Inmate Assimilation - A Comparison of Male and Female Delinquents

• NCJ Number: 72273
• Journal: Criminal Justice and Behavior Volume: 7 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1980) Pages: 275-292
• Author(s): M T Zingraff
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 18 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Earlier version of this article was presented to the American Sociological Association in Chicago, 1977

Annotation

Variables from both the deprivation and importation models are analyzed in a multivariate design to ascertain which set of variables from both models best predicates prisonization, male and female adaptation to prison are compared, and the applicability of the prisonization models to assimilation in juvenile correctional facilities is explored.

Abstract

Data from self-administered survey questionnaires received from 267 male inmates of a juvenile institution and 137 female inmates of a female juvenile institution measured the following independent variables of the deprivation model: (1) general powerlessness, (2) organizational powerlessness, (3) priority of interpersonal contact, and (4) time incarcerated. The following independent variables from the importation model were measured: (1) social class or origin and race, (2) involvement in criminal behavior, (3) postrelease expectations, and (4) contact with free society. Findings indicate that the deprivation model of imprisonment is the better predictor of prisonization for juveniles of both sexes, especially for males. However, a more fruitful and comprehensive manner of evaluating the possible determinants of prisonization is to merge the significant variable from the importation and deprivation models into one predictor set. The resultant equation would contain the following variables: (1) prisonization, the dependent variable, (2) organizational powerlessness, (3) postrelease expectations, (4) race, and (5) general powerlessness. The findings also indicate that incarcerated female delinquents do adhere to a set of normative prescriptions and proscriptions, and that they do assimilate into an antisocial inmate subculture. Where there are differences between the female and male populations, they concern the particular determinants of the process of prisonization, not necessarily the pattern of assimilation itself. Six notes primarily on study methodology and 53 references are provided.