Do inmate survey data reflect prison conditions? using surveys to assess prison conditions of confinement

Prison Journal

Volumn 79, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 250-268

  Camp, Scott D ^a  

^a FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247361808     PISSN: 00328855     EISSN: 15527522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0032885599079002007     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Survey of inmates of federal correctional facilities. Interviews conducted by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.
3. Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Harer, M. D. (1997). Aggregating individual-level evaluations of the organizational social climate: A multilevel investigation of the work environment at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Justice Quarterly, 14(4), 739-761.
4. Camp, S. D., Saylor, W. G., & Wright, K. N. (1999). Creating performance measures from survey data: A practical discussion. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(1), 71-80.
5. DiIulio, J. J. (1987). Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York: The Free Press.
6. General Accounting Office. (1996). Private and public prisons: Studies comparing operational costs and/or quality of service. Washington, DC: Author.
7. Hatry, H. P., Brounstein, P. J., & Levinson, R. B. (1994). Comparison of privately and publically operated corrections facilities in Kentucky and Massachusetts. In G. W. Bowman, S. Hakim, & P. Seidenstat (Eds.), Privatizing correctional institutions (pp. 193-212). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
8. Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 655-673.
9. Lincoln, J. R., & Zeitz, G. (1980). Organizational properties from aggregate data: Separating individual and structural effects. American Sociological Review, 45, 391-408.
10. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
11. Logan, C. H. (1991). Well kept: Comparing quality of confinement in a public and a private prison. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
12. Mason, W. M., Wong, G. Y., & Entwisle, B. (1983). Contextual analysis through the multilevel linear model. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1983-1984 (pp. 72-103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, J. D. (Eds.). (1991). Schools, classrooms, and pupils: International studies of schooling from a multilevel perspective. San Diego: Academic Press.
14. Rountree, P. W., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32(3), 387-414.
15. Sechrest, D. K., & Shichor, D. (1994). Final report: Exploratory study of California's community correctional facilities. Parole and Community Services Division, California Department of Corrections.
16. Tennessee Select Oversight Committee on Corrections. (1995). Comparative evaluation of privately-managed corrections corporation of America prison (South Central Correctional Center) and state-managed prototypical prisons (Northeast Correctional Center, Northwest Correctional Center). Nashville, TN: Author.
17. Urban Institute. (1989). Comparison of privately and publicly operated correctional facilities in Kentucky and Massachusetts. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
18. Waite, P. J. (1997). 1997 SIFCF: Inmate sample selection. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
19. Wright, K. N. (1994). Effective prison leadership. New York: William Neil.