Escapes from Custody and Violence: A Critical Analysis 1 Bryce E. Peterson Adam G. Fera Jeff Mellow John Jay College/CUNY Graduate Center

Introduction  Armed Criminal Career Act (ACCA) of 1984  Firearm conviction + 3 prior violent felonies = 15 years  Crime is violent if it 1.has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or 2.is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. 2

Are escapes violent?  U.S. Courts of Appeal and USSC say YES!  Chambers v. U.S., 555 U.S. 122 (2009)  Failure to report does not qualify as violent felony  Distinct from “escape” “[E]very escape scenario is a powder keg, which may or may not explode into violence…” (U.S. v. Gosling, 1994) 3

Escape Research  Limitations of previous research  Old research  Non-rigorous studies  Intra-state trends, prisons, and in-facility escapes  No central definition of “escape ”  Circuit Courts and USSC called for more research  Sentencing Commission (2008)  Violence: Overall, during escape, during recapture  Found: secure escapes have more violence  Limitations: federal prisons, few factors 4

The Current Study 5  Examine the role of violence in prison escapes  Major objectives 1.Identify facility, inmate, and suspect-level factors associated with violent escapes from custody 2.Examine violence overall, during the incident, post- incident, and during recapture. 3.Create and test a predictive model of violent escapes

Data  Correctional Incident Database (2009)  Rigorous open-source search protocol (Freilich & Chermak, ECDB)  Facility, incident, and suspect data  Escapes: a loss of correctional control over an inmate in custody 6 AdvantagesDisadvantages Detailed informationNon-representative sample National dataBias Broader scopeMissing data Consistent definition

Analytic Approach 7 Steps 1.Analyze descriptive statistics 2.Identify trends 3.Create a predictive model of violent escapes using bivariate analyses 4.Test model using logistic regression

Escapes from Custody: Correctional Incident Database  Total numbers (2009)  608 suspects, 501 incidents, 400 facilities  Current Study  270 suspects, 223 incidents, 198 facilities 8 Violence During Escapes (n=270) FrequencyPercent During incident3111.5% Post-incident207.4% During recapture83% Overall4918.1%

Facility Classification by Overall Violence 9 Minimum/ Low Medium/ Maximum Jail No Violence % % % Violence3 4.5% % % Total67 100% % % Note: χ2 = , p <.01

Custody & Location by Overall Violence 10 Outside/ Unsecure Inside/ Unsecure Outside/ Secure Inside/ Secure No Violence % 32 97% % % Violence3 6.1% 1 3% % % Total49 100% % % % Note: χ2 = , p <.01

Other Factors  Other significant associations  Assistance received, plan, violent record, male facility, staff to inmate ratio, private facility, start time  Insignificant associations  Season, day of week, facility age, ACA accreditation, suspect age, race, gender, property record, percent capacity, adult facility 11

12 Variables in Predictive Models of Violent Escapes MeanStd. Dev.MinMaxn Dependent Variable Total Violence Independent Variables Age White Violent Record Escape Plan Secure Custody Inside Facility No Assistance ACA Accreditation Percent Capacity Minimum/Low Medium/Maximum Male Facility Staff to Inmate Ratio Private Facility

13 Models Predicting Violent Escapes Full ModelTruncated Model Odds Ratio Violent History7.14**2.72 * Escape Plan29.75**3.93* Secure Custody 4.96 † 4.49* Inside Facility.08**.22** ACA Accreditation † Staff to Inmate Ratio.62**-- Private Facility28.58** 5.48 † Note. Only statistically significant variables are shown. **p <.01, *p <.05, † p <.10 two-tailed Analysis 1: n= 140, Wald χ 2 =39.82, p<.001, Pseudo R 2 =.347 Analysis 2: n = 187, Wald χ 2 = , p<.001, Pseudo R 2 =.236

Discussion 14  Not much violence overall  Especially in non-secure settings  Data are biased TOWARD violence  Certain factors may lead to violence  Outside, secure custody, planning, violent records  Not all violence is equal  “shoving” ≠ murder

Conclusions 15  Implications  Longer sentences for inmates  Cost of incarceration  Overcrowding  Other sentencing enhancements  Future Research  More data collection  Violence at different points  Seriousness of violence

Contact info Bryce Peterson – Adam G. Fera - Jeff Mellow – 16