Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Formal social control in prisons: An exploratory examination of the custody classification process

  • Articles
  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aldrich, J.H. and F.D. Nelson. (1984). Linear probability, logit, and probit models.Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-045. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P.D. (1984). Event history analysis: regression for longitudinal event data.Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-046. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. (1983). Assessing the new generation of prison classification models.Crime and Delinquency 29: 561–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benda, B.B. (1982). Using statistical methods of prediction for classification purposes.Classification as a Management Tool: Theories and Models for Decision-Makers. College Park: American Correctional Association: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.P., A. Hamerle, & K.U. Mayer (1989).Event History Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, M.J., Jr. (1981). Inmate classification and the reduction of institutional violence.Classification. College Park: American Correctional Association: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, T. (1987). Classification: An overview of selected methodological issues.Prediction and Classification: Criminal Justice Decision Making. (Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 9:201-248). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, G.S., & J.A. Stone (1986). Effects of criminal punishment on perceived threat of punishment: toward an understanding of specific deterrence.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23(3): 207–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R.A., K.L. Whitlow, & J. Austin. (1986a). National evaluation of objective prison classification systems: The current state of the art.Crime and Delinquency 32(3): 272–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R.A., et. al. (1986b).An Evaluation of Objective Prison Classification Systems. 2nd Revised Draft. Correctional Services Group.

  • Carroll, G.R. (1983). Dynamic analysis of discrete dependent variables: A didactic essay.Quality and Quantity 17: 425–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffee, D. (1975).Correctional Policy and Prison Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J., & H. Jacob. (1977).Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. (1979).The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, D.R. (1984). A comparative study of the predictive validity of classification instruments. Unpublished paper, presented at the Congress of the American Correctional Association.

  • Gottfredson, S.D., & D.M. Gottfredson (1982). Risk assessment: an evaluation of statistical classification methods.Classification as a Management Tool-Theories and Models for Decision-Makers. College Park: American Correctional Association: 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, T.R., & N. Holt (1980). Correctional classification and the prediction of institutional adjustment.Criminal Justice and Behavior 7(1): 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R.B. (1982). The Federal system’s security designation/custody classification approach.Classification as a Management Tool: Theories and Models for Decision-Makers. College Park: American Correctional Association: 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magidson, J. (1981). Qualitative variance, entropy, and correlation ratios for nominal dependent variables.Social Science Research 10: 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megargee, E.I. 1977. Directions for further research.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4(2): 211–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W., & B. Rowan (1977). Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony.American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Corrections. (1982).Prison Classification: A Model Systems Approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Department of Correction. (1980–1984). Unpublished figures on prison capacity and census.

  • North Carolina Department of Correction. (1982). Unpublished reports on characteristics of the prison population.

  • North Carolina Department of Correction. (various years). Division of Prisons,Policy—Procedures.

  • Perrow, C. (1986).Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. (3rd edition) New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rans, L.L. (1984). The validity of models to predict violence in community and prison settings.Corrections Today 46(3): 50–51, 62–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, E.A. (1901).Social Control. New York: Macmillan. 1969. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. (1986).SUGI Supplemental Library User’s Guide, Version 5 Edition. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sendor, B. (ed.) (1985).North Carolina Crimes: A Guidebook on the Elements of Crime (3rd edition). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Institute of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick, J. (1975).Justice without Trial. (2nd edition) New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, L., & S.C. Baird (1982). Classification: Past failures, future potential.Classification as a Management Tool: Theories and Models for Decision-Makers. College Park: American Correctional Association: 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuma, N.B., & M.T. Hannan (1984).Social Dynamics: Models and Methods. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaupel, J.W., & A.I. Yashin (1985). Some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics.The American Statistician 39(3): 176–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, L.T. (1980). Problems with existing prediction studies and future research needs.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 71(2): 98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina

    Amy Craddock

Authors
  1. Amy Craddock
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research is partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice (86-IJ-CX-0015)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Craddock, A. Formal social control in prisons: An exploratory examination of the custody classification process. AJCJ 17, 63–87 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887630

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887630

Keywords