Prison Crowding Research Reexamined

Dramatic increases in the United States' inmate population has raised new concerns about prison crowding. Although growth in prison capacity has lagged slightly behind that of the inmate population, there is no consistent evidence that crowding is associated with mortality, morbidity (defined as clinic utilization), recidivism, violence, or other pathological behaviors. This paper reviews the major areas in which prison crowding has been examined. Conceptual, methodological, and empirical criticisms are raised concerning prison crowding and the areas of health, violence, and recidivism. The paper is divided into five sections: I. the political and social context of prison crowding research; II. ecological versus individual level differences in crowding; III. theoretical and empirical problems associated with violence and its relation to crowding; IV. an analysis of inmate illness reporting and its relation to crowding; and V. the degree to which the literature points to consistency in results both within the prison and across other crowded settings. Among several issues discussed in section I, the criteria 2 suggested by Thornberry and Call (1983) for deciding prison crowding suits are evaluated. It is concluded that the first criterion, that the courts first consider general evidence on the relationship between crowding and debilitation, cannot be met, based on the extant crowding literature. In the area of violence, it is argued that most prison crowding studies do not clearly examine the relationship of intervening mechanisms proposed by theorists to account for the relationship between crowding and violence, if and when a relationship is found. Furthermore, it is suggested that one reason underlying the inconsistency in the results of these studies is that researchers have failed to examine the proximal causes of violence and the formal mechanisms prison administrators use to control or limit violence. With regard to health, it is argued that the most demonstrative finding, that dormitories are associated with higher illness reporting rates than are other types of housing, is probably an artifact of selection bias. Furthermore, illness reporting is the result of a complex set of circumstances that is affected as much by psychological and sociological causes as by the health status of the inmate. Thus, despite the prevailing sentiments about the harmful effects of crowding, there is little consistent evidence supporting the contention that shortor long termimpairment of inmates is attributable to prison density. One reason for this may be that researchers have failed to consider management interventions under periods of high confinement, and have failed 3 to account for conditions other than crowding that affect inmate debilitation.