By Michelle Butler,, Catherine B. McName, Dominic Kelly

Despite its impact on imprisonment, no quantitative study has examined the factors related to people's status on prison incentive schemes. This study addresses this gap by using administrative data to explore the factors related to the status of 405 men on a prison incentive scheme. Results revealed that those who had a prior history of passing prison drug tests at time 1, and spent more time imprisoned during the follow-up period, were more likely to be on the highest level of the scheme one year later at time 2. In contrast, those who had a history of past involvement in misconduct, referrals for serious self-harm/attempted suicide in prison, not taken a prison drug test, property offences, and greater periods of custody at time  were more likely to be on the lower levels of the scheme at time . The potential implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.

  European Journal of Criminology 2024, Vol. 21(6) 887–907 

By Michelle Butler, Dominic Kelly, Catherine B. McNamee

Purpose: This study investigates whether men who engage in dual harm while imprisoned are disproportionately involved in committing misconduct during a 1-year follow-up period. It also examines whether dual harm is significantly associated with future involvement in misconduct, when other known risk factors for misconduct are considered, and whether this relationship varies depending on the type of misconduct examined.

Methods: Drawing on the administrative records of 430 men who were imprisoned during the 1-year follow-up period, a combination of descriptive statistics and negative binominal regressions was used to analyse the data.

Results: Roughly one-in-four men engaged in dual harm while imprisoned and were responsible for over half of all misconduct incidents recorded during the follow-up period. A significant relationship between dual harm, as well as violence-only harm compared to no harm, and future involvement in misconduct was also observed even when other known risk factors for misconduct were considered but only for violent and disorder-related misconduct, demonstrating this relationship varied by harm history and type of misconduct examined.

Conclusion: These findings address previous gaps in knowledge, advancing our understanding of the relationship between dual harm and misconduct. Possible explanations for why, compared to no-harm history, dual harm as well as violence-only harm was only related to violent and disorder-related misconduct are offered, alongside possible implications of this research for policy and practice.

Legal and Criminological Psychology Volume 29, Issue 1 Feb 2024