OCJRC Journal 1997-1998 pt1 |
Previous | 1 of 14 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
Okla State Agency |
Corrections, Oklahoma State Department of |
Title | Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium. |
Alternative title | OCJRC journal : Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium journal |
Authors |
Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium. Oklahoma. Department of Corrections. |
Publisher | Oklahoma Department of Corrections |
Publication Date | 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997; 1998 |
Publication type |
Periodicals Research Report/Study |
Serial holdings | Electronic holdings: 1994-1998 |
Subject |
Corrections--Oklahoma--Periodicals. Criminal justice, Administration of--Oklahoma--Periodicals. |
Notes | Official publication of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium |
OkDocs Class# | C5700.6 J86o |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Deposited by agency in print; scanned by Oklahoma Department of Libraries 11/2011 |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Month/year uploaded | November 2011 |
Date created | 2016-08-02 |
Date modified | 2016-08-02 |
OCLC number | 759939295 |
Description
Title | OCJRC Journal 1997-1998 pt1 |
OkDocs Class# | C5700.6 J86o v.4 1997-1998 |
Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
ODL electronic copy | Deposited by agency in print; scanned by Oklahoma Department of Libraries 11/2011 |
Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
Language | English |
Full text | 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 |
Date created | 2011-11-07 |
Date modified | 2011-11-07 |