The Sociology of Contraband: Examining the Correlates of Illicit Drugs, Cellphones, and Weapons in U.S. Prisons

• Published date: 01 June 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00328855241240143
• Author: Bryce E. Peterson,Ki Deuk Kim,Rochisha Shukla
• Date: 01 June 2024

The Sociology of

Contraband: Examining

the Correlates of Illicit

Drugs, Cellphones, and

Weapons in U.S. Prisons

Bryce E. Peterson

1

, Ki Deuk Kim

2

,

and Rochisha Shukla

2

Abstract

Contraband negatively affects the safety and security of correctional institu-

tions. Extant research has relied on descriptive analyses or limited measures

of contraband. Drawing upon established theories of institutional misbehav-

ior—the deprivation model, importation model, and management perspec-

tive–the study examines facility-level and correctional population characteristic

correlates of contraband in 301 prisons across six U.S. states. Findings con-

f‌irm the relevance of individually examining risk factors by type of contra-

band, including drugs, cellphones, weapons, and total contraband. Lower

security prisons, prisons providing substance use treatment, and those

employing more women staff had fewer contraband drugs, weapons, and

cellphones. Providing outside work opportunities and work-release pro-

grams also reduced contraband weapons.

Keywords

prison contraband, institutional misbehavior models, facility type,

correctional population

1

CNA Corporation Center for Justice Research & Innovation, Arlington, VA, USA

2

Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Bryce E. Peterson, CNA Corporation Center for Justice Research & Innovation, 3003

Washington Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201, USA.

Email: petersonb@cna.org

Article

The Prison Journal

2024, Vol. 104(3) 365–389

© 2024 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855241240143

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Introduction

Prison contraband includes materials or items that are “unauthorized by the

formal prison administration”(Kalinich & Stojkovic, 1985, p. 440).

Peterson et al. (2023) further differentiated between contraband items that

are (a) prohibited in most settings (e.g., illicit drugs); (b) specif‌ically prohib-

ited in correctional facilities (e.g., cellphones, cigarettes, alcohol, money); (c)

prohibited in certain parts of a correctional facility (e.g., tools taken out of a

prison industry building); and (d) prohibited when modif‌ied in a way that

threatens the safety or security of the institution (e.g., materials turned into

weapons or used to make alcohol; see also Lincoln et al., 2006; Shukla

et al., 2021). Many of these items can be used by an incarcerated resident

to enact violence against staff or other residents, create illicit economies, rein-

force power dynamics, and facilitate criminal activities inside and outside the

facility (Centre for Social Justice, 2015; Dillon, 2001; Dittmann, 2019; Gore

et al., 1995; Grommon et al., 2018; Kalinich & Stojkovic, 1985; Peterson

et al., 2023; Pyrooz & Decker, 2019; Shukla et al., 2021; Swann & James,

1998; Turnbull et al., 1994; Wolff et al., 2007). It is therefore critical for cor-

rectional policymakers to understand the prevalence of prison contraband, as

well as the factors that may inf‌luence its levels within prisons and jails.

Despite its importance, there is limited empirical data and scholarly

research on prison contraband. Extant research tends to be based on partial

data and descriptive analysis (e.g., Lincoln et al., 2006; Peterson et al.,

2023), lacking suff‌icient information about what characteristics of the facility

or the resident population may explain contraband levels. In addition, studies

have typically examined a single type of contraband, or combined contraband

types into a single measure, ignoring the differences between distinct contra-

band categories (e.g., Berghuis et al., 2022; Bosma et al., 2020; Bucerius

et al., 2023; Dittmann, 2019; Grommon et al., 2018). For example, certain

population or environmental features may be conducive to the smuggling

of drugs, while other features may make it easier for inmates to create

weapons from materials inside the facility. Identifying which facility and pop-

ulation characteristics are associated with different types of contraband would

better inform policy decisions regarding contraband interdiction, creating

safer and more secure correctional environments.

To address these knowledge gaps, this article offers one of the f‌irst inves-

tigations of prison-level risk factors associated with various types of contra-

band. Drawing upon established theories of institutional misbehavior as the

foundation for the analytic models, the f‌indings have theoretical signif‌icance

for understanding the prevalence of contraband in correctional facilities and

offering practical implications for policy and practice.

366 The Prison Journal 104(3)