The Effect of Importation and Deprivation Factors on Violent Misconduct: An Examination of Black and Latino Youth in Prison

• Author: Nancy Rodriguez,Melinda Tasca,Marie L. Griffin
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204010366619
• Published date: 01 July 2010
• Date: 01 July 2010
• Subject Matter: Articles

The Effect of Importation

and Deprivation Factors on

Violent Misconduct: An

Examination of Black

and Latino Youth in Prison

Melinda Tasca

1

, Marie L. Griffin

1

, and Nancy Rodriguez

1

Abstract

There are volumes of research on inmate misconduct; however, few studies focus on institutional

violence among juvenile inmates and even fewer examine violent misconduct among youth

sentenced as adults and transferred to prison. The current study draws on theories of

importation and deprivation and relies on self-report data from in-depth interviews conducted

between February 2001 and March 2003 with 95 male juvenile inmates incarcerated in adult prisons

in Arizona and New York. The current study fills a void in prior research by examining a specialized

and relatively underresearched population to better understand the predictors of violent miscon-

duct among youth in prison. The findings suggest that the importation measure of gang membership

and the deprivation measure of threatened with a weapon are significantly associated with violent

misconduct. Correctional policy implications are discussed.

Keywords

juvenile transfers, inmate, misconduct, youth

Youth incarcerated in prison are a fairly small population; yet, recent research reveals that the juve-

nile transfer population is growing despite a decline in the mid-1990s through the early part of the

current decade (Sabol, Minton, & Harrison, 2007). Juveniles admitted to state prison increased by

7.1%in midyear 2006 for the first time since 1995 (Sabol et al., 2007; Snyder & Sickmund,

2006; Strom, 2000). Despite the vast body of work on juvenile transfer policies and their impact

on recidivism, there is an absence of literature that focuses on the institutional adjustment of youth

1

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Melinda Tasca, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 600, Phoenix,

AZ 85004, USA

Email: mtasca@asu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

8(3) 234-249

ªThe Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204010366619

http://yvjj.sagepub.com

234

incarcerated in adult facilities (Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000; Kuanliang, Sorensen, &

Cunningham, 2008; McShane & Williams, 1989). Penologists have studied prison misconduct for

more than half a century, often using institutional violence as a proxy for adjustment; however,

empirical focus has been placed almost entirely on the adult inmate population (Berg & DeLisi,

2006; Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007; Fernandez & Neiman, 1998; Flanagan, 1983; Griffin &

Hepburn, 2006; Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996; Huebner, 2003; Innes, 1997). However, research that

has examined the institutional adjustment of youth has generally done so in the context of juvenile

facilities (Gover, MacKenzie, & Armstrong, 2000; Kupchik, 2007; Poole & Regoli, 1983). As a

result, there exists a gap in the literature focusing on the institutional adjustment of youth

adjudicated as adults and transferred to prison.

Given the unique nature of this small yet growing population of youthful offenders and the dif-

fering institutional cultures and capacities of existing adult and juvenile facilities, it is not known

whether factors related to violent misconduct for adult inmates or for youth in juvenile facilities are

the same for the juvenile transfer population. It is important to understand the predictors of institu-

tional violence among this group for several reasons. First, if research reveals poor adjustment out-

comes among youth in prison, it may be necessary to reevaluate the juvenile transfer policy in its

entirety. Second, inmate and staff safety are a primary focus of correctional administrators but

without an understanding of the predictors of violent misconduct among juvenile transfers, preven-

tion efforts are nearly impossible. Using the theoretical models of importation and deprivation, the

current study attempts to fill the void in prior research on institutional adjustment by examining the

relationship between importation and deprivation factors and violent misconduct among youth

incarcerated in the adult penal system.

The Development and Impact of Juvenile Transfer Policies

For the majority of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system embraced a rehabilitative philoso-

phy toward youthful offenders. In the latter part of the 1980s, however, an ideological shift occurred

in how society viewed offenders and the criminal justice system as a whole. Rising crime rates

coupled with the misinterpretation of Martinson’s (1974) study that ‘‘nothing works’’ led the public

to reject the notion that treatment was effective. As such, states amended their laws to bypass the

juvenile court system allowing criminal courts to process youth who had committed serious crimes

as adults (Austin et al., 2000; Griffin, Torbet, & Szymanski, 1998; Redding, 2008). Although states

differ in the manner by which youth may be transferred to criminal court, all states including the

District of Columbia allow youth to be transferred to criminal court for certain crimes (Austin

et al., 2000; Griffin et al., 1998; Redding, 2008). Consequently, juvenile transfers are exempt from

treatment opportunities available through the juvenile court and are confined to the same correc-

tional facilities as adult inmates (Kuanliang et al., 2008).

Not surprisingly, the dramatic shift in juvenile justice policy is not without controversy. Scholars

have noted that adult institutions may promote criminal careers among juveniles, given that youth

are excluded from rehabilitative programs and confined with seasoned inmates (Kuanliang et al.,

2008). Although the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act requires sight and sound

separation of juvenile and adult inmates, contact between these groups still occurs (e.g., transporta-

tion to court, mealtime, and intake), which may put youth at risk for harmful outcomes such as vic-

timization and increase their likelihood of resorting to violence themselves (Austin et al., 2000;

Kuanliang et al., 2008).

Moreover, research suggests that juvenile transfer policies are often discriminatory in nature with

personal attributes rather than case characteristics influencing outcomes among youth transferred to

criminal court (Austin et al., 2000; Feld, 1998). In particular, scholars suggest that racial minorities

are disproportionately affected by juvenile transfer policies. Not only are racial minorities more

Tasca et al. 235

235