Interpersonal Violence and Misconduct in Jails: An Empirical Investigation of Adverse Outcomes in the Los Angeles County Jail System, California, 2000-2018 (ICPSR 37822)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The main purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and trends in five types of adverse events that occurred in the Los Angeles county jail system over a 16-year time period (2000-2016), including interpersonal violence, institutional misconduct, inmate victimization, punitive segregation, and protective custody. This study also investigates if there are certain subgroups of inmates (e.g., women, minorities, youth, mentally ill) who are at an increased risk for experiencing any of these negative events and involves a series of multi-level analyses to assess what factors are associated with these unwanted outcomes. This information was then used to construct both a perpetration and a victimization risk assessment instrument, which was assessed for predictive accuracy across different subgroups of inmates.

To accomplish these objectives, this study addresses the following four research questions:

Research Question #1: How many inmates experience the following types of adverse events in jail: (1) serious/violent rule violations, (2) less serious/non-violent institutional misconduct, (3) violent victimization, (4) placement in punitive segregation, and (5) placement in protective custody? What is the trend in the occurrence of these events between 2000 and 2016?

Research Question #2: Are some subgroups of inmates (e.g., women, minorities, young, mentally ill) more likely to experience any of these five types of adverse events in jail?

Research Question #3: Is it possible to predict which inmates will experience any of these five types of adverse events in jail? Can risk assessment scales be developed to predict likelihood of perpetration and victimization of institutional violence? Are these two instruments predictively valid for the different subgroups of inmates (e.g., gender, race, youth, mentally ill)?

Research Question #4: What is the trend in the occurrence of these five types of adverse events across facilities between 2000 and 2016? Are some facilities/units more likely to have any of these five types of adverse events occur?

Study Design View help for Study Design

These study objectives were accomplished in four phases. In the first phase, administrative data was requested from the LASD Custody Support Services (CSS) Research, Planning, and Development Department. This process involved numerous emails, phone calls, and on-site discussions with an assigned departmental representative (i.e., a Sheriff's Deputy on special assignment for this project). Once an agreement was reached with the LASD administration, the data was transferred securely. The data obtained included information on inmate demographics, arraignment and booking charges, admission and release details, participant and incident information for institutional misconducts and new criminal charges while in custody. This data was sent in separate files by type of information and year (2000 through 2017). These numerous databases were then connected using a unique inmate identifier in preparation for empirical analysis.

In the second phase, 52 semi-structured interviews were conducted with a variety of custodial staff across the seven housing facilities and main administrative office to assess views on interpersonal violence and institutional misconduct within the Los Angeles county jail system. These interviews took place over a period of eight days during the summer of 2018. A convenience sampling method was used to identify participants, targeting individuals of different ranks and duties with a preference given to those with greater longevity in the LASD. Approximately two-thirds of the sample was male (n = 33) and the average length of service with the department was 16 years. The interviews focused on staff views about changes in the prevalence of institutional violence and other inmate rule violations within the jail system during their time with the department. Staff were also asked if there were any specific events or changes in policy they felt had an influence on levels of violence/misconduct, what current practices they thought were effective at keeping levels of violence/misconduct down, and what other strategies they would recommend for reducing violence/misconduct even further. This information was used to direct the empirical analyses in the next phase and the interviews lasted on average about 28 minutes.

In phase three, data on incidents of violence were obtained from the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS) and information on incidents of misconduct were retrieved from the Inmate Reporting Tracking System (IRTS). The observation period for the time series data began in January 2010 and ended in December 2017.The time series analyses examines the systemwide monthly rates of violence and misconduct over the eight-year (or 96 month) observation period. It then assessed if the policies/events identified in the staff interviews correspond as anticipated with changes in the rates of these adverse outcomes over time. Finally, it explored if the qualitative information gathered from the interviews can explain how these policies/events have influenced violence and misconduct in the jail system. More specifically, the individual-level data was aggregated to test whether shifts in inmate demographics, criminal history, and other pertinent characteristics align with the staff predictions and help interpret the results.

In the fourth phase, two risk assessment tools--the Inmate Risk Assessment for Perpetration (IRAP) and the Inmate Risk Assessment for Victimization (IRAV)--were developed to proactively identify the perpetrators and victims of interpersonal violence in jail, respectively. The subjects used to construct and test these instruments were an admission cohort of all adjudicated inmates entering the Los Angeles County jail system in 2016 (N = 104,919). This population of inmates was randomly assigned into one of four groups. The first was the construction sample (n = 26,404), which was used to create the risk assessment scales, and the other three served as cross-validation samples (Validation Sample 1: n = 26,322, Validation Sample 2: n = 25,934, Validation Sample 3: n = 26,259). Additional analyses were also conducted to evaluate the predictive accuracy and reliability of these two instruments among inmate gender and race subgroups.

Sample View help for Sample

The subjects used to construct and test these instruments were an admission cohort of all adjudicated inmates entering the Los Angeles County jail system in 2016 (N = 104,919). This population of inmates was randomly assigned into one of four groups. The first was the construction sample (n = 26,404), which was used to create the two risk assessment scales, and the other three served as cross-validation samples, which each served to evaluate the predictive accuracy and reliability of these instruments.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

Inmates in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department jail system

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

These data feature two datasets. The first is an aggregate-level datafile with monthly information on the number and rate of incidents of interpersonal violence and serious institutional misconduct in the Los Angeles County Jail System from January 2010 to December 2017. The second is an individual-level datafile with information on an admission cohort of inmates entering the Los Angeles County Jail System in 2016 (N = 104,919). This dataset includes information on inmate demographics, criminal history, and other measures of institutional behavior.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

IRAP = Inmate Risk Assessment for Perpetration

IRAV = Inmate Risk Assessment for Victimization

COMPAS = Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2021-07-29

Weight View help for Weight

Not applicable.