Sanctioning Practices and Institutional Climate - Subject Release
This measure appears in the following time-points: Release.
Related Construct
Description of Measure
The constructs assessed in this section of the release interview reflect important aspects of the institutional environment as identified in earlier work about conditions of confinement (Parent et al, 1994; Moos, 1997; Fagan, 1998). Constructs assessed can be split into two broad categories: 1) an accounting of the sanctioning practices of the facility and 2) an assessment of the institutional climate along several dimensions (e.g., safety, staff connectedness, organization, overall climate).
Sanctioning practices: A series of questions first establishes both the perceived and actual consequences of negative behavior within the institution. The subject is first asked to indicate the potential consequences if a resident were caught stealing, fighting, disrespecting staff, or trying to escape. The subject is then asked to indicate the number of times they were punished during their stay.
Institutional climate: Additional items assess the participant's perceived safety while at the institution (e.g., "I felt safe when a staff member was present", "I was afraid to come here"), staff negative behavior (e.g., "How often did you see the staff come to work drunk or high", "How often did you see the staff use racist comments towards residents"), staff connectedness (e.g., "Staff did a lot of individual counseling", "If a resident did well, the staff would tell him/her so personally"), organization (e.g., "The facility was always neat and clean", "We followed a regular schedule every day"), fairness (e.g., "Most of the staff were pretty fair", "The rules here were fair"), and overall institutional climate (e.g., "Staff encouraged residents to make life more pleasant for residents who did well", "Staff dealt fairly and squarely with all residents"). Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree".
The following scores are computed:
- Sanctions
- Proportion of potential consequences endorsed [r0sanc_prop]. The numerator is the number of potential consequences endorsed by the subject [r0sanc_count], and the denominator is the number of items for which the subject gives either a "yes" or "no" answer [r0sanc_denom]. This will either be 10 or 12, depending on the version in which the interview was conducted (refer to the Data Issues section for more information).
- Proportion of actual consequences [r0actualsanc_prop]. The numerator is the number of actual consequences endorsed by the subject [r0actualsanc_denom], and the denominator is the number of items for which the subject gives either a "yes" or "no" answer [r0actualsanc_count].
- Potential consequences for negative behavior by residents in the facility/program. Each of these will be set to "yes" if the subject endorses that consequence across any one of four types of negative behavior (stealing, fighting, disrespecting staff, trying to escape):
- Beaten up by staff [r0stfbt]
- Written up [r0stfwrt]
- Put in isolation [r0stfiso]
- Sent to a different unit/more secure unit [r0stfunit]
- Lost privileges [r0stflprv]
- Given extra duties [r0stfdty]
- Physically restrained [r0stfrestr]
- Given medication [r0stfmed]
- Expelled from the program [r0stfexpl]
- Transferred to a more secure program [r0stftrans]
- Have time added to sentence [r0stftime]
- Have new charges brought [r0stfchrg]
- Institutional Climate
- Safety within the facility - original [r0psafet_org]; mean of six items, five of which must contain valid data to receive a score. Two items are reverse-coded. A higher score indicates a feeling of being more safe.
- Staff negative behavior [r0cl_stng]; mean of four items. A higher score indicates more negative behavior from staff.
- Staff connectedness - original [r0clim2_org]; mean of 11 items, nine of which must contain valid data to receive a score. One item is reverse-coded. A higher score indicates a strong feeling of connection to the staff.
- Organization of the facility - original [r0clim1_org]; mean of eight items, six of which must contain valid data to receive a score. Two items are reverse-coded. A higher score indicates more organization.
- Fairness by staff and the institution [r0fr_gen]; mean of three items. A higher score indicates more fairness.
- Overall institutional climate - original [r0progrm_org]; mean of 19 items, 15 of which must contain valid data to receive a score. Three items are reverse-coded. A higher score indicates a more positive climate.
The following individual items are also available:
- Sanctions
- Number of times beaten up by staff [R0POp30]
- Number of times written up [R0POp31]
- Number of times put in isolation [R0POp32]
- Number of times suspended from the program [R0POp33]
- Number of times sent to a different unit [R0POp34]
- Number of times sent to a more secure program/sent to restrictive housing [R0POp35]
- Number of times lost privileges [R0POp36]
- Number of times given extra duties [R0POp37]
- Number of times physically restrained [R0POp38]
- Number of times given medication by staff [R0POp39]
- Number of times had time added to your sentence [R0POp70]
- Number of times had new charges brought against them [R0POp71]
Following data collection, a series of analyses were completed using a subset of the variables noted above. The intent of these analyses were to refine the items above into a set of psychometrically sound dimensions of organizational functioning (see Mulvey, Schubert and Odgers, 2010), and to determine whether or not individual perceptions along those dimensions influenced post-release behavior (see Schubert, Mulvey, Loughran, and Losoya, 2011). In an attempt to reduce confusion, we have written a separate codebook section (Dimensions of Organizational Functioning) to describe these refined dimensions. It should be noted, however, that some of the variable names included here are similar to those included in the refined dimensions codebook. As a result, we will explicitly describe how each variable listed above differs from the variables included in the Dimensions dataset.
Sanctions
- Proportion of potential consequences endorsed [r0sanc_prop]; not part of the dimensions
- Proportion of actual consequences [r0actualsanc_prop]; not part of the dimensions
- Potential consequences for negative behavior by residents in the facility/program [r0sanc_count]. The sanctions component of the harshness dimension is a count of the potential consequences endorsed. In the dimensions, this is left as a raw count, it is not a proportion
Institutional Climate
- Safety within the facility - original [r0psafet_org]. In the dimensions dataset, safety is a construct that is comprised of two components (perceived fear and exposure to violence). In contrast, this variable is a score based on the mean of six items which are more inclusive than those used to compute perceived fear.
- Staff connectedness - original [r0clim2_org]. In the dimensions dataset, staff connectedness is a component of the Institutional Order dimensions and uses only 10 of the 11 items that are included in the r0clim2_org variable.
- Organization of the facility - original [r0clim1_org]. In the dimensions dataset, overall organization is part of the Institutional Order dimension and is based on only three of the eight items used to compute r0clim1_org.
- Overall institutional climate - original [r0progrm_org]; not part of the dimensions.
Data Issues
Sanctions
- Two items (time added to sentence, and new charges brought) were added to the interview in version 01.18. Both items are used in the potential consequences proportion score (r0sanc_prop; cases before 01.18 will be based on a maximum of 10 items while those with 01.18 and later can have a maximum of 12), and the actual consequences score (r0actualsanc_prop; cases before 01.08 will be based on a maximum of eight items while those with 01.18 and later can have a maximum of 10).
- Put in isolation (r0pop32) and sent to a different unit (r0pop34) are only asked if the release interview is not conducted on a community based program (established by item R0CommProg; see the Interview Information codebook section for a full explanation of this variable). Note that this rule does not apply to the same items from the potential consequences section (r0stfiso and r0stfunit), which were asked of everyone regardless of the release facility type.
- Suspended from the program (r0pop33) and Sent to a more secure program (r0pop35) are only asked if the interview is conducted on a community based program (R0CommProg = Yes). Note that this rule does not apply to the same items from the potential consequences section (r0stfexpl and r0stftrans), which were asked of everyone regardless of the release facility type.
References
- Parent, D., Lieter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens, L., Wentworth, D., and Wilcox, S. (1994). Conditions of Confinement: juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Washington, DC: OJJDP.
- Fagan, J.A. (1998). Adolescent correctional interview. The correctional experience of adolescent felony offenders in adult and juvenile facilities. Unpublished instrument available from author.
- Moos, R. (1997). Evaluating treatment environments. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.