By Eliasar Herrera, DCJ
For decades, correctional scholars and practitioners have asked a critical question: Why do some incarcerated individuals engage in rule-breaking while others do not? Five leading theoretical models have attempted to answer this: importation, deprivation, management, situational and integrative perspectives. Each emphasizes different drivers of institutional misconduct, from individual characteristics to institutional conditions. [1,2]
This article highlights findings from my graduate research at Western Illinois University, which empirically tested one of the most influential explanations: the deprivation model and evaluated whether harsher prison conditions lead to more misconduct.
Understanding the deprivation model
Introduced by sociologist Gresham Sykes in “The Society of Captives,” the deprivation model argues that prison misconduct stems from the “pains of imprisonment.” These include loss of liberty, loss of autonomy, limited access to goods and services, threats to personal security and restrictions on meaningful relationships. [3]
According to this theory, higher-security prisons, with greater controls, more restrictions and fewer privileges should produce more frustration and ultimately more rule-breaking. Lower-security settings, by contrast, offer more freedom and opportunities, which should foster better adjustment and fewer infractions.
Study overview
To test this idea, I analyzed data from 369 adult federal inmates, comparing 179 high-security penitentiary inmates and 190 low-security camp inmates. [4] The expectation, consistent with deprivation theory, was straightforward: determine whether inmates in higher-security prisons commit more institutional rule violations than those in lower-security settings.
Key findings
The results did not support the deprivation model. Rates of misconduct did not significantly differ between high-security and low-security facilities.
This finding does not dismiss the pains of imprisonment. Instead, it highlights that behavior inside correctional settings is shaped by multiple factors, including individual characteristics, staff-inmate interactions, institutional culture, and daily routines. [1,5,6] In short, deprivation matters, but it is not the only driver of behavior.
Practical takeaways for corrections leaders
Fairness and consistency shape compliance
When policies and discipline are applied evenly, inmates are more likely to view staff as legitimate and follow direction. [7] Experienced staff recognize that perceived fairness often carries as much weight as formal authority.
Staff communication and professionalism matter
Officers who show respect, remain calm under pressure, and communicate clearly can prevent small issues from escalating into major incidents. [8] Day-to-day interactions set the tone for facility safety.
Meaningful programming reduces tension
Educational, work, visiting, and treatment programs target anger, impulse control, conflict resolution, and social support. These activities reduce boredom and frustration while promoting prosocial engagement. [1,5,6]
Risk-based housing decisions improve stability
Matching housing and supervision to individual risk and need reduces unnecessary tension while ensuring fair access to privileges, jobs, and programs. [1]
Facility design and supervision influence behavior
Clear sight lines, adequate lighting and visible staff presence reduce opportunities for violence and increase feelings of safety. [8]
Wellness and coping skills support adjustment
Counseling and structured activities help inmates manage stress, learn emotion regulation, and adjust to confinement more successfully. [5]
The larger takeaway is that security and fairness reinforce each other. Facilities that combine firm control with consistent communication, meaningful activities, and respect for human dignity tend to experience fewer incidents and a more stable atmosphere. [3] Prison behavior ultimately reflects both the structure of the institution and the choices of the individuals within, not deprivation alone.
Conclusion
The deprivation model remains an important theoretical framework for understanding inmate stress and frustration. [3] However, this study found no meaningful difference in misconduct rates between security levels, suggesting that deprivation alone does not drive behavior.
An integrative approach, one that considers institutional climate, staff professionalism, individual characteristics, and meaningful activity, provides a more accurate understanding of prison behavior. [5] As corrections continue to evolve, adopting research-informed strategies that recognize individual needs, facility dynamics, and environmental factors will be critical to promoting safety, fairness and rehabilitative success.
References
- Blevins KR, Listwan SJ, Cullen FT, Jonson CL. (2010). A general strain theory of prison violence and misconduct: An integrated model of inmate behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(2), 148–166.
- Steiner B, Butler D, Ellison M. (2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 462–470.
- Sykes GM. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton University Press.
- Van Voorhis P. (1986–1988). Psychological classification of adult male inmates in federal prison in Indiana (ICPSR 2370).
- French SA, Gendreau P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(2), 185–218.
- Levan K. (2012). Prison violence. Routledge.
- Steiner B, Wooldredge J. (2018). Understanding and reducing prison violence: An integrated social control–opportunity perspective. Routledge.
- Wortley R. (2002). Situational prison control: Crime prevention in correctional institutions. Cambridge University Press.
About the author
Dr. Eliasar Herrera serves as a Contract Oversight Specialist with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, overseeing compliance, contract performance, and community corrections operations. He is also an adjunct criminal justice instructor at Olive-Harvey College and Saint Xavier University. His research interests include prison behavior management, PREA-aligned practices and evidence-based correctional strategies. Dr. Herrera is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and holds a Doctor of Criminal Justice degree from Pennsylvania Western University. Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the BOP or Department of Justice.