrations is to safeguard inmates from physical and

other harm. Although correctional systems have legal obligations to ensure the safety

of inmates (e.g., Wolff & Shi, 2009), inmate violence also represents a breakdown in

broader aims to maintain control within the prison environment (Griffin & Hepburn,

2013; Useem & Kimball, 1989). Victimisation may have lead on effects in undermin-

ing order in prisons, such as by aggravating cynicism towards legal authorities

(Wooldredge & Steiner, 2013); encouraging inmates to adopt informal means of pro-

tecting themselves by obtaining weapons (Wolff, Blitz, Shi, Siegel, & Bachman, 2007)

or through gang affiliation (Wolff, Shi, & Blitz, 2009); and generating increased work-

place stress for custodial staff (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). There is also evidence

that inmate victimisation can be detrimental to objectives of criminal justice systems

as a whole by negatively affecting mental health (Listwan, Colvin, Hanley, & Flannery,

2010) and recidivism (Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin, 2013) outcomes

for offenders. These broader social impacts have become increasingly relevant consid-

ering the growing resort to incarceration and inmate populations in countries such as

Australia and the United States (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009; Useem & Piehl, 2006;

Weatherburn, Wan, & Corben, 2014).

Maintaining the safety of inmates is a substantial task, considering that prisons

aggregate large populations of individuals with histories of violent behaviour or other

antisocial tendencies in conditions of material and social deprivation (Wolff et al.,

2007). Consistent with this, inmate victimisation in physical assaults is a relatively

common problem, with recent research estimating a 6-month prevalence of 129 to 346

assaulted per 1,000 inmates (Wolff et al., 2009). Theories of victimisation suggest that

inmate risk may be influenced by the extent to which prison routines and settings pro-

vide effective guardianship and manage interactions between suitable targets and

motivated offenders (e.g., Cohen & Felson, 1979). Although a number of studies have

examined individual predictors of violent misconduct, there is less research on contex-

tual factors that may influence an individual’s risk of violent victimisation in prison

(see Steiner, Ellison, Butler, & Cain, 2016 for a review). In this article, we report on a

multilevel analysis of individual- and facility-level factors associated with the inci-

dence of physical assault among inmates housed in correctional centres across New

South Wales (NSW), Australia, with a focus on the influence of various institutional

routines and conditions.

Literature Review

Models of victimisation have emphasised the importance of context in determining

risk. Early formulations suggested that victimisation is a function of opportunity and

thus more likely to occur when individuals have lifestyles or engage in activities that

place them in high-risk situations (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978).

Expanding on this notion, routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson,

1986) proposes that the likelihood of victimisation is moderated by the degree of

exposure that potential targets have with motivated offenders and the level of guard-

ianship present in those situations. In this regard, the daily routines and situations that