Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium.

              1998 Research http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/OCJRC97-98 ...
C 5700.6 J860 V. 4 1997
c. 1
1997 /1998 Oklahoma Criminal Justice
Research Consortium Journal
Table of Contents
(in Adobe Acrobat PDF format)
From the Editor
Dan Lawrence
Dedication
Section I
Forward
Susan Marcus-Mendoza
A Brief History of Women in Oklahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees
Philip D. Holley and Dennis Brewster
Sentencing Patterns of Oklahoma's Female Commitments: 1985-1995
Patti J. Flanagan
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma: A Preliminary Analysis
Marcus E. Martin and Melissa Stimpson
Gender Differences in the Impact of Incarceration on the Children and Families of Drug
Offenders
Susan F. Sharp, Susan T. Marcus-Mendoza, Robert G. Bentley, Debra B. Simpson, and
Sharon R. Love
The Importance of Using a Gender Analysis to Understand Women in Prison
Lori B. Girsctiick
Section II
An Application of Control Balance Theory to Incarcerated Sex Offenders
Peter B. Wood and R. Gregory Dunaway
A Summary of the Report of the 1994 Racial Balance Committee
11712004 lO:24 AM
998 Research http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/OCJRC97-98 ...
John K. Cochran and Patricia Bell
Assessing Prison Personnel's Knowledge of the Aging Process
James L. Knapp and Kenneth B. Elder
A Drug Offenders' Treatment at Bill Johnson Correctional Center
Harjit S. Sandhu
An Examination of the Effectiveness of GEDPrograms Within the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections
Philip D. Holley and Dennis Brewster
Section III
The First Annual National Conference on Public Strategies.for Private Prisons
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private Versus Public Prisons in Louisiana
William G. Archambeault and Donald R. Deis, Jr.
Monitoring and Accountability
David D. Bachman
Out for Bid: Incorporating Quality in Private Prison Contracts
Michael J. Gilbert
Seeking Balance: How Much Privatization is Enough
Michael J. Gilbert
Technical Assistant Report. NICTechnical Assistance No. 98P1006
Charles W. Thomas
Conference Evaluation Summary for Public Strategies for Private Prisons November 1997
Fran M. Ferrari
Book Review
Michael D. Connelly
Book Review
Philip D. Holley
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
[ 1::L()!11e ] [_lJR] [ QSJRC 122_4 Journal Table of ContelJJ~ ] [ OCJRC 1995 Journal Table of Contents]
1/7/2004 10:24 AM
998 Research http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/OCJRC/OCJRC97-98 ...
[OCJRC 1996 Journal Table of Contents] [OCJRC 1997/1998 Journal Table of Contents]
1/7/2004 10:24 AM
From the Editor
By Dan Lawrence
It is with considerable sadness and regret on my part
that I announce that this effort represents the last edition
of the Journal. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections
decided to withdraw material support of the Oklahoma
Criminal Justice Resource Consortium (Consortium) in
1998. That meant the elimination of funding for outside
research-the "stuff' of the Journal, the financial support
for publishing and distributing the Journal, and the staff
time (mostly me) to coordinate the Consortium's efforts
and edit the Journal.
Subsequently no one or agency has stepped forward
to pick up the banner. The result is that the Consortium
has ceased to function. Relationships and collaborations
fostered by Consortium activities still exist to some extent,
but natural attrition has likewise cut into that reservoir to
talent and expertise.
It is gratifying to still receive requests for Journals
from around the country and occasional inquiries about
the Consortium itself. Several states have expressed
interest in a similar organization, but I am unaware of one
functioning as such. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine
have preliminarily entered into an agreement to sponsor
"JusticeWorks: A Northern New England Consortium for
the Study of the Prevention and Control of Crime," to be
administered from the University of New Hampshire.
I am told that some of the impetus for JusticeWorks
may have come from our model and experience through
the efforts of Consortium friend and supporter Bob
Kirchner of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Mike
Connelly. Mike is one ofthe Consortium's "plankholders,"
was at ACJS at the time of the JusticeWorks discussions,
and is now head ofthe Maryland sentencing commission.
So, if the Consortium has a legacy beyond the Journal,
Justice Works may be it.
Without the efforts and support of my then
administrator, Bill Chown, the Consortium could not have
lasted as long as it did. He gave me the freedom and
support that was needed to bring the Consortium and
Journal as far as it was able to go. His expertise as a
researcher helped steer the Consortium in the direction it
went and to define its research agenda. Bill and Bud Clark
spent hours and days assisting Consortium researchers
gain access to agency databases so that their research
could be meaningful. Bob Zapffe was our first
"webrnaster" and made it possible to get the early journals
on line. Leslie Dyer has continued in that role and is now
assisting us in putting this last work on the Internet.
The concept for the Consortium seems to have been
born somewhere among the collective imaginations and
efforts of Owen Modeland, Cliff Sandel, and Bill Segall.
Bill Segall and John Cochran were the first Co-chairs of
the Consortium and helped it through its infancy. I am
forever in John Cochran's debt for his friendship and
encouragement in pursuing my dream of the Journal.
Long time Consortium Co-chairs Howard "Bud" Kurtz
and Harjit Sandhu were equally supportive and made
coordinating Consortium activities and research much
easier. Susan Marcus-Mendoza was also a long time
member, researcher, supporter, and Co-chair-replacing
Harjit when he left us for San Francisco. I appreciate her
suggestions for and assistance in preparing this edition's
special section pulling together five years of research on
women in prison, an admittedly neglected area of criminal
justice and criminological research that is gaining in
interest and importance.
The executive committee and editorial board played
pivotal roles in the success of the Consortium and Journal
respectively, and are individuals too numerous to mention
here. If you want to see who they are, look at those
sections in this and previous Journals. I especially want
to thank those editorial board members who cheerfully
accepted yet another task within their already busy
schedules. They provided the encouragement, critiques,
and insights without which the Journal would not have
been possible. The general membership, without which
an organization cannot really exit, were supportive and
interested throughout the enterprise and the Consortium
continuously drew researchers and leadership from it.
I cannot neglect thanking the Department of
Corrections staff who assisted in the actual preparation
and distribution of the Journal. The last mailing amounted
to some 2400 journals all over the U.S. and several foreign
countries. Barbara Collier did the media work for all four
journals. Her ability to put up with my deadlines and to
intuit what I really wanted, rather than what I sometimes
said I wanted, is heartily appreciated and not to be
underestimated.
Bob Greear in the mailroom annually had to sort
hundreds of journals by zip code, get them bound (each
one by hand), and mailed. This was a task that grew
annually and was much more daunting that I originally
imagined. Dorothy McCune, now retired, had the patience
and persistence to get all of the editions of the Journal
printed in-house on the department's DocuTech machine.
Finding out what type of paper and cover materials the
machine would "digest" and how to format and assemble
the journals was interesting to say the least. As long as I
stayed out of Dorothy's way, everything went pretty well.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
From the Editor Lawrence
Carol Wekar maintained the various Consortium
mailing lists, kept them up to date, and sorted out so that
we could tell who was who and where they were. Debbie
Boyer assisted greatly in helping proofread and format
the first two editions. By the time she was no longer able
to assist, due to the press of other responsibilities, we had
enough experience with design, format, and layout to carry
on.
This particular edition will be published on line and
will not be available in hardcopy. This will enable us to at
least make the fruits of the most recent research labors
available to those interested in such things. One of the
reasons that this last edition has taken so long is that I
have had other duties and unti I recently had little time to
devote to it. I apologize to all of the authors who have
waited so patiently for so long. Thank you for your
understanding and forbearance.
The Consortium and the Journal were, for me at least,
a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something I consider
extremely worthwhile, perhaps the highlight of a 36 year
career in public service. I was able to meet some very
interesting and inspiring people, attend conferences at
places I otherwise would have not had the opportunity to
visit, and experience some aspects of academic life not
normally available to those of us in the field. The result
was that I was able to feel firmly and comfortably rooted in
both worlds and, for a time and with considerable
assistance, to help bridge the gap between the two in a
small way.
I continue to believe that what Ben Franklin said at
the time of the signing of the Declaration ofIndependence
holds true for criminal justice practitioners and academics
today as well. "If we don't hang together, we shall all
certainly hang separately."
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Forward
By Susan Marcus-Mendoza
Department Chair and Associate Professor of Hum an Relations and Women's Studies, University of Oklahoma
I am pleased to be coediting this special section on
female inmates in Oklahoma with Dan Lawrence. The plight
of female inmates has been of great concern to me since
my employment as a psychologist in a federal prison for
women. My work with incarcerated women poignantly
illustrated to me how such social problems as violence
against women, unemployment, illiteracy, and drug abuse
effect individuals and families. Over the past five years,
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) has
sponsored research on numerous criminal justice topics
including female inmates, correctional programming, crime
victims, and escapes. This section highlights some ofthe
research on female inmates conducted in Oklahoma.
Understanding female inmates has been a significant
focus of this journal since its inception. Due to the
increasing rate of incarceration of women in Oklahoma,
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections has sponsored
research on female inmates in the form of research grants
which have been distributed through the Oklahoma
Criminal Justice Research Consortium. This journal
publishes the results of the research which the consortium
sponsors as well as other research conducted in Oklahoma
or of interest to the criminal justice community in the state.
In the first three editions of the journal, female inmates
were the topic of nine articles, most of which reported
research sponsored by the Department of Corrections.
The inaugural volume contained five articles about female
inmates. The articles profiled women incarcerated in
Oklahoma, examined the reason's behind Oklahoma's high
incarceration rate of women, and explored women on death
Due to the increasing rate of incarceration
of women in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections has sponsored
research onfemale inmates ...
row, and examined women's histories of substance abuse
and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Those five
articles became part of a book entitled Women in prison in
Oklahoma: Aforgotten population (Fletcher, Shaver, &
Moon, 1993) which explored the growing population of
incarcerated women in Oklahoma. Subsequent volumes
of the journal have updated that profile, looked at specific
correctional programs for women, and explored judges'
attitudes towards female offenders. Many articles that
were not specifically about female inmates featured
research in which included both female and male inmates.
Consequently, the Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice
Research Consortium has greatly contributed to our
knowledge about female inmates.
Past research published in this journal has
demonstrated that women in prison in Oklahoma are similar
to incarcerated women in other states (Snell and Morton,
1994; Owen & Bloom, 1995). Female inmates in Oklahoma
are likely to single mothers who have experienced abuse,
poverty, and drug use. They are likely to have been
convicted of drug or property crimes and are likely to be
incarcerated for the first time. Since they were primary
caretakers for their children, their children are probably
not living with either parent but with other family members
such as grandparents. As is the trend nationwide, Black
women are overrepresented in Oklahoma's prison. Further,
female inmates in Oklahoma are under-educated and feel
As is the case with much research, the more
we learn, the more questions we have to
answer.
that they need more education and vocational training to
make a successful transition out of prison. Unfortunately,
the scope and availability of programming in Oklahoma's
prisons and correctional centers vary greatly and tend to
be understaffed and unable to address all the needs to the
numerous women incarcerated in Oklahoma.
ODOC has made some strides in its effort to address
the needs offemale inmates. In 1997, ODOC formed a task
force whose mission is "to address, review, and offer
recommendations in all programmatic and operational areas
provided in department policies and procedures that may
affect or impact female offenders." This task force is
comprised ofODOC staff from different areas of the state
who work with and are concerned with female offenders.
We hope that this task force will indeed improve the
situation of women incarcerated in Oklahoma both while
they are incarcerated and after their release.
The five articles in this special section of the journal
will hopefully fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge
about women in prison in Oklahoma and make some
recommendations for the future research. The first article,
by Philip Holley and Dennis Brewster, addresses the
history of female incarceration in Oklahoma. Although
past articles have discussed the recent incarceration of
women in Oklahoma, none had explored previous trends.
Therefore, this article gives us a piece of the historical
context in which to understand this phenomenon. The
Holley and Brewster article also informs us about women
who were influential in the corrections system in
Oklahoma, many of whom have correctional centers named
for them (e.g., Mabel Bassett, Kate Barnard, and Clara
Waters). The second article, by Patricia Flanagan, looks
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Forward Marcus-Mendoza
at sentencing patterns for female inmates in Oklahoma
from 1985-1995. The article by Marcus Martin and Melissa
Stimpson also looks at sentencing trends, but focuses on
racial bias in sentencing in Oklahoma. The next article, by
Susan Sharp and I, examines the differential impact of
incarceration on the families of male and female inmates
from the perspective of the inmates. The section ends
with a treatise by Lori Girschick on the need for continued
gendered research on women in prison.
The research on female inmates represented here and
in the past volumes of the journal has been useful and
informative but is far from complete. As is the case with
much research, the more we learn, the more questions we
have to answer. However, the cooperative partnership
between the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and
Oklahoma's universities and colleges have made a
significant dent in understanding issues and formulating
solutions. In the future, the Consortium will be university-based
and its partnership with the ODOC will be a less
formal one. As we make this transition, we wish to thank
the ODOC personnel who formed, supported, and
participated in the consortium. In particular, we are deeply
indebted to Dan Lawrence, Bill Chown, and Cliff Sandel
for their hard work and commitment. We look forward to
continuing the professional and productive collaboration
with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections that has
been fostered over the last five years.
References
Snell, T. L., and Morton, D. C. (1994, March). Special
report: Women in prison.' Survey of state prison inmates.
(Report No. NCJ-145321). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Fletcher, B. R., Shaver, L. D., & Moon, D. G. (Eds.).
(1993). Women offenders in Oklahoma: A forgotten
population. New York: Praeger Press.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections Policies and
Procedure Manual OP-09050J Female Offender Task
Force. Oklahoma City: Author.
Owen, B., & Bloom, B. (1995). Profiling women
prisoners: Findings from national surveys and a California
sample. The Prison Journal, 72(2), 165-185.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
A Brief History of Women in Oklahoma Corrections:
Inmates and Employees
By Philip D. Holley and Dennis Brewster
Abstract
The paper provides a briefhistory ofwomen=-both
offenders and employees within the adult criminal
justice system in the state ofOklahoma. Generally using
the periods ofSt atehood (/900-/909). the Traditional
(/9/0-/979). and the Contemporary (/980 to the
present), we examined historical development 0/
Oklahoma Department ofCorrections (ODOC)./aci/llies
lor lvomen, incarceration dat a, and selected
characteristics ofthese offenders
The contribution of women to Oklahoma's early
history ofcorrections is documented in the work ofKate
Barnard, Mabel Bassett, and Clara Waters. Additional
information is provided with regard to the role a/women
in the present era in leadership positions as well as
correctional officers and case management staf]. II is
clear that contemporary employees provide valuable
services and leadership as did their predecessors.
INTRODUCTION
While women have been incarcerated in America
throughout the last two centuries, their numbers have
been quite small and their presence largely considered
insignificant by the public and by correctional
administrators. The history of the unique, differential,
and inferior treatment of women inmates in the U.S. and
other countries has been chronicled elsewhere (Burkhart,
1973; Dobash, Dobash, & Gutteridge, 1986; Giallornbardo,
1966; Greenfield & Minor-Harper, 1991; Muraskin &
While perhaps not widely recognized, the state
of Oklahoma has distinguished itself through
its inclusion of women in leadership positions
as well as at lower level staff positions.
Alleman. 1993; Pollock-Byrne, 1990; Price & Sokoloff, 1995;
Serna, 1992; Snell. 1994; Welch, 1996). Limited historical
information was available for specific states.
Since the numbers of female offenders in Oklahoma
have been small until recently, the most unique feature of
these women was perhaps their invisibility. In the last few
years increased attention has been directed toward the
characteristics of women offenders and their needs,
particularly as their numbers have increased and as the
state has struggled to deal with overpopulation and related
matters.
Compared to other states, Oklahoma is a relatively
young state. Despite its youth, the state of Oklahoma has
distinguished itself in several respects with regard to its
correctional system in general and in specific the women
within that system. That especially has been the case
with regard to women who have served as leaders within
the corrections field. While perhaps not widely
recognized, the state of Oklahoma has distinguished itself
through its inclusion of women in leadership positions as
well as at lower level staff positions.
... the remaining six had been convicted of
adultery.
The purpose of this paper is 10 provide a briefhistory
of women within the adult criminal justice system of the
state of Oklahoma. Specifically, the mission is two fold.
First, we sought to examine women inmates throughout
the state's history. That section describes the facilities
holding women inmates and it also sets out selected
characteristics of those inmates in all time periods. Second.
we also explored the role of women as administrators and
lower level staff from Statehood to the present.
WOMEN OFFENDERS
This section will review the history of women
offenders in Oklahoma: (I) prior to and at Statehood,
about 1900-1909; (2) during the traditional period, roughly
defined as the period from 1910-1979; and, (3) the
contemporary period, since 1980 within the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections (ODOC) (using Connelly &
Holley, 1993). Readers should refer also to Marcus-
Mendoza and Briody (1996), Brewster and Holley (1997),
Holley and Brewster (I 996a, I 996b), Fletcher, Rolison, and
Moon (1994) for additional information on contemporary
era Oklahoma female offenders.
Limited information was available about this period.
Sandhu (1991) indicated that Oklahoma's women offenders
were contractually incarcerated at the Kansas State
Penitentiary at Lansing, along with juvenile boys and adult
male inmates, during the territorial period. Apparently the
number was small, since fewer than 10 females were
returned when Oklahoma inmates were brought back to
the state.
Joumal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
A Brief History of Women in Oktahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees Holley & Brewster
Connelly and Holley (1993) sampled 1002 cases from
1800 cases of male and female inmates available for the
years 1900-1909. Seventeen of the cases were females,
which represented 1.6% of all cases (although those data
were sequentially grouped within the records and may
not have been representative of the population). Of those
17 cases, two were serving sentences for murder, three for
manslaughter, one for robbery, one for burglary, two for
forgery, and two for larceny. Significantly, the remaining
six had been convicted of adultery.
This location was consistent with the general
practice throughout the U.S. of including a
women's unit within the male penitentiary
complex ...
Women were initially housed" .. on the top floor of
the administration section at Oklahoma State Penitentiary
[OSP]" (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1974, p. 40).
Apparently those accommodations were inadequate.
According to Sandhu (1991), "the first female ward at
McAlester was built near the east gate around 1911 "(p. 5).
The 1973 Annual Report indicated this facility was a
converted "rock warehouse" located " ... one-half mile
[sic] east of the main prison walls" (Oklahoma Department
of Corrections, 1974, p. 40). This location was-consistent
with the general practice throughout the U.S. of including
a women's unit within the male penitentiary complex
(Friedman, 1993; Morris & Rothman, 1995). In 1912, this
facility held seven females.
The Tradjtjonal period
The first housing for women was replaced by a new
structure completed in 1926/1927, which was located near
OSP on the grounds of what is now the Jackie E. Brannon
Correctional Center (Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
1974). By the end of 1927. Oklahoma had 61 female inmates
(Sandhu, 1991). During 1931, 63 inmates were received
into the system, while 65 were discharged. During 1935,
83 inmates were received and 88 were discharged
(Oklahoma State Planning Board. 1936).
By 1939, female inmates numbered 90 (Oklahoma
Planning and Resources Board, 1939). It is perhaps
worthwhile to note that the State Industrial School for
White Girls housed 225 inmates in 1935, while the State
Training School for Negro Girls held 41 (Oklahoma State
Planning Board, 1936). By 1949, there were 38 women (23
White and 15 Black) incarcerated at the penitentiary
(Sandhu, 1991).
In 1971, "a building situation about a mile [to the
west] from OSP. . was converted into a second women's
ward to alleviate a serious overcrowding problem"
(Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1974, p. 30). The
Women's Ward I held 130 inmates during that year. By
Fiscal Year (FY) 1973, the average daily female population
was 133 for both Ward! and Ward II. Furthermore, during
that year, 122 women were discharged and 104 were
received.
By 1974, the Mabel Bassett Correctional Center
(MBCC), initially serving as a Community Treatment Center
(CTC) and later as a medium/maximum security women's
prison, was opened in Oklahoma City. The average daily
population for FY 1978 was 125 for OSP, 76 for MBCC, and
25 for the Horace Mann CTC in Tulsa (Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, 1979). By 1981, there were 154
women at OSP and MBCC and III at the two CTCs-
Horace Mann and Clara Waters in Oklahoma City
(Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1982).
The women's unit at McAlester was closed in FY
1982 (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1983).
Construction added beds to MBCC, so that at the end of
FY 1982, the facility had a count of 155. The two CTCs
accounted for another 38 and 90 women, respectively.
During the Traditional period (1910-1979), women
TABLE!
Sentence Length and Time Served For Selected Crimes
in Oklahoma by Sex During the Traditional Period, in
Percentages
Women Men
Crime
Time
Sentence Served
<2 years <2 years
Sentence
<2 years
Time
Served
<2 years
Assault 70 75 45 78
Burglary 60 76 45 67
Larceny 65 75 62 79
Auto theft 77 100 60 80
DUI 100 75 77 90
represented 3.5% of the inmate population (Connelly &
Holley, 1993). They found that females were more likely
than males to have had shorter sentences and serve less
time. Specifically, nearly 60% had a sentence less than
two years, while approximately 5% received a sentence of
over 10 years. Over 75% of women inmates served less
than two years, while less than 2% served over 10 years.
Considering the decades between 1910 and 1979,
significant trends were revealed in the examination of
sentence length and time served. During this time period,
women were less likely to have received sentences of one
year or less (29.9%) and more than 20 years (2.8%), but
more likely to have received sentences of one to 20 years
(66.3%). They were also less likely to have served between
one and 10 years (46.7%) and more than 10 years (1.6%),
but were more likely to have served less than one year
(51.6%).
Selected crimes during the traditional period provided
a basis for comparison of male and female offenders.
Connelly and Holley (1993) found nearly 70% of women
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4. August 1997/1998
A Brief History of Women in Oklahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees Holley & Brewster
had received less than two years for a sentence of assault,
with over 75% having served less than two years. Forty-five
percent of males likewise received a sentence of less
than two years, and over 78% of them served less than
two years for the same crime.
Treatment of women was found to have been
different from men in that generally women
received shorter sentences and served less time.
For the crime of murder, 100% of women received a
sentence of over 20 years, while 97% of males received a
sentence of over 20 years. All of the women (100%) had
served a sentence of between two and five years, while
two-thirds of males served between two and five years.
Manslaughter convictions involved sentences of between
two and 10 years for over 70% of the women (compared to
47% of men) and about the same percentages of women
and men (63% and 60%, respectively) served that period
of time.
When convicted of robbery, over 83% of women had
received a sentence between two and 10 years, compared
to 53% of men. About 60% of the women had served a
sentence of between two and 10 years compared to over
67% of the men.
Over 60% of women had received a sentence of less
than two years for burglary, while over 76% had served
less than two years. For men, 45% had received such a
sentence, yet 67% served this sentence. Considering
larceny, 65% had received a sentence of less than two
years, while over 75% had served less than two years,
compared to 62% and 79%, respectively, for men. Motor
vehicle theft-related offenses involved 77% of sentences
for women less than two years compared with 60% of
men. All the women served less than two years, compared
to 80% of men.
The results of the Connelly and Holley (1993) research
revealed that "Driving Under the Influence" (DUI)
offenses involved sentences of less than two years for all
of the women, compared to 77% of men. Seventy-five
percent of the women served less than two years compared
to 90% for the men.
In summary, this period was marked by expansion
both in terms of facilities and correspondingly in
population. Treatment of women was found to have been
different from men in that generally women received
shorter sentences and served less time.
The CoutempOUlJ)' perjod
From 1982 on, Mabel Bassett Correctional Center has
served as the multi-security level facility-including
medium, maximum security, and death row-for women
within ODOC (Sandhu, 1991). While it had a rated capacity
of 181, as a result of double ceiling, it had usually held
nearly twice that number of inmates. On June 30,1997, for
instance, it held 332 inmates (Oklahoma Department of
Corrections, I998a). As facilities opened, the population
of women inmates across the state correspondingly
increased (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1998b).
The Dr. Eddie Warrior Correctional Center opened in
1988 as a minimum security facility and had a population
of583 on June 30,1997. Opened in 1977, the Kate Barnard
Community Corrections Center', held 157 women in 1997.
Also opened in 1977, the Tulsa Community Corrections
Center, held 129 women. The Hollis Community Work
Center opened in 1993 and by 1997 held 37 women. Other
women were held while being processed through the
Lexington Assessment and Reception Center (LARC),
while yet others were housed in contract facilities in Texas.
In all facilities, there were slightly over2000 female inmates
in ODOC custody as of June 30, 1997 (Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, 1998c).
Oklahoma had the highest female
incarceration rate-J 5 per J 00, 000
population-of all the states at the end of 1996
At the end of 1996, of all offenders incarcerated in
Oklahoma, 9.9% were women (Mumola & Beck, 1997).
Historically, women have represented from 4-6% of the
total population in state and federal institutions (Bureau
of Justice Statistics, 1997).
Oklahoma had the highest female incarceration rate-
15 per 100,000 population--ofall the states at the end of
1996 (with 119 the highest overall rate was in the District
of Columbia). That was compared to Oklahoma's 1995
TABLE 2
Sentence Length and Time Served For Selected Crimes
in Oklahoma by Sex During the Contemporary Period,
in Percentages
Women Men
Crime
Time
Sentence Served
<2 years <2 years
Sentence
<2 years
Time
Served
<2 years
Assault 51 84 34 77
Burglary 46 86 38 83
Larceny 46 94 43 91
Auto theft 35 100 43 89
DUI 57 99 50 99
overall incarceration rate of 552, ranking significantly
above the national mean rate of 427 and ranking 5" among
the states (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). See also
Sandhu, Al-Mosleh, and Chown (1994) for a discussion of
Oklahoma's high incarceration rate for women.
'[Community treatment centers became known as community
corrections centers in 1991 Ed.]
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
A Brief History of Women in Oklahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees Holley & Brewster
According to ODOC, female receptions as a percent
of all receptions has increased from 7.9% in FY 1980 to
12.3% in FY 1990 to 17.7% in FY 1997 (Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, 1998d). Receptions in 1997
included 52% drug offenses, 15.3% for fraud, and 10.7%
for larceny (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1998e).
... sentences and time served for men and
women have become more similar ...
Examining the Connelly and Holley (1993) findings
for the contemporary period (the population consists of
offenders released during 1980-1992, females represented
I0.7%(N=4,002) of all inmates, a substantial increase over
the traditional period. Forty-one percent of women
received sentences of less than two years, while 37% of
men received such sentences. Over 900/0 of women served
less than two years compared to 83% of men. Compared
to the traditional period, women and men released during
the Contemporary Period were more likely to have received
shorter sentences and less likely to have received longer
sentences. Also, women and men were more likely to
have served shorter sentences and less likely to have
served longer sentences during the Contemporary rather
than the Traditional Period.
Selected offenses were also examined. For assault,
51% of women received a sentence ofless than two years,
and 84% served less than two years. That was compared
to 34% and 77%. respectively, for men.
Kate Barnard was one of the first women in
the United States elected to a statewide office
prior to women being allowed to vote.
Eighty-three percent of females received more than
20 years for murder, compared to 95% of males. All ofthe
females served between two and 10 years compared to
75% for males. Manslaughter convictions involved
sentences of between two and 10 years for 58% of women
and 63% of men. Forty-eight percent of females served
between two and 10 years compared to 55% of men.
When convicted of robbery, 63% of women received
a sentence of two to 10 years, compared to 64% of men.
Of women, 62% served sentences between two and 10
years, while 61 % of men served such sentences.
When convicted of burglary, 46% of women received
a sentence of less than two years, compared to 38% for
men. Eighty-six percent of women served less than two
years. compared to 83% for men. For larceny, 46% of
women received a sentence of less than two years,
compared to 43% for men. Nearly 94% of women served
less than two years while 91% of men served that time.
Motor vehicle theft-related offenses involved sentences
of less than two years for 35% of women and 43% of men.
Time served for women was less than two years for all
women and 89% of men.
For DUI offenses, 57% of women received sentences
ofIess than two years compared to 50% of men. Ninety-nine
percent of women and men served less than two
years.
In summary, with the addition of facilities, the
Oklahoma female prison population during the past two
decades increased significantly, and there was no reason
to believe that trend would subside. During the
Contemporary Period, the sentences and time served for
men and women have become more similar when compared
to the Traditional Period.
WOMEN EMPLOYEES
This portion of the paper will deal with women as
leaders in corrections in Oklahoma, especially those who
were early reformers employed within the system and
leaders in more recent times. Also, an overview of the
contemporary scene with regard to the employment of
women in Oklahoma corrections will be presented.
Women have worked in the correctional setting since
it's inception. Until recently, many women only had been
allowed to work in female institutions (Snarr, 1995),
although history provided evidence of women's roles as
reformers and workers in numerous instances. Many
women worked diligently to provide humane treatment to
those convicted of crimes, and were involved with many
of the reform efforts that took place in the area of
corrections. Oklahoma was no different in its use of women
within the ODOe. Oklahoma has had three outstanding
examples in its history of the work of women prison
refonners and many more examples of women working in
the correctional setting.
Kate Barnard was one of the first women in the United
States elected to a statewide office prior to women being
allowed to vote. Kate Barnard was a very active social
reformer and was the first Commissioner of Oklahoma
Charities and Corrections. Elected in 1907, she took a
strong interest in the treatment of inmates, who at the time
were being confined in Kansas since Oklahoma did not
operate a prison, male or female (Bryant, 1969).
Barnard continued her work as a reformer, not
only in the area of Charities and Corrections,
but also used her position to better those in
need of mental health and human services.
One of the first duties Barnard undertook was to
investigate the many complaints regarding inmate
treatment in the Kansas system. Making a surprise visit
to the Kansas system, she was alarmed to find many of
Oklahoma's inmates were being kept in harsh and
inhumane conditions. Upon her return to Oklahoma,
Barnard requested that Oklahoma inmates be returned and
confined here (Sandhu, 199 I). With the help of then
Governor Haskett, Barnard was able to convince the
Joumal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4. August 1997/1998
A Brief History of Women in Oklahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees Holley & Brewster
legislature to appropriate monies for the construction of a
penitentiary in the state (Bryant, 1969).
The first task for Barnard was moving some of the
inmates back to Oklahoma and enlisting those inmates to
build their own prison. While these inmates were
constructing the prison, Barnard also convinced the
legislature to remove the rest of the Oklahoma inmates in
the Kansas State system and place them temporarily in
the Federal Institution at Leavenworth, Kansas.
Construction of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary was
completed in 1911 and all Oklahoma inmates were finally
returned to the state (Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
I997a).
Kate Barnard's second significant endeavor was the
founding of the Oklahoma State Refonnatory. In response
to the reformatory movement in corrections (Allen &
Simonsen, 1995), Barnard asked the legislature to establish
a reformatory in orderto meetthe future demands for prison
space, and provide a setting to train young, youthful
offenders in the moral standards and job skills necessary
for the offender to become a productive citizen (Sandhu,
1991).
Barnard wanted the reformatory to address the special
needs of young offenders coming into the system. Under
her direction, the Oklahoma State Refonnatory-Iocated
in Granite-began a series of educational and employment
skills programs, such as teaching offenders useful skills
of the times including farming, tanning, baking, and shoe
repair (Sandhu, 1991).
Mabel Bassett also was instrumental in
establishing a Pardon and Parole Board in
Oklahoma.
Barnard continued her work as a reformer, not only in
the area of Charities and Corrections, but also used her
position to better those in need of mental health and human
services. Barnard held the position as head of Oklahoma
Charities and Corrections for two terms and was replaced
in 1914. During this time Barnard set the tone for future
directors by her vigorous work and dedication to the
Charities and Corrections Commission. Among her other
accomplishments, Barnard recommended indeterminate
sentencing for offenders in orderto allow differing amounts
of time for offenders to train and readjust to the community
(Bryant, 1991).
Mabel Bassett became the Commissioner of Charities
and Corrections in 1923 and continued the work begun by
Kate Barnard. Mabel Bassett worked to maintain the
Oklahoma State Reformatory as a reformatory, resisting
political pressure to convert the reformatory to a maximum
security facility (MBCC) (Oklahoma Department of
Corrections, 1997b).
Mabel Bassett also was instrumental in establishing
a Pardon and Parole Board in Oklahoma. Bassett, much
like Barnard, believed inmates needed to be rewarded for
good and proper behavior displayed while incarcerated.
As part of the pardon and parole process, Bassett also
established the use of furloughs to allow inmates to leave
prison on a temporary basis for legitimate family
emergencies (Oklahoma Department of Corrections,
I997b).
Clara Waters became the first female warden
of an all-male correctional facility in 1927 ...
Clara Waters became the first female warden of an all-male
correctional facility in 1927 (Oklahoma Department
of Corrections, I997c). Her appointment to the warden's
position followed the death of her husband, Dr. George
Waters, who had been instrumental in the development of
the educational and job training programs at the
reformatory (Sandhu, 1991). Waters was committed to
those she was charged with incarcerating. This
commitment to "her boys," as she referred to them, was
seen in many of her unique ways of punishing offenders
(Sandhu, 1991). For example, if an inmate persisted in
acting in a childish manner, Clara would dress the young
man in women's clothes and make him sit in the rotunda of
the reformatory for visitors to scoff and ridicule.
This style of punishment, encouraged by Waters, also
was the basis for the demise of her tenure as warden.
Discontent on the part of inmates led to a large prison
break from the reformatory. Several inmates escaped, but
all were quickly returned to the reformatory. The backlash
from the prison break was more than the Waters
administration could withstand, and Waters was fired two
days after the prison escape (Sandhu, 1991).
More recently, women of the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections have been instrumental in the development
and success of the modernization of the department. One
of the key factors allowing women to become involved in
the male-dominated department was the "oil boom."
During the boom of the 1980's, men were lured into the
lucrative oil business. Jobs were plentiful and paid a
substantial wage-more than a state correctional position
was able to pay. Since the male labor force was so tight,
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections began using
women in the correctional field, both as officers and in
administrative positions. Another important factor was
the rapid expansion of the department, with several new
facilities-institutions and community treatment center-opened
and requiring staff, many of whom were women.
That re-introduction into the correctional setting has
allowed women to prove themselves in the field and open
the doors to other women.
Today the department has many women who are
intricately involved in the correctional setting. Women
now occupy positions from deputy director of Community
Corrections (Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 1997d)
and Chief of Staff and Institutional Operations, to
positions of warden and deputy warden, to administrative
Joumal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
A Brief History of Women in Oklahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees Holley & Brewster
assistants, to correctional officers and unit management
staff. Although these women have Barnard, Bassett, and
Waters to thank for the openness of the department, they
are well qualified and contributing much to the
development of the department.
Women offenders continue to confront many
challenges during incarceration, especially
pertaining to the effects of incarceration on
their families and children.
Women wardens, rising through departmental ranks,
have served in high profile institutions, such as the William
S. Key Correctional Center with its boot camp for males-the
Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) program, where
two women have served as wardens since it was opened
in 1989. In recent years, programs such as the Enid
Learning Center, an educational program, and the Drug
Offender Work Camp (see Holley & Brewster, 1997), a
combination boot camp and drug treatment facility, have
been developed and implemented by women of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Many of the DOC's
Public Information Officers have been women and have
filled a valuable role in the education of the public to the
department's workings.
Female correctional officers and unit management staff
have been on the front lines of correctional work everyday.
As of January I, 1996, there were 1483 women (34% of the
total work force) working in the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections. Of those working on the front line as
correctional officers, 295 of the 1,957 were women,
representing 15.1 % of the workforce. Two-hundred
nineteen women (7.4%) were assigned to work in all male
institutions in the state, compared to only 0.05% of the
male staff assigned to work in female institutions (Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, 1997e). The position of
correctional officer has been perhaps the one position
within the department with a significant under-representation
of women.
Women in the Probation and Parole division of the
Department of Corrections made up almost 49% of the
total work force ill 1996. That was significant when
considering that probation and parole officers supervised
the majority (60%) of Department of Corrections clients
(Department of Corrections, 1997e). It was also significant
in that the position required a college degree for
employment.'
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a brief overview of the
history of Oklahoma corrections, from territorial days to
'[ Ahhough one year of DOC experience and 30 hours of college
level social science courses could qualify in lieu of a four year
degree. Ed.]
Statehood, through Charities and Corrections, to the
present-day correctional system. The evidence indicated
that Oklahoma has been rather innovative in its utilization
of women in the correctional setting. Women employees
today are building on the contributions and successes of
the early reformers-Barnard, Bassett, and Waters.
The incidence of crime committed by women today,
while not always considered significant by policy makers
and criminologists in the past, requires a renewed and
closer examination. While serving shorter sentences in
the past, present trends for women indicate greater
similarities between men and women in sentence length
and time served.
There is still much we need to know with regard to
women offenders. Women offenders continue to confront
many challenges during incarceration, especially pertaining
to the effects of incarceration on their families and children.
As Truth in Sentencing is being implemented, it will be
appropriate to consider its unique impact on women.
Oklahoma's high incarceration rate for women requires
further examination. The result of leading this statistical
category creates a unique obligation to focus on the
special needs of women.
REFERENCK'i
Allen, H. E.,& Simonsen, C. E. (1995). Corrections in
America: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Brewster, D., & Holley, P. D. (1997, March 28). The
woman at Eddie Warrior Correctional Center: A
comparison to the N/J survey. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Southwestern Sociological
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bryant, K. L., Jr. (1969). Kate Barnard, organized labor,
and social justice in Oklahoma during the progressive era.
Journal of Southern History, 35. 145-164.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997, May).
Correctional populations in the United States, 1995. (BJS
Bulletin NCJ-163917). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice.
Burkhart, K. W. (1973). Women in prison. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
Calahan, M. W. (1986, December). Historical
corrections statistics in the United States, 1850-/98.J
(BJS Bulletin NCJ-I 02529). Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997t1998
A BriefHistoryofWomen in Oklahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees Holley& Brewster
Connelly, M. D,& Holley, P. D. (1993, June 30). Trends
in sentence length and time served in Oklahoma
corrections: 1900-presenl. Research Grant from the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., & Gutteridge, S. (1986).
111eimprison men I ofwomen. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Fletcher, B. R., Rolison, G. L., & Moon, D. G. (1994,
August). A profile of women inmates in the state of
Oklahoma. Journal ofthe Oklahoma Criminal Justice
Research Consortium, I, I-II.
Friedman, L. M. (1993). Crime and punishment in
American history. New York: Basic Books.
Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society ofwomen. New YOlk
John Wiley & Sons.
Greenfield, M. W., & Minor-Harper, S. (1991, March).
Women in prison (BJS Bulletin NCJ-I2799 I). Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Holley, P. D, & Brewster, D. (1997, September 12). A
program describt ion and development ol a program
evaluation modelfor the Drug Offender Work Camp-
Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center, Alva,
OK. Research Grant from the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections. Weatherford, OK: C & H Research
Consultants.
Holley, P. D., & Brewster, D. (1996a, August). The
women at Eddie Warrior Correctional Center: Descriptions
from a data set. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice
Research Consortium, 3, 107-114.
Holley, P. D.,& Brewster, D. (1996b, August 15). The
women at Eddie Warrior Correctional Center:
Evaluation ol a data set. Research Grant from the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
Marcus-Mendoza, S., & Briody, R. (1996, August).
Female inmates in Oklahoma: An updated profile and
programming assessment. Journal of the Oklahoma
Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 3,85-105.
Morris, N.,& Rothman, D.J (1995). TheOxfordhistory
ofthe pri s on: 711epractice a/punishment in western
society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mumola, C. J, & Beck, A. J. (1997, June). Prisoners in
1996 (BJS Bulletin NCJ-I64619). Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Muraskin, R.,& Alleman, T. (1993). It 'sa crime: Women
ond justice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: RegentslPrenticeHal1.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1974). 1973
Annual Report. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1979). Annual
Report Fiscal Year 1978. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1982). Annual
Report Fiscal Year 1981. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1983). Annual
Report Fiscal Year 1982. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1997a).
Oklahoma corrections: Past and present. [On-Line].
Avai lable: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/lNSIDEC/
ic9704.htm.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1997b). Mabel
Bassett Correctional Center (MBCC). [On-Line].
Available: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/doc/MBCC.htm.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1997c).
Oklahoma corrections history. [On-Line]. Available:
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/DOCS/dochistiHistApp4.htm.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1997d).
Probat ion and parole/community corrections. [On-Line].
Avai Iabl e: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/docs/
PPCC_ADD.hnn.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1997e).
Human resources statistics. [On-Line]. Available:
http://www.doc.state.ok.usldocslhrstat96.htm.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1998a).
Alphabetical lisung offacilitiex with capacities, co un IS,
location, andyearopened. [On-Line]. Available: http://
www.doc.state.ok.us/docs/facalpha.htm.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1998b). End
of fiscal year count since 1983. [On-Line]. Available:
httpJ/www.doc.state.ok.uslspreadsh/fycount.htm.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1998c). Inmate
profile end of June 1997. [On-Line]. Available: http://
www.doc.state.ok.usIProfileslPOP0697.HTM.
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1998d). Female
receptions as a percent ofall receptions FY 80 - FY 97.
[On-Line]. Available: http://www.doc.state.ok.usldocs/
femrecp.htm.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume4, August 1997t1 998
A Brief History of Women in Oklahoma Corrections: Inmates and Employees Holley & Brewster
Oklahoma Department of Corrections. (1998e). Female
reccpuons by crime type FY 93 - FY 97. [On-Line].
Available: http://www.doc.state.ok.usldocslfemcrime.hhn.
Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board. (1939). A
ten-year plan/or the state penal and correctional system
in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City: Author.
Oklahoma Slate Planning Board. (1936). State penal
and corrective institutions in Oklahoma: A preliminary
study of presentfactltries and conditions. Oklahoma City:
Author.
Pollock-Byrne, J. M. (1990). Women, prison, & crime.
Pacific Grove, CA: BrooksiCole.
Price, B. R., & Sokoloff, N. J. (Eds.). (1995). The
criminal justice system and women (21ld ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hili.
Sandhu, H. S., (1991, October 14). History oJ
corrections 111 Oklahoma (/908-1988). Stillwater, OK:
Oklahoma State University.
Sandhu, H. S., Al-Mosleh, H. 5, & Chown, B. (1994,
August). Why does Oklahoma have the highest female
incarceration rate in the U.S.? A preliminary investigation .
Journal oj the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research
Consortium, /,25-33.
Serna, I. (1992). Locked down. Norwich, CT: New
Victoria Publishers.
Snarr, R. W. (1992). Introduction to corrections.
Dubuque,lA: William C. Brown.
Snell, T. L. (1994, March). Women in prison (BJS
Bulletin NCJ-145321). Washington, DC. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of
Justice.
Welch, M. (1996). Corrections: A critical approach.
New York: McGraw-HilI.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4. August 1997/1998
Sentencing Patterns of Oklahoma's
Female Commitments: 1985-1995
By Patti J. Flanagan
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to investigate
sentencing patterns offemale commitments in Oklahoma
the state with the highest percentage of female priso~
inmates per 100,000 of population. It focused on the
relationship between community type (rural versus urban
counties) and increased controls over women:S deviant
behavior. Arrest and commitment rates were examined
over two decades, while sentencing patterns were
examined from 1985-1995 by gender and county.
Characteristics of the committed rural offender were also
examined over the same time period.
INTRODUCfION
. Erikson ~1966) described communities as boundary
rnamtammg, in that they have their own unique "cultural
space ... ethos or way of being" (p. 10). He suggested
that community dynamics were an important factor in
defining deviant behavior and that more homogenous
(rural) communities may have defined deviance in more
narrow terms, Mermelstein's (1991) ideas of rural and urban
differences were congruent with Erikson's (1966)
perspective, suggesting that rural residents gradually
became an oppressed population over time due to
economic and social policies that were designed for urban
areas. Those policies affected the rural population in
general but, more specifically, rural women.
Not only were rural women further oppressed, but
the traditional, patriarchal belief systems about women
and their roles often presented in a relatively small
community left them less opportunity for educational,
cultural, and communicational opportunities than their
urban counterparts (Munson, 1980). Such parochial
communities, those having a high degree of interaction
within the community but little contact beyond the
community, tended to be isolated from the larger system
and that isolation may have perpetuated intolerance of
those members in its community who seemed different
i.e., deviant. Intolerance as a norm, however, might have
been in conflict with the larger society. The research
focused on treatment of offenders by the judicial system
at the state and county level, rural versus urban.
METHODOLOGY
The research examined differences in judicial control
in Oklahoma in three ways: (1) arrest and commitment
rates by gender in the state, (2) female commitments and
sentence lengths by county type (rural v. urban), and (3)
g~n~er difference~ in commitments and sentence lengths
within rural counties, as well as looking at characteristics
of the committed rates by gender (Bureau of Justice, 1970,
1980, (990). All commitments in the state of Oklahoma in
1985, 1990, and 1995 were provided by the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections and included demographic,
offense, and sentence information, The Oklahoma State
Bureau of Investigation provided crime rates and arrest
rates for Oklahoma, broken down by gender and type of
offense by county for the same years.
For the purposes of this study, an "urban" county
was defmed as any county containing a town or city within
its boundaries whose population was 45,000 persons or
more. That population number was used by the Census in
its definition of "urbanized areas" and included the
following five counties: Cleveland, Comanche, Garfield,
Oklahoma, and Tulsa. The remaining 72 counties were
coded as rural counties.
... correctional statistics were consistent in
showing a large over-representation of
minorities behind bars.
Sentence length was coded in months wherein those
individual cases with a sentence of600 months (50 years)
or more, life, life without parole, or death were recoded as
600 months and those with less than one year were recoded
as six months. Because the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections stratified "offense committed" into 24
categories and because II categories could be more easily
compared, a "seriousness of crime" scale was created
modeled after a scale developed by Rossi, Waite, Bose,
and Berk (1974). Two social science researchers reviewed
the list of Oklahoma's crime categories, placing them into
one of II categories of crime developed by Rossi et al.
(1974). Inter-rater reliability was then determined by
establishing correlation coefficients among the raters'
responses (.86) and adjustments to the scale were made.
Because Oklahoma records indicated no crimes of
"subversion," that category was dropped and the
following "seriousness of crime" categories were then
used in examining the data:
I. Crimes involving offenses against order: loitering,
disorderly conduct, drunkenness, liquor law
violations, gambling, weapons (carrying or
~ossessing), escape from a correctional facility, bail
Jumping, and unknown/for warrants only
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Sentencing Patterns of Oklahoma's Female Commitments: 1985-1995 Flanagan
2. Crimes involving action against police officers
3. "Victimless" crimes: prostitution and commercialized
vice, drug abuse violations, and illegal possession of
controlled substances
4. "White collar" crimes: forgery, embezzlement, income
tax cheating, and fraudulent business practices
5. Crimes involving property II: stolen property,
vandalism, credit card theft, obtaining property or
signing falsely, and unauthorized use of a vehicle
6. Crimes involving property I: cases in which the value
of goods involved was more than $500; robbery,
larceny-theft including motor vehicle theft, arson,
burglary ( 1st and 2nd degree)
7. Selling illegal drugs: heroin, LSD, marijuana, cocaine,
barbiturates, etc.
8. Crimes against persons III: all crimes involving actual
or threatened personal injury exclusive of those
shown below; kidnaping, robbery, or attempted
robbery with a dangerous weapon, pointing firearms,
extortion by a threatening letter, and driving under
the influence
9. Crimes against persons II: assault, assault or battery
with a dangerous weapon, rape, incest, crimes against
nature/sodomy, and beating or injuring children
10. Crimes against persons I: murder (1 st and 2nd degree)
and non-negligent manslaughter
While there may have been people incarcerated in
Oklahoma who had committed misdemeanors, they were
not incarcerated for those misdemeanors as classified by
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. But, because
the source for identifying arrest category was secondary
data, limited information that would differentiate, say a
misdemeanor DUI from a felony DUI, was not available.
The author, therefore, contacted a nationally recognized
expert to develop a coding scheme helpful in identifying
low versus high levels of offense behavior (1. Figueira-
McDonough, personal communication, Feb, 1998). It was
determined that all offenses with a value ofthree or below
on the Severity of Crime Scale would be recoded as "low/
misdemeanor level" offense behaviors and those offenses
committed with a value offour or above would be recoded
as "high/felony level" offense behaviors.
While the research examined women's prisonization
patterns over time, the nature of the data limited the study
to incomplete measures of the process. Examination of
commitments over a longer period of time, optimally, would
have coincided with arrest and commitment data for the
state from 1970-1990. Complete records of commitments
prior to 1985 were, however, unavailable.
Most regrettable was the inability of using gender
and minority status in the analyses at the county level.
Demographic variables did not permit crossing gender
and race so rates of the variables in the analyses could
not be calculated. That omission was quite serious since
correctional statistics, including those in Oklahoma, were
consistent in showing a large over-representation of
minorities behind bars. Information about specific offenses
for which women and men were arrested and how those
offenses were processed was also unavailable. Such
information would have been critical in deciding if women
were committing more crimes or being handled differently
by urban and rural counties. At the same time, it would
have been desirable to get more precise information
regarding county history, including information on court
decisions. Finally, because gender equality is only one
aspect of the goal of social justice, future analyses of
patterns of control by gender and race of the offender
would give an even clearer picture of sentencing patterns.
Findings
All commitments to the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections for 1985, 1990, and 1995 were used for analysis.
Given the difference in the number of cases of male and
female commitments, and because the study dealt with
the universe of commitments in those years, significance
levels had little relevance and, whenever appropriate, the
percentage change within groups is reported. Therefore,
the study often focused on the verified changes for the
whole decade (1985- I995).
... females were consistently committed to
prison for less severe offense behaviors than
males ...
First, changes in arrests, commitments, levels of
offense behavior, and sentence lengths were examined for
the state by gender. Table 1 reports on gender
comparisons of commitment rates per 100,000 population,
across time (1970-1990). Changes in the ratio of
commitments to arrests are also given. Female arrests, as
shown in Table 1, increased by 54%, while female
commitments increased by 75% during the first decade.
During the second decade (1980-1990), male commitments
increased 148.5% while male arrests remained fairly stable.
Female arrest and commitment rates, as shown, increased
proportionately more than those for males over the 20
year period (1970-1990).
At the same time, while controlling for the level of
offense behavior (Low/misdemeanor v. high/felony),
females were consistently committed to prison for less
severe offense behaviors than males, (see Table 2), and
that showed no evidence of decreasing. Sentence lengths
for women also increased much more for low/misdemeanor
offense behaviors (offenses where women were over-represented)
than for men from 1985-1990 (see Table 3).
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Sentencing Patterns ofOklahoma's Female Commitments: 1985-1995 Flanagan
TABLE]
Gender Com parisons Across Time Relative to Commitments and Arrests in Oklahoma
Percent Change Percent Change Ratio
Gender/ Comml
Year Commitments 70-80 80-90 70-90 Arrests 70-80 80-90 70-90 Arrests
Female
1970 8 877 1:110
1980 14 +75.0 1359 +54.0 1:97
1990 66 +372.0 +725.0 1824 +34.0 +107.9 1:27
Male1
970 160 6406 IAO
1980 295 +84.4 8265 +29.0 1:28
1990 732 +148.5 +357.0 8128 -1.65 +26.8 1:II
Note: The columns for Commitments and Arrests reflect numbers per 100,000 population
TABLE2
Distribution of Level of Behavioral Offense Committed
by Gender
1985 1990 1995
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Behavior N 3,722 308 4,824 661 6,220 995
Hi/Felony 74.6 46.9 63.8 36.0 60.7 34.9
Low/
Misdemeanor 25.4 53.1 36.2 64.0 39.3 65.1
TABLE3
Contrast Analysis of Change in Sentence Lengths of
Offenders by Gender and Level of Behavioral Offense
Committed
Lo/Misdemeanor Hi/Felony
T- P- % T- P- %
value value change value value Change
Male
1985-90 .367 .714 (+12.6) 4.36 .00* (+15.4)
1990-95 .564 .572 (+13.5) .78 .00* ( +2.0)
1985-95 .857 .391 (+27.4) 5.40 .00* (+17.8)
Female
1985-90 .980 .327 (+136.3) 3.40 .00* (+41.0)
1990-95 -.466 .665 ( -19.2) -1.60 .11 ( -9.5)
1985-95 .686 .493 ( +90.8) 2.41 .01 * (+27.4)
*indicates significance level ofpS.05
TABLE 4
Comparison of Sentence Length of Female Offenders by
County Type
Year Significance
County Mean SO F Ratio Level
1985
Rural 38.97 62.18
Urban 47.13 72.93 .03 .311
1990
Rural 58.04 99.87 2.46 .117
Urban 69.47 82.14
1995
Rural 73.43 100.91 9.41 .002*
Urban 56.87 66.02
.002 ** indicates significance at pS,05
Secondly, female commitments and their sentence
lengths were examined by county type (rural v. urban),
controlling for seriousness of offense commited, using
the Severity of Crime Scale in which a category one was
considered least and category 10 was considered most
severe.
Analysis ofthe data revealed that female commitment
rates by county type over time were similar and there were
no significant differences between the numbers of
committed female offenders in rural counties when
compared to those in urban counties. Although not
statistically significant, while sentence lengths were
shorter for rural female offenders than urban female
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Sentencing Patterns of Oklahoma's Female Commitments: 1985-1995 Flanagan
offenders in 1985 and 1990; they were longer in 1995. It
was important, however, to note the increase in
significance level of differences between rural and urban
sentencing patterns between 1985-1990 (see Table 4).
Next, commitments and sentencing patterns were
examined over time in rural communities by gender to
determine ifmen and women were being treated differently
in more traditional, rural counties in Oklahoma. In rural
counties, overall, female commitments increased 112.7%
from 1985-1995 while male commitment rates increased
88.9% (see Table 5). Rural male offenders, as shown in
Table 6, received longer sentences than did rural females
in all three time frames, although the difference by gender
was only significant in 1995. As shown in Table 7, changes
in sentence length in rural counties indicated that male
sentence lengths increased 56.7% while female sentence
lengths increased 88.4%.
TABLES
Contrast Analysis of Commitment Rates (per 1,000
Population) in Rural Areas by Gender OverTime
Gender/
Contrast T-value P-value % change
Male
1985-1990 4.60 .00* + 47.7
1990-1995 3.98 .00* + 27.8
1985-1995 8.56 .00* + 88.9
Female
1985-1990 7.63 .00* + 87.9
1990-1995 .233 .81 + 13.2
1985-1995 .998 .31 +112.7
*Significant at p:'S.05
TABLE 6
Sentence Length by Gender in Rural Counties
Year/
Gender Mean SD F-Ratio F-Probability
1985
Male 55.27 99.48 3.16 .075
Female 38.97 62.17
1990
Male 70.66 116.21 2.42 .119*
Female 58.03 99.87
1995
Male 86.61 115.79 3.58 .05*
Female 73.43 100.91
Significant at PS05; 1985-n=I,834, female-nI21; 1990 male-n=
2,233, female-n=220; 1995 male-n=2,525, female-n=302.
TABLE 7
Contrast Analysis of Sentence Lengths by Gender in
Rural Counties Over Time
Gender/
Contrast T-value P-value % change
Male
1985-1990 4.37 .00* +27.8
1990-1995 4.92 .00* +22.6
1985-1995 9.15 .00* +56.7
Female
1985-1990 1.78 .07 +48.9
1990-1995 1.84 .06 +26.5
1985-1995 3.39 .00* +88.4
*Significant at pS05; 1985 male-n= I ,834, female-n= 121;
1990 male-n=2,233, female-n=220; 1995 male-n=2,525, female
-n=302.
Finally, in examining changes in background variables
of conunitted rural offenders over time (1985-1995), an
analysis of variance was computed looking for differences
in age and the proportion of cases that were minority and
reported as having been single with children. Shown in
Table 8 are means, standard deviations, and the percentage
changes in each characteristic .
Rural females were consistently older than rural male
offenders in both time periods. The age of the female
offender did not increase over time as much as males,
although, they were significantly older at both periods.
Since the standard deviation ofthe age of female offenders
in 1995 was less dispersed, it could be concluded that
rural female offenders became more consistently older over
time.
Female offenders in Oklahoma have ...
been arrested and committed at afaster rate
than male offenders.
The change in the proportion of offenders reporting
being single and having children increased significantly
for both rural males and females. The increases in single
parenthood were very large for both males and females,
the largest percentage increase was for women (233%),
while the standard deviation for 1995 rural females
decreased the most. The proportion of the population
that was minority increased slightly more for rural females
than rural males over time. While the increase was not
significant for females, the increase in minority population
for males was significant. the significance level, however,
might have been due to the larger number of cases of rural
males.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Sentencing Patterns of Oklahoma's Female Commitments: 1985-1995 Flanagan
TABLE 8
Changes in Background Variables of Rural Male and Female Offenders OverTime (1985-1995)
Male Female
1985 1995 1985 1995
Mean Mean F % Mean Mean F %
Variable SO SO Prob change SO SO Prob change
Age 28.37 31.16 .00* +9.8 29.95 32.51 .00* +8.5
(9.42) ( 10.48) (10.14) (8.68)
Single .312 .878 .00* +188.0 .292 .971 .00* +233.0
parenthood (.463) (.325) (.457) (.165)
Minority .271 .312 .00* +15.1 .288 .337 .32 +17.4
(.444) (.463) (.454) (.473)
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
In summary, the study shows a trend toward greater
control offemale offenders by the justice system, especially
in rural areas. Female offenders in Oklahoma have, over
the time period covered in this research, been arrested
and committed at a faster rate than male offenders. At the
Thefindings, taken together, can be
interpreted as a decline in the chivalry factor
and an increase in patriarchal or punitive
actions toward female offenders.
same time, females were consistently committed for less
serious offense behaviors. Also, while not statistically
significant, female offenders from rural areas received
longer sentences over time than did those from more
cosmopolitan areas. When commitments and sentence
lengths increased toward offenders (male and female)
overall, however, female offenders experienced the largest
percentage increases over time. Those findings suggested
that women were either committing more of such crimes or
were being controlled more harshly.
The more traditional (rural) or homogeneous
communities, as expected, committed females at a faster
rate than males and percentage increases in sentence
lengths were greater for females. More rural female
commitments, over time, reported they were single parents
and showed a slightly larger increase in being minority.
That could have indicated an overall increase in
punitiveness toward rural female offenders for the given
time period. The findings, taken together, can be interpreted
as a decline in the chivalry factor and an increase in
patriarchal or punitive actions toward female offenders.
The findings further suggested that more support
might be needed in rural conununities, those conununities
that view their female offenders more harshly. It is important
to remember that those were the same conununities (rural)
that Munson (1980) suggested provided fewer educational,
cultural, and conununicational opportunities than their
urban counterparts.
Because rural female offenders were punished more
harshly than their urban counterparts, lack of intervention
programs may have resulted in rural areas of the state
having an inordinate amount of recidivism in communities
where there was: (t) less tolerance, and (2) fewer economic
resources for them. Since few distinctions between urban
and rural differences continue to be made, planners must
operate from a social systems perspective, taking an
holistic approach by considering the culture, social milieu,
and consequences of the conununity in which people live
before designing social assessments that suggest where
to intervene. Establishing linkages to the larger socieyt
and developing formal programs reflective of the norms of
the larger society may serve to restructure local
perceptions of the female offender within closed
communities (Figueira-McDonough, 1991; Warren &
Warren, 1977), thereby, expanding the communities'
tolerance for those who maybe seem different.
REFERENCES
Erikson, K. (1966). Waywardpuritans, a study in the
socilogy of deviance. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Figueira-McDonough, J. (1991). Community structure
and delinquency: A typology. Social Service Review,
March, 65(1),65-91.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Sentencing Patterns of Oklahoma's Female Commitments: 1985-1995 Flanagan
Mermelstein.J. (1991). Feminist practice in rural social
work. InM. Bricker-Jenkins, N. R. Hooyman, & N. Gottlieb
(Eds.), Feminist social work practice in clinical settings.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Munson, C. (1980). Urban-rural differences:
Implications for education and training. Journal of
education for Social Work, 16(1),95-103.
Rossi, P., Waite, R., Bose, c, & Berk, R. (1974). The
seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual
differences. American Sociological Review, 39, 224-237.
Warren, R., & Warren, D. (1997). The neighborhood
handbook. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma:
A Preliminary Analysis
By Marcus E. Martin and Melissa Stimpson
A number of individuals argue that today, racism and
discrimination no longer permeate American society or its
institutions (Hermstein & Murray, 1996; Wilbanks, 1987).
Moreover, those individuals posit that many problems
affecting minority communities, the African American
community in particular, result not from racism and
discrimination but from social and cultural problems.
. . . racism and discrimination may not be as
blatant as they once were but that the problems,
albeit more subtly, still persist.
Others, however, particularly those from the African
American community, see racism and discrimination as
still ingrained in American society and its institutions,
especially in the criminal justice system (Crockett, 1984;
Mauer & Huling, 1995). They believe that racism and
discrimination may not be as blatant as they once were
but that the problems, albeit more subtly, still persist.
The question of whether or not the criminal justice
system, in particular the courts, discriminate against
African Americans and other minorities has received
considerable attention from academicians, as well as from
criminal justice practitioners (Barnes & Kingsnorth, 1996;
Blumstein, 1982; Spohn & Welch, 1987; Tonry, 1995;
Weitzer, 1996). Of particular interests to researchers and
crim inal justice practitioners has been the sentencing
stage. Although a number of studies (Tonry, 1995; Weitzer,
1996; Wilbanks, 1987) have examined sentencing practices
carefully, there has been very little consensus about
whether disparity still exists.
The importance of African Americans historically
having been treated differently by the criminal justice
system solely because of their race has been accentuated
by the disturbing increase in the disproportionality of
African Americans involved in it. The Wilson (1994)
reported that the U.S. prison population tripled from 1980
through 1994, from 329,821 people to 1,053,738 people.
African Americans accounted for more than half of the
nation's increased prison population during that 14 year
span, although they made up less than 13% of the nation's
total population. According to Mauer and Huling (1995):
In 1990, one in four Black men in the age group
20-29 was either in prison, jail, or probation, or
parole on any given day. By 1995, the number of
Black men in the age group 20-29 either in prison,
jail, on probation, or parole on a given day had
increased to one out of three (p. I).
The increase, however, occurred not just among
young African American males. The increase in the
incarceration of African Americans between 1980 and 1994
occurred for both males and females (Mauer & Huling,
1995). The number of incarcerated African American males
increased 217% from 1980 through 1994, while the number
of African American females incarcerated increased 343%
during the same time period (Y. Wilson, 1994) .
A review of sentencing literature highlights how
previous findings have been and remain ambiguous and
contradictory (Barnes & Kingsnorth, 1996; Weitzer, 1996;
Wilbanks, 1987). Previous studies examined how various
legal and extra-legal variables affected the sentencing
process. While legal variables such as prior record and
type of crime have consistently had the strongest impact
on sentencing, there was also an indication that extra-legal
variables such as race and gender have had both a
direct and indirect effect on the sentencing process
(Wilbanks, 1987; Weitzer, 1996). A number of researchers,
such as Dixon (1995), Kramer and Steffensmeir (1993), and
Myers and Reid (1995), also posited that contextual factors
such as court locality and urbanization, not race, may have
been responsible for differential sentencing. Some studies
additionally examined sentencing in states with sentencing
guidelines. In those states, sentencing guidelines were
developed with the hope of reducing or alleviating the
influence of extra-legal variables, such as race and other
contextual factors.
The increase in the incarceration of African
Americans between 1980 and 1994 occurred
for both males and females.
As of 1995, 22 states, including Oklahoma, had
developed sentencing commissions and 17 had
implemented sentencing guidelines. Researchers like
Petersilia, Klein, and Turner (J 988) and Williams (1995),
however, argued that racial considerations led to the
stipulation of certain characteristics in sentencing
guidelines (e.g., prior record, offense severity). Sentencing
guidelines, therefore, may have exacerbated the problem
of extra-legal variables influencing the sentencing process.
Legal Variables
Legal variables, such as type of offense, prior record
(offense history), and seriousness of the offense, have all
been reliable predictors of criminal sentences. Type of
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma: A Preliminary Analysis Martin & Stimpson
offense and prior record, in fact, have been found by some
(Hagan, 1974; Kleck, 1981; Klein, 1991; Spohn & Welch,
1987) to be the strongest predictors of sentencing
decisions, to incarcerate or not to incarcerate, and on
sentence length. Sentencing studies that failed to examine
the impact of any ofthose variables, before examining the
impact of extra-legal variables, especially type of offense
and prior record, may have been seriously flawed. Such
flaws could range from overestimating the effects of race
or age on sentencing to comparing sentences of two
groups of offenders that were not comparable.
Hagan (1974), for example, criticized the sentencing
studies he reviewed for failure to control for legal variables
before assessing the impact of the extra-legal variables.
He reviewed 20 studies that examined sentencing decisions
in capital and non-capital cases from 1928 through 1973.
Only seven of the studies Hagan reviewed controlled for
type of offense and prior record. Because of those flaws,
Hagan believed that the studies over estimated the effects
that some extra-legal variables, especially race, had on
sentencing. Hagan also criticized some of the studies for
failing to compute measures of association and for only
using tests of statistical significance. Of the 20 studies
Hagan reviewed, II used tests of significance, four used
measures of association, and three used both statistical
measures.
Hagan (1974) also reanalyzed the 20 studies he
reviewed using chi-square to test for statistical significance
and Goodman and Kruskal's Tau-b to test for measures of
association, while controlling for type of offense and prior
record. After computing measures of association in 17 of
the studies, he found that race had an impact on sentencing
before controlling for prior record and type of offense.
After controlling for prior record and type of offense,
however, race did not have any substantially significant
impact on sentencing, except in the Wolfgang and Reidel
(1973) study, which examined the impact of race on
interracial capital crimes in 11 Southern states from 1945
through 1965. Hegan stated the following:
Review of the data from 20 studies of judicial
sentencing indicates that, while there may be
evidence of differential sentencing, knowledge
of extra-legal offender characteristics contributes
relatively little to our ability to predict judicial
dispositions. Only in rare instances did
knowledge of extra-legal attributes of the offender
increase our accuracy in predicting judicial
disposition by more than five percent (p. 379).
Spohn and Welch (1987) also examined the effects of
the legal variable of prior record-sentence severity
(length) and the decision to incarcerate-while controlling
for type of crime and the extra-legal variables of race,
gender, type of attorney, and type of plea. The crimes
included murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault,
minor assault, burglary, auto theft, embezzlement, receiving
stolen property, forgery, sex offenses other than rape, drug
possession, and driving while intoxicated. Their random
sample of male and female defendants (N=5,000) came from
a group of 50,000 male and female defendants convicted
of committing 14 violent and non-violent crimes between
1968 and 1979 in a large Northeastern city. Spohn and
Welch (1987) posited that different measures of the prior
record produced different sentencing outcomes for
defendants. Their study proposed to examine the impact
of prior record on sentencing, using 10 different
measurements ofthat variable.
Spohn and Welch's (1987) analysis revealed that the
different measures of prior record produced different
results on sentence length. A prior prison term of more
than a year, however, had the greatest influence on
sentence length and prior record (i.e., prior convictions
and arrests) had a more consistent effect on the decision
to incarcerate. Spohn and Welch's findings indicated the
importance of proper measures of prior record when
examining sentencing length. Their analysis also revealed
how different measurements of prior record affected
sentence severity and incarceration decisions (in versus
out) differently. Studies that examined sentence length,
thus, might have been better off using prior incarceration
of more than a year as a measure of prior record. Future
studies which examine the decision to incarcerate may,
therefore, need to include other measurements of prior
record, such as prior arrests or prior convictions. Kramer
and Steffensmeir's (1993) and McDonald and Carlson's
(1993) sentencing studies not only showed the importance
of how legal variables impacted sentencing processes in
jurisdictions with determinate statutes (presumptive
sentencing guidelines).
Eighty-two percent of the explained variation
in sentence length resulted from offense
severity and prior record.
Kramer and Steffensmeir (1993) examined sentences
for Black and White males and females in 61,294 non-capital
cases ranging from involuntary manslaughter to
retail theft in Pennsylvania from 1985 through 1987. In
1982, Pennsylvania implemented presumptive sentencing
guidelines for felony and misdemeanor cases that based
sentences on the legal variables of offense severity and
prior record. The purpose of their study was to assess
what impact legal variables (offense severity, prior record,
type of offense) and extra-legal variables (race, gender,
age, contextual factors, and type of disposition) had on
both the decision to incarcerate and sentence length.
Offense severity was measured on an ordinal scale ranging
from one to 10, and prior record was measured using an
ordinal scale ranging from zero to six.
Using ordinary least-squares regression to examine
sentence length and logistic regression to study the
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma: A Preliminary Analysis Martin & Stimpson
decision to incarcerate, Kramer and Steffensmeir (1993)
found that offense severity and prior record, both legal
variables, were the strongest predictors in the decision to
incarcerate and on the length of sentence imposed. Eighty-two
percent of the explained variation in sentence length
resulted from offense severity and prior record. African
Americans were found to have an 8% greater chance of
being incarcerated than Whites, even after all of the legal
variables were controlled. The extra-legal variables in their
study did not have any effect on sentence length. Kramer
and Steffensmeir stated the following:
Judges' sentencing decisions are determined, first
and foremost, by the seriousness of the crime
committed by the offender and by the length of
the offender's prior record. Both are factors of
explicit legal relevance to the sentence. Offenders
convicted of a more serious offense or having a
prior record are punished more harshly (p. 366).
Extra-Legal Variables
A number of extra-legal variables, such as age, sex,
socioeconomic status or class, contextual factors, and type
of plea, have been studied in an attempt to determine if
they had an impact on sentencing in both capital and non-capital
cases (Myers & Reid, 1995; Myers &Talarico, 1986;
Pruitt & Wilson, 1983; Sellin, 1935; Zatz, 1987). Although
extra-legal variables were given different emphases in each
study, race was consistently the single most examined
extra-legal variable. The literature indicated that extra-legal
variables, specifically the race ofthe offender and of
the victim, had a significant impact on the imposition of
the death penalty in capital cases. Similarly, some
noncapital studies also found evidence that extra-legal
variables, such as contextual factors (i.e., urban vs. rural),
had an impact on sentencing even after the relevant legal
variables were controlled. Myers and Talarico (1986), and
Myers and Reid (1995) looked at how contextual factors
(urban vs. rural court) affected the sentencing process.
As urbanization increased the probability of
imprisonment it was likewise increased for
certain offenders, while the length of sentence
declined.
Myers and Talarico (1986) assessed the effects of
rural and urban differences, along with other salient legal
and extra-legal variables, on the sentencing outcome of a
sample of felons convicted in Georgia between 1976
through 1982. Other extra-legal variables included sex,
race, age, marital status, employment status, urbanization,
and county attributes. County attributes included a
county's index crime rates, percent of index crimes
involving weapons, and the level of racial income
inequality. Legal variables in their study included type of
crime, offense seriousness, prior arrests, prior
incarceration, and the number of conviction charges; types
of crime included homicide, rape, aggravated assault,
burglary, robbery, property theft, and drug offenses.
Myers and Talarico's (1986) additive regression model
revealed that, along with the type of offense, race, gender,
and age affected incarceration decisions. Specifically,
judges were more likely to incarcerate offenders who were
male, Black, and older. Marital status, employment status,
and having been from an urban background did not have
any effect on sentence length.
The contextual variable (urban court vs. rural court)
did have an effect. As urbanization increased the
probability of imprisonment it was likewise increased for
certain offenders, while the length of sentence declined.
The interactive regression model showed that as
urbanization increased the risk to Black offenders, male
offenders, and rape offenders increased as well. The
analysis revealed, in addition, that as urbanization
increased sentence lengths for male offenders, older
offenders, rape offenders, and drug offenders declined.
Conversely, the sentences of the White offenders,
unmarried offenders, homicide offenders, aggravated
assault, property, and drug offenders increased. Other
studies also found that older defendants were more likely
to have been incarcerated than younger defendants, even
after statistical control for prior record (Petersilia et aI.,
1988; Pruitt & Wilson, 1983).
Myers and Reid (1995) used a different methodology
to examine the impact of contextual factors on sentencing.
They examined felony court cases in three Florida counties
to test the hypothesis that sentencing disparity resulted
from routinization of courtroom behavior, and not
necessarily from the differential treatment of similar
offenders. Using least-squares regression, they found
differential sentencing among the defendants in each of
the counties they examined after controlling for relevant
legal variables.
Finally, Chiricos and Waldo's (1995) review of 38
sentencing studies on non-capital cases found that even
when legal variables such as prior record and seriousness
of offense are controlled for, extra-legal variables still had
an impact on sentencing. They found the impact of race
was clearly a more consistent factor in the south than in
non-southern states, and that Black defendants were more
likely to have been incarcerated in the south.
Findings from previous sentencing literature, in
summary, suggested several things. First, the question of
how legal and extra-legal variables affected the sentencing
process has been difficult to assess, because studies have
occurred in various time periods, used a range of
methodologies, and used different units of analysis. That
made the studies difficult to compare. Sentencing studies
that examined the affects of race on the sentencing of
drug offenders, for example, could not be compared to
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma: A Preliminary Analysis Martin& Stimpson
studies that examined the affects of race on death penalty
cases. Second, the literature review suggested that prior
record, offense seriousness, and type of offense had the
most influence on sentencing. Those legal variables,
therefore, should be included in any future study. Third,
studies indicated that both the interactive and additive
effects of extra-legal variables may need to be examined in
sentencing studies, because race may not have had a direct
impact on sentencing, but may have had an impact on
sentencing through other variables such as age.
This study analyzed sentencing patterns for African
American and White females in Oklahoma from June 6,
1996, to July 26, 1997. Sentences were first examined
without controls, and then with controls for legal variables
(type of crime and prior record) and extra-legal variables,
(race and locality of conviction). Oklahoma was selected
because it has consistently had the highest incarceration
rate per 100,000 of population for females in the country
(Mumola & Beck, 1997). The state currently ranks third in
the nation, among the 50 states, for overall incarceration
per 100,000 of population (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
1997). In addition, since Oklahoma sentencing guidelines
will not be promulgated until July I, 1999*, the state served
as an excellent source for assessing how the legal and
extra-legal variables impacted sentencing decisions prior
to the guidelines taking effect.
Methodology
The data on females in Oklahoma were obtained from
the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center. The
original data file contained 941 cases and 52 different
variables. Because of missing data and the inclusion of a
small number offemales of different ethnic groups, namely
Native American and Hispanic females, only 604 cases
were examined and five variables were utilized for the
purposes of the study. I
The variables included prior record (I=yes, O=no),
type of offense, race (1 =African American, O=White),
locality of conviction (I =urban court, O=rural court), and
sentence length.' Sentence length in months was used as
the dependent variable for the study.
Most of the females included in the study were
admitted to prison directly from a court sentence (67% or
403 women) during the time period under examination.
* [The 1999 Oklahoma Legislature again revised the Truth in
Sentencing statute with an effective date of march, 2000. Ed]
I A study examining the sentences of African and White females
from January, 1991, to January, 1995, combining data from the
Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center and the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections is forthcoming. The study will include
other ethnic groups and additional legal and extra-legal variables.
2 Type of offense (property, drug, violent, and a category called
"other offenses") were all dummy coded. Violent offenses is the
reference category.
The remaining females in the study were admitted to prison
under probation revocations (28% or 169 women) and
parole revocations (5% or 32 individuals).
Results
Data for the study was analyzed using SPSS 7.5 for
Windows. Table 1 displays the basic percentage and
frequency distribution for the inmates as a group. Of the
female inmates, 334 were White and 270 were African
American; and, 242 of the female inmates were sentenced
in rural courts while 362 were convicted in urban courts.
The data in Table 2, which presents the frequency
and percentage for prior record, and type of crime and
locality of conviction, revealed that 75 (8.3%) of female
inmates had no prior criminal record compared to 529
(87.6%) who did have a prior record. This finding was
consistent with previous sentencing literature, which
suggested that offenders with prior records were more
likely to have been incarcerated than offenders without
prior records (Alvarez and Bachman, 1996). The data for
the type of crime variable revealed that 282 (46.7%) of the
offenders were sent to prison for drug offenses, 208
(34.4%) for property offenses, 64 (10.6%) for violent
offenses, and 50 (8.3%) were sentenced to prison for
offenses put in the "other offense" category.'
TABLE!
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Legal and Extra
Legal Variables
Frequency Percent
Race
African American 270 44.7%
White 334 55.3%
Locality of Conviction
Rural Court 242 40.1%
Urban Court 362 59.9%
Prior Record
Yes 529 87.6%
No 75 12.4%
Type of Crime
Drug Offense 282 46.7%
Property Offense 208 34.4%
Violent Offense 64 10.6%
Other 50 8.3%
J The "other offense" category included individuals convicted for
bail jumping, embezzlement, carrying a weapon into a jail, making
false statements to a pawn broker, false impersonation, and
conspiracy.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing inOklahoma: APreliminaryAnalysis Martin& Stimpson
TABLE 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Legal and Extra
Legal Variables by Race
African American White
Locality of Conviction
Rural Court 78 (28.9%) 164(49.1%)
Urban Court 192 (71.1%) 170(50.9%)
Prior Record
Yes 242 (89.6%) 287 (85.9%)
No 28 (10.4%) 47(14.1%)
Type of Crime
Drug Offense 112 (41.5%) 170(50.9%)
Property Offense 105 (38.9%) 103(30.8%)
Violent Offense 30 (11.1%) 34 (10.2%)
"Other" Offenses 23 (8.5%) 27 (8.1%)
The analysis also revealed that for the extra-legal
variable "locality of conviction" (chi-square=25.403,
p=O.OO),African American females were more likely to have
been sentenced in an urban court (192 or 53.0%) than
White females (170 or 47.0%), while White females were
more likely to have been convicted in rural courts (164 or
67.8%) than African American females (78% or 32.2%).
Both African American females and White females,
however, were almost equally as likely to have had a prior
record (242 or 89.6% vis-a-vis 287 or 85.9%). The data
revealed that for the "type of crime" variable, those
sentenced to prison for drug offenses were more likely to
have been White (N=170 or 60.3%) than African American
(N=112 or 39.7%). That was the only category in which
were one racial group significantly outnumbered the other
(chi-square=5.32, p=0.21).
More African American females (N=105 or 50.5%) were
convicted of property crimes than were White females
(N=103 or 49.5%), while more White females were
Table3
Frequency and Mean Sentence Length of Legal and Extra-Legal Variables by Race
African American White t-value
(months) (months)
Mean Sentence 75.72 70.29 -.969
Type of Crime
Drug Offenses 76.05 (N=112) 67.86 (N=170) -1.17
Property Offenses 68.29 (N=105) 66.70 (N=I03) -.194
Violent Crimes 102.21 (N=30) 104.14 (N=34) .056
"Other" Offenses 74.61 (N=23) 62.89 (N=27) -.832
Prior Record
Yes 78.90 (N=242) 72.65 (N=287) -1.00
No 48.43 (N=28) 54.95 (N=47) .701
Locality of Conviction
Urban Court 71.03 (N=1957) 70.50 (N=I77) -.080
Rural Court 87.34 (N=75) 70.07 (N=157) -1.67*
*p<.05
**p<.OI
sentenced to prison for violent offenses (34 or 53.1 %)
than African American females (46.9%). For those crimes
that were put in the "other" offense category, (23 or 46.0%)
were African American and (27 or 54.0%) were White.
Table 3 gives the mean sentence length of the legal and
extra-legal variables in the study by race. African American
females had a mean sentence length of 75.72 months
compared to a mean sentence length of 70.29 for White
females. When some of the other variables besides race
were examined, the data showed that African Americans
still averaged longer mean sentence lengths. African
American females sentenced with prior records, for
example, averaged a 6.25 month longer sentence than White
females with prior records, and African Americans
sentenced in rural courts averaged a 17.27 month longer
sentence than with females sentenced from rural courts.
When type of crime was examined by race, White
females who committed violent offenses had a longer mean
Journal of the Oklahoma CriminalJustice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma: A Preliminary Analysis Martin & Stimpson
Table 4
Multivariate Regression Coefficients
b SE Significance Level
9.71 -3.25 .001 **
9.99 -3.81 .000**
12.97 -2.88 .004**
8.52 3.10 .002**
5.69 1.110 .274
5.81 -1.40 .161
11.69 7.09 .000**
Independent Variables
Drug Offenses"
Property Offenses
"Other" Offenses
Prior Record
Race"
Locality of Conviction"
Constant
-31.57
-38.06
-37.28
26.39
6.22
-8.14
82.85
R2=.20
Adjusted R2=.03
F=4.202; Significance=.OOO
*p<.05
**p<.OI
"Violent Crime is the omitted category for type of crime
"White is the omitted category for race
CRural court is the omitted category for locality of conviction
sentence length. African American females, on the other
hand, averaged longer mean sentence lengths for drug
offenses, property offenses, and offenses included in the
"other" offense category. The "drug offense" category,
for which both African American and White females were
more likely to be incarcerated, African Americans had a
mean sentence length of76.05 months compared to a mean
sentence length of67.86 months for White females
Table 4 shows the results of the OLS regression
analyses which predicted the sentence length of African
American and White females, while controlling for type of
crime, prior record, and locality of conviction. An
examination of the regression coefficients (b) revealed that
those convicted of violent crimes received 82 more months
in prison than those sentenced to prison for drug offenses,
property offenses, or crimes included in the category of
"other" offenses, after controlling for prior record, race of
defendant, and locality of conviction. Drug offenders
received sentences that were 31 months less than those
sentenced for violent offenses, and those sentenced for
property crimes received sentences that were 38 months
less than the sentences of those sentenced for violent
offenses, after controls for the other variables in this study.
Those individuals who were included in the "other" crime
category, in addition, received sentences that were 37
months shorter than those offenders convicted of violent
crimes.
For the "prior record" variable, those offenders
having a prior criminal record received sentences that
were significantly greater than those offenders without a
prior record, even after controll ing for type of crime, race
of defendant, and locality of conviction. Offenders with a
prior record, in fact, received sentences that were 26
months longer than those without one. That particular
finding was consistent with the findings of existing
sentencing literature which suggested that, even after
controlling for variables such as race and type of crime,
defendants with prior records were sentenced more harshly
than defendants without prior records (Spohn & Welch,
1987). When the regression coefficient for the race variable
is examined the data showed that, on average, African
Americans received sentences that were six months longer
than White females after controlling for type of crime,
prior record, and locality of conviction. This difference
was not statistically significant.
The results for the "locality of conviction" variable
suggested that offenders who were sentenced in urban
courts received more lenient sentences than offenders
who were sentenced in rural courts. That difference was
not significant.
DISCUSSION
The study took a preliminary look at how various
legal and extra-legal variables affected African American
and White females sentenced in Oklahoma courts between
June, 1996, and June, 1997. Although the analysis revealed
that African American females averaged a 6.22 months
longer mean sentence length than White females, after
controlling for prior record, locality of conviction, and
type of crime, the difference was not statistically significant.
The finding of a no-race-effect on sentencing in Oklahoma
courts should be taken with caution because the study
only examined sentencing in Oklahoma for one year.
There does exist the possibility, however, that once
other time periods are examined, allowing for the inclusion
of more sentenced offenders, the difference could be more
pronounced and statistically significant. Race, therefore,
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma: APreliminary Analysis Martin& Stimpson
could still influence sentencing decisions in the state
although with this group of offenders a race effect is not
found after controlling for prior record and type of crime.
The study, in addition, examined only sentencing patterns
of females, who accounted for about 10% of the state's
prison population at the end ofJune, 1997.
The same caution should be taken with respect to the
extra-legal variable "locality of conviction." Without
controls for other relevant variables, the analysis showed
that offenders sentenced in rural courts received mean
sentences that were 21 months longer than offenders
sentenced in urban courts. When controls were
introduced, however, that difference was reduced to a non-statistically
significant difference of 8. I months. The
findings were consistent with previous literature
suggesting that urbanization has been a significant
determinant in the sentencing of offenders (Myers &
Talarico, 1986).
The legal variables in the study both had a statistically
significant impact on sentencing in the multivariate
analysis. After controls were introduced, offenders with
prior records averaged mean sentences that were 26 months
longer than offenders without prior records. The findings
were also consistent with research that has found legal
variables to be the best predictors of an offender's
sentence length (Hagan, 1974; Kleck, 1981; Klein, 1991;
Spohn & Welch, 1987; Sutton, 1978).
All of the findings should be taken with caution and
further study is needed for several reasons. First, the
analysis included an additive regression model and not
interactive regression models. The impact that variables
such as type of crime and locality have on sentencing in
Oklahoma may not, therefore, be constant across race.
Second, there were a number of other extra-legal variables
that were not examined in the study which might have had
an impact on sentencing, such as whether or not an
offender had a private or public attorney and whether or
not an offender pled guilty to a particular offense.
Third, issues such as how gender affected sentencing
in Oklahoma also were not considered. Oklahoma has
consistently had the highest per capita incarceration rate
for females in the United States, therefore, issues such as
those need to be examined in future studies. Fourth, the
study only examined sentence length. It may be the case
that extra-legal variables might have more of an influence
on who goes to prison and who does not go to prison
than sentence length. The findings, thus, must be used
cautiously and carefully when discussing how legal and
extra-legal variables, especially race, impacted sentencing
decisions in Oklahoma.
Finally, the state of Oklahoma has enacted truth in
sentencing and sentencing guidelines, which are to take
affect on July I, 1999. Those reforms will drastically alter
the way offenders are sentenced in the state. A more
important issue to examine then may be not how legal and
extra-legal variables impact on sentencing in Oklahoma,
but how those variables influence sentencing in Oklahoma,
especially race, before and after implementation of truth in
sentencing and sentencing guidelines.
Bibliography
Barnes, C:,& Kingnorth, R. (1996). Race, Drug, and
Criminal Sentencing: Hidden Effects of the Criminal Law.
Journal of criminal justice, 24, 39-55.
Blumstein, A. (1982). On the racial disproportionality
of United States prison population. Journal of criminal
law and criminology, 73(3), 1259-1281.
Crockett, G. (1984). The rose of the black judge. In
The criminal justice system and Blacks. (pp. 195-204).
New York: Clark Boardman Company.
Dixon, J. (1995). The Organizational Context of
Criminal Sentencing. Americanjournal of sociology, 5,
1157-98.
Hagan, J. (1974). Extra-legal attributes and criminal
sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint.
Law and Society Review, 8, 357-383.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1996). The bell curve:
Intelligence and class structure in American life.
Washington, DC: Free Press.
Inverarity, J. (1990). Racial Disparity in US
imprisonment rate: Race or class effects? Paper Presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Criminology, Baltimore, MD.
Kleck, G. (1981). Racial discrimination in criminal
sentencing: A critical evaluation of the evidence with
additional data on the death penalty. American
Sociological Review, 46, 783-805.
Klein, S. (1991). Racial disparities in sentencing
decisions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Kramer, J., & Steffensmeir, D. (1993). Race and
imprisonment decisions. The Sociological Quarterly, 34,
357-376.
McDonald, R., & Carlson, K. (1993). Sentencing in
the federal courts: Does race matter? Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mauer, M., & Huling, T. (1995). Young Black
Americans and the criminal justice system: Five Years
later. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998
Women, Race, and Sentencing in Oklahoma: A Preliminary Analysis Martin & Stimpson
Mumola, C. J., & Beck, A. 1., (1997). Prisoners in
1996 (BJS Publication No. NCJ-164619). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Myers, L., & Reid, S. D. (1995). The importance of
county context in the measurement of sentence disparity:
The search for routinization. Journal of Criminal Justice,
23,223-241.
Myers, M. A., & Talarico, S. (1986). The social
contexts of racial discrimination in sentencing. Social
Problems, 33, 236-251.
Myrdal, G. (1969). An American dilemma. The Negro
problem and modern democracy. New York: Harper and
Row.
Petersilia, 1., Klein, S., & Turner, S. (1988). Racial
equity in sentencing. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation.
Pruitt, C. R., & Wilson, J. O. (1983). A longitudinal
study of the effect of race on sentencing. Law and Society
Review, 17(4),613-635.
Sellin, T. (1935). Race prejudice in the administration
of justice. American Journal of Sociology, 41, 212-217.
Spohn, c., & Welch, S. (1987). The effect of prior
record in sentencing research: An examination of the
assumption that any measure is adequate. Justice
Quarterly, 4, 287-302.
Sutton, P. (1978). Variations in federal criminal
sentences.' A statistical assessment at the national level.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service.
Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and
punishment in America. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Weitzer, R.. (1996). Racial discrimination in the criminal
justice system: Findings and problems in the literature.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(4),309-322.
Wilson, D. 1. (1994). National corrections reporting
program, 1992 (BJS Publication No. NCJ-145862).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Wilbanks, W. (1987). The myth of a racist criminal
justice system, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wilson, W. 1. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. The
inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Williams, 1. J. (1995). Race of appellant, sentencing
guidelines, and decisionmaking in criminal appeals: A
research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 83-91.
Wolfgang, M., & Reidel, M. (1973). Race, judicial
discretion, and the death penalty. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 407,
119-133.
Zatz, M. (1987). The changing forms ofraciallethnic
bias in sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 24, 69-92.
Joumal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August 1997/1998