Comparing Risk Factors for Prison Victimization Between Foreign-Born and Native-Born Incarcerated People

Abstract

Prior research on violent victimization in prison suggests noncitizens may be less likely to experience violence while incarcerated. In an attempt to better understand this relationship, this study examined whether citizenship status predicts risk among a subsample of foreign-born incarcerated people. In addition, we modeled violent victimization separately for foreign-born and native-born individuals to identify any differences in risk factors between groups. We tested these relationships using a sample of 7,326 individuals incarcerated in Minnesota state prisons. The results of Cox regression models showed foreign-born citizens and foreign-born noncitizens had similar risk for violent prison victimization. We also found that some risk factors for victimization differed across native-born and foreign-born incarcerated people.

Keywords

foreign-born prison victimization

Introduction

In terms of violence, prison is a unique place where potential offenders and potential victims share space together at all times. In addition to this, the current incarceration system suffers from situational problems such as overcrowding; lack of financial, administrative, or human-related resources; and turnover in both the incarcerated and officer populations, all of which can lead to violent conflict in prison (see Wooldredge, 2020). Victimization while incarcerated can, in turn, bring a series of other problems, such as drug use, emotional distress, depression, and recidivism (Haney, 2006; Hochstetler et al., 2004; Listwan et al., 2013; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015; Steiner et al., 2017; Western, 2021; Wooldredge, 1999; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2014; Zweig et al., 2015). For these reasons, prison administrators are constantly concerned with reducing violence and victimization in prison.

Scholars have presented a number of theories to explain victimization. The major victimization theory is lifestyle-routine activities theory (LRAT; Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1978). Simply put, patterns of behavior affect whether a potential offender will meet a suitable target when there is no capable guardianship, allowing a crime/victimization to happen (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1978; for a review, see McNeeley, 2015). At the individual level, Cohen et al. (1981) identified factors that can influence risk of victimization: proximity to potential offenders in terms of distance, exposure or accessibility to potential offenders, guardianship that prevents violations from occurring, and target suitability.

Specific to correctional facilities, incarcerated people’s behavior and experiences have been mainly explained using deprivation and importation theories (Bowker, 1980; Steiner et al., 2017; Wood, 2013; Wood & Buttaro, 2013; Wooldredge, 1998; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2014). To summarize these theories simply, deprivation theory argues that the harsh conditions of the prison environment may cause some incarcerated people to resort to criminal behavior, resulting in a higher level of prison victimization (Clemmer, 1940; Sykes, 1958; Sykes & Messinger, 1960). On the other hand, importation theory holds the position that incarcerated people bring their pre-incarceration personal characteristics and beliefs to prison, thereby increasing or decreasing an individual’s likelihood of prison victimization (Irwin & Cressey, 1962; Steiner et al., 2017).

Based on these theoretical arguments, scholars have attempted to assess the causes of victimization among incarcerated people. This work has identified personal characteristics associated with prison victimization, such as age, race, education level, and mental or physical health (Blitz et al., 2008; Ellison et al., 2018; Jachimowski, 2018; Kuo et al., 2014; McNeeley, 2022; Pare & Logan, 2011; Steiner et al., 2017; Teasdale et al., 2016). In addition, regarding institutional routines and experiences, those who have more extensive criminal histories; are more involved in recreational activities; are less involved in treatment, work, or education; and/or have a history of institutional misconduct experience prison victimization at a higher level (Choi & Wentling, 2021; Copes et al., 2010; Ellison et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2020; Kuo et al., 2014; Lahm, 2009; McNeeley, 2022; Meade et al., 2021; Morash et al., 2012; Pérez et al., 2010; Steiner et al., 2017; Teasdale et al., 2016; Wooldredge, 1998; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2012, 2014).

That said, the literature on prison victimization has not paid enough attention to how these known victimization factors relate to foreign-born¹ individuals. Indeed, only a handful of studies have specifically examined institutional outcomes among the incarcerated foreign-born population (see Piatkowska et al., 2022; Ramos & Alaniz, 2022), and those were mainly concerned with institutional misconduct, not victimization. While the general victimization literature indicates foreign-born people may be at increased risk due to unique characteristics that increase vulnerability (Barranco & Shihadeh, 2015; Caraballo & Topalli, 2023; Cepeda et al., 2012; Davis & Erez, 1998; Decker et al., 2007; Freemon et al., 2022; Fussell, 2011; Negi et al., 2013; Sasseville et al., 2022; Von Hentig, 1948; Zatz & Smith, 2012), a couple of studies suggest risk of violent victimization is lower among incarcerated non-U.S. citizens than their U.S. citizen counterparts (McNeeley, 2022; Piatkowska et al., 2022). Therefore, more research is needed to fully understand how incarcerated foreign-born individuals’ risk for victimization differs from that of incarcerated native-borns.

For example, as has been discussed above, there are personal and institutional factors that influence one’s likelihood of experiencing prison victimization; however, it is unclear whether those factors work the same way for the foreign-born incarcerated population. Identifying factors that have differential effects among the foreign-born population compared to the native-born population could help us to address violence among and/or toward foreign-born incarcerated people. Doing so could be increasingly beneficial for addressing prison violence, as the U.S. is experiencing and expecting a higher number of foreign-born individuals in the criminal justice system. Therefore, this study compares incarcerated foreign-born and U.S.-born individuals’ likelihood of and risk factors for experiencing victimization in prison. We answer these questions using data from approximately 7,300 people incarcerated in the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC).

Immigration, Crime, and Victimization

It is commonly believed that the foreign-born population would be more engaged in criminal activities. However, a large body of research shows a negative relationship between immigration and criminal and antisocial behavior, at both the individual and community level (i.e., the “immigrant paradox;” for a review, see Ousey & Kubrin, 2018; Sampson, 2008). In fact, although foreign-born people generally have socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with lower risk of victimization (Xie & Baumer, 2021), increased vulnerability has been observed for certain types of criminal victimization—such as homicide, intimate partner violence, sexual assault, gang violence, and wage theft (Barranco & Shihadeh, 2015; Caraballo & Topalli, 2023; Cepeda et al., 2012; Davis & Erez, 1998; Decker et al., 2007; Freemon et al., 2022; Fussell, 2011; Negi et al., 2013; Sasseville et al., 2022; Von Hentig, 1948)—partly due to foreign-born people’s tendency to avoid contact with the police and the criminal justice system (Zatz & Smith, 2012).

Specifically, Erez et al. (2009) found that among those foreign-born individuals who experienced victimization, less than half (46%) contacted the criminal justice system in response. Several factors can explain this hesitancy. First, they tend to have negative perception that police officers will be discriminatory against minorities, and their confidence in the police system is usually low (Lasley, 1994; Menjívar & Bejarano, 2004; Mirande, 1980; Weitzer, 1996). Moreover, foreign-born people’s language barrier can work as another prohibitive measure against contacting the criminal justice system when they encounter problems with the law (Menjívar & Bejarano, 2004). Finally, especially regarding those with undocumented/illegal migrant status, the fear of deportation upon contacting the legal system adds another layer to this phenomenon (Khaja & Jaggers, 2018). Due to these characteristics, the foreign-born population is placed in a more vulnerable position in terms of victimization, as potential offenders may be aware of this hesitancy toward the criminal justice system (Davis & Henderson, 2003; Khaja & Jaggers, 2018), making them more attractive targets.

The Current Study: Victimization Among Foreign-Born Incarcerated People

Victimization among incarcerated foreign-born people is especially relevant due to their recent increase among the prison population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Carson, 2021), 4.3% of individuals incarcerated in state prisons as of December 31, 2021 were identified as non-U.S. citizens. Across states, the percentage of incarcerated people who were non-U.S. citizens ranged from 0.2% (Mississippi) to 20.1% (California). According to this BJS report, 4.5% of the Minnesota state prison population were non-U.S. citizens.

Much less is known about noncitizen incarcerated individuals’ immigration status. In recent studies examining people incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections, about 2% of the samples examined were noncitizens, with slightly less than half of those having undocumented legal status (Piatkowska et al., 2022; Ramos & Alaniz, 2022). However, these studies likely undercounted the incarcerated foreign-born population, as individuals released outside of Florida or released to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody were not included in the samples.

Notably, few studies have examined correctional outcomes across foreign-born and native-born incarcerated people. For example, Piatkowska et al. (2022) completed a study on the relationship between incarcerated noncitizens’ legal status and their misconduct level in prison. Using data from Florida’s Department of Corrections, the authors found that undocumented noncitizens showed a higher likelihood of prison misconduct, but there was no statistically significant difference in misconduct between documented noncitizens and incarcerated native-borns. Similarly, another study using data from Florida found that documented and undocumented releasees had lower recidivism rates than native-borns, but did not significantly differ from each other (Ramos & Alaniz, 2022).

Due to the unique characteristic of being a foreign-born incarcerated person in the United States, scholars have argued they may be at an increased risk of victimization in prison as well as in the broader community. However, despite how feasible this assumption is, few studies have considered the relationship between incarcerated foreign-borns and their victimization experiences while in prison. Piatkowska et al. (2022) hypothesized that foreign-born incarcerated people could experience lower levels of victimization than native-born U.S. citizens because they have generally low propensity for criminal behavior, possibly due to the fear of deportation, which may result in lower target antagonism (see Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996). This hypothesis was supported by McNeeley (2022), who found incarcerated noncitizens had lower risk of violent victimization compared to their U.S. citizen counterparts, and that this relationship was especially pronounced when examining Black incarcerated people.

Despite these studies, there is still a gap in the literature regarding whether the risk of prison victimization differs between the foreign-born and native-born populations. In order to address this gap in the literature, we conducted analyses separately predicting violent victimization among foreign-born and native-born incarcerated people. We hypothesized that, among those incarcerated individuals who were born outside the United States, U.S. citizenship would influence victimization in prison such that incarcerated foreign-born people who are noncitizens would experience victimization at a higher rate than would foreign-born people who are U.S. citizens. We also examined whether other risk and protective factors—including personal characteristics, custodial factors, and prison routines—differed across native-born and foreign-born individuals.

Methods

Data and Sample

The sample includes all 7,326 adults who were incarcerated in MnDOC correctional facilities on January 1, 2021. This included 6,660 individuals who were native-born U.S. citizens and 666 foreign-born individuals. All variables were taken from the Correctional Operations Management System (COMS) operated by MnDOC. In January 2021, the MnDOC process for incidents of misconduct was updated to begin recording the identity of the victim in all incidents of violence that result in discipline charges. Therefore, independent variables were measured as of or prior to January 1, 2021. The dependent variable (victimization) was measured between January 2, 2021 and September 30, 2022.

Table 1 presents a comparison of the foreign-born and native-born subsamples. Over two-thirds (69.7%) of the foreign-born incarcerated people were non-U.S. citizens. The foreign-born sample was mostly male (96.5%). Almost a third were Black (30.3%), while 26% were Hispanic, 22.9% were White, 19.9% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.5% were American Indian or Alaskan Native. The average age of the foreign-born sample was 38.76 years, with a range between 15 and 83 years. Over a third (35.7%) were incarcerated for a violent offense, and they had served an average of 46.38 months (about 3.8 years) as of January 1, 2021.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

	Foreign-born (N = 666)		Native-born U.S. citizens (N = 6,660)
	Mean or %	Min-max	Mean or %	Min-Max
Noncitizen	69.7%	—	—	—
Female	3.5%	—	5.7%	—
Race/ethnicity
White	22.9%	—	47.9%	—
Black	30.3%	—	38.2%	—
Indigenous	0.5%	—	8.9%	—
Hispanic	26.0%	—	3.6%	—
Asian	19.9%	—	1.2%	—
Unknown race/ethnicity	0.4%	—	0.1%	—
Age as of 1/1/2021	38.76	15–83	38.72	17–94
Incarcerated for violent offense	35.7%	—	39.1%	—
Time served as of 1/1/2021	46.38	0–396	48.33	0–554

The native-born sample was also mostly male (94.3%). Nearly half (47.9% were White), 38.2% were Black, 8.9% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 3.6% were Hispanic, and 1.2% were Asian or Pacific Islander. Age ranged from 17 to 94 years old, with an average age of 38.72 years. Thirty-nine percent were incarcerated for a violent offense. The native-born sample had served, on average, 48.33 months (about 4 years) as of January 1, 2021.

Dependent Variable

Violent victimization includes experiences of physical assault, fights, being held hostage, or homicide. Because the dates of violent incidents were available, the variable includes both “status” information regarding whether victimization occurred and “time” information regarding the number of days between January 1, 2021 and the individual’s first victimization experience. Descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analyses are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Foreign born (N = 666)			Native-born U.S. citizens (N = 6,660)
	Mean or %	SD	Min-Max	Mean or %	SD	Min-Max	T
Dependent variable
Victimization	8.7%	—	0–1	11.6%	—	0–1	−2.743**
Independent variables
Noncitizen	69.7%	—	0–1	—	—	—	—
Incarcerated for violent offense	35.7%	—	0–1	39.1%	—	0–1	−2.957**
Not participating in programing as of 1/1/2021	18.6%	—	0–1	28.2%	—	0–1	−5.999***
Mental health diagnoses	0.41	0.822	0–4	0.55	0.909	0–6	−4.987***
Physical health diagnoses	0.17	0.507	0–6	0.24	0.562	0–5	−2.116*
MnSTARR 2.0 risk level	1.72	1.025	1–4	2.37	1.189	1–4	−16.157***
Black or indigenous	31.7%	—	0–1	47.4%	—	0–1	−7.857***
Security level as of 1/1/2021	2.59	0.871	1–4	2.66	0.962	1–4	−1.862^†
Prior violent misconduct	0.07	0.368	0–4	0.08	0.414	0–16	−0.639
Age as of 1/1/2021	38.76	12.008	15–83	38.72	11.467	17–94	1.290
Time served as of 1/1/2021	46.38	61.901	0–396	48.33	72.038	0–554	0.430

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. ^†p < .10.

Independent Variables

Due to the smaller sample sizes in some of our models, there are few events (i.e., cases with a score of 1 on the dependent variable). Scholars argue there should be a minimum of 5 to 10 events for each independent variable included in the models (Peduzzi et al., 1996; Vittinghoff & McCulloch, 2007). With 57 events among the foreign-born sample, the models should include no more than 11 predictors.

First is a binary measure indicating whether the individual is a U.S. citizen (0) or a noncitizen of the United States (1); this is only used when examining foreign-born individuals. Since prior research suggests risk for prison victimization is highest for Black and indigenous people (e.g., McNeeley, 2022), we included a binary variable indicating whether the individual identifies as Black or indigenous (1) or is a member of another race (0). The individual’s prison activities were measured with a binary variable that indicated whether they were participating in education, treatment, or work as of January 1, 2021 (0) or were idle (i.e., not participating in any of these activities) as of January 1, 2021 (1). We also included a binary variable that measured the offense type for which the individual was incarcerated (1 = violent, non-sexual offense, 0 = other offense type).² We also included continuous variables measuring the number of mental health and physical health diagnoses, the number of violent misconduct convictions the person received in the 6 months prior to January 1, 2021, their age in years as of January 1, 2021, the number of months incarcerated as of January 1, 2021, and their security level ranging from 1 (minimum) to 4 (maximum) as of January 1, 2021.

To maintain a parsimonious model while controlling for known correlates of prison victimization, we used the MnSTARR (Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk) 2.0 risk level as a control variable. The MnSTARR 2.0 (Duwe, 2014; Duwe & Rocque, 2017) is a gender-specific³ risk assessment instrument calculated using 48 variables such as prior criminal history, prior prison stays, sentence length, program participation, visitation, and gang membership. Scores are classified into one of four risk levels: low risk contains the bottom 40% of scores, medium risk contains the next 20%, high risk contains the next 20%, and very high risk contains those in the top 20% of scores. Prior research suggests risk assessment instruments designed to predict recidivism can be accurate predictors of victimization (Logan & McNeeley, 2023; McCafferty & Scherer, 2017).

Statistical Analysis

Because information on the timing of violent events was available, this study employed survival analysis using Cox regression models. Survival analyses are often used as an alternative to logistic regression because they allow for an examination of not only whether an outcome occurs, but also how quickly that outcome occurs. In our study, Cox regression provides an additional benefit: because an end date is used, it can account for the decrease in exposure time that results when individuals are released from prison before the end of the follow-up period.

Our Cox regression models used both “status” variables that indicate whether an individual was victimized and “time” variables that measure the number of days between January 1, 2021 and the first victimization event. For individuals who were not victimized during the follow-up period, we used a censor date of either September 30, 2022 or their release date (if they were released before September 30, 2022).

To explore whether and how foreign-born status shapes risk for victimization while incarcerated, separate models were estimated for native-born U.S. citizens and those who were born elsewhere. The equality of coefficients test (Paternoster et al., 1998) was used to determine whether differences in coefficients were statistically significant.

Results

Bivariate Results

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for both the foreign-born and the native-born samples. Violent victimization was significantly lower among foreign-born individuals (t = −2.743, p < .01); 8.7% of foreign-born incarcerated people experienced victimization, compared to 11.6% of the native-born sample.

Table 2 also reveals several other significant differences between foreign-born and native-born incarcerated people. A greater percentage of native-born incarcerated were incarcerated for a violent offense (39.1% compared to 35.7% of foreign-born individuals, t = −2.957, p < .01) and were idle rather than participating in education, treatment, or work (28.2% compared to 18.6% of foreign-born individuals, t = −5.999, p < .001). Native-born incarcerated people had a greater number of recorded mental health diagnoses (an average of 0.55, compared to an average of 0.41 among foreign-born people, t = −4.987, p < .001) and physical health diagnoses (an average of 0.24, compared to an average of 0.17 among foreign-born people, t = −2.116, p < .05), had higher risk levels according to the MnSTARR 2.0 (an average of 2.37 [between medium and high risk], compared to an average of 1.72 [between low and medium risk] among foreign-born incarcerated people, t = −16.157, p < .001), were Black or indigenous (47.4% compared to 31.7% of the foreign-born subsample, t = −7.857, p < .001), and were held in somewhat higher security facilities (an average of 2.66, compared to an average of 2.59 among foreign-born people, t = −1.862, p < .10). There were no statistically significant differences between foreign-born people and native-born U.S. citizens when examining prior violent misconduct, age, or time served.

Multivariate Results

The Cox regression models predicting victimization are provided in Table 3. Interestingly, being a noncitizen was not a statistically significant predictor of victimization among the foreign-born subsample. Among the foreign-born sample, victimization risk was 135% higher among those who identified as Black or indigenous than among those who identified as White (p = .004). Risk for victimization increased by 88.6% for each additional physical health diagnosis (p = .024), 55.3% for each additional prior violent misconduct conviction (p = .016), and 43.9% for each increase in security level (p = .024), while it decreased by 8% for each year of age (p < .001).

Table 3.

Cox Regression Models Predicting Time to First Victimization.

	Foreign born (N = 649)			Native-born U.S. citizens (N = 6,604)
	HR	SE	p	HR	SE	p	z
Noncitizen	1.156	0.295	.623	—	—	—	—
Black or indigenous	2.347	0.300	.004**	1.643	0.078	<.001***	1.15
Not participating in programing as of 1/1/2021	1.619	0.299	.107	1.165	0.077	.048*	1.07
Incarcerated for violent offense	0.870	0.301	.643	1.162	0.077	.053^†	−0.93
Mental health diagnoses	0.992	0.158	.958	1.070	0.038	.078^†	−0.47
Physical health diagnoses	1.886	0.281	.024*	1.135	0.073	.083^†	1.75^†
Prior violent misconduct	1.553	0.182	.016*	1.149	0.032	<.001***	1.63
Age as of 1/1/2021	0.920	0.020	<.001***	0.959	0.004	<.001***	−2.01*
Time served as of 1/1/2021	0.998	0.003	.466	0.999	0.001	.081^†	−0.32
Security level as of 1/1/2021	1.439	0.161	.024*	1.431	0.041	<.001***	0.03
MnSTARR 2.0 risk level	0.899	0.135	.430	1.140	0.033	<.001***	−1.71^†

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. ^†p < .10.

For native-born U.S. citizens, risk of victimization was 64.3% higher among Black or indigenous people compared to White people (p < .001) and 16.5% higher among those who were not involved in programing, education, or work (p = .048). Risk of victimization increased by 14.9% for each additional violent misconduct conviction (p < .001), 43.1% for each increase in security level (p < .001), and 14% for each increase in MnSTARR 2.0 risk level (p < .001), while it decreased by 4.1% for each additional year older (p < .001).

The z scores shown in Table 3 reveal three potential differences in victimization risk between foreign-born and native-born individuals. First, age, while negatively associated with victimization among both foreign- and native-born individuals, was more strongly associated with victimization among foreign-born people (z = −2.01, p < .05). Second, physical health was a stronger predictor of victimization risk among foreign-born people than among native-born people (z = 1.75, p < .10). Third, the MnSTARR 2.0 predicted victimization among native-born incarcerated people but not among foreign-born incarcerated people (z = −1.71, p < .10).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to assess whether and how foreign-born status and U.S. citizenship shape risk of experiencing prison victimization. In doing so, we extended prior work showing that incarcerated noncitizens were at lower risk of prison victimization than U.S. citizens (McNeeley, 2022). We attempted to shed light on this relationship by examining how U.S. citizenship relates to prison victimization specifically among a sample of incarcerated foreign-born individuals. Among the sample of foreign-born incarcerated people, we found no association between U.S. citizenship and risk of violent victimization in prison. Rather, our bivariate result showing lower risk of prison victimization among foreign-born people (see Table 2) suggests the lower risk of victimization among noncitizens McNeeley (2022) could be a result of lower risk of victimization among foreign-born people more generally, as hypothesized by Piatkowska et al. (2022).

Despite these findings, it is important to note that, because we analyzed administrative data, we were unable to explore relationships that may be especially important when studying foreign-born people. For example, we did not have information on foreign-born individuals’ immigration status (e.g., documented vs. undocumented), country of origin, or other immigration histories. Relatedly, it has been suggested that assimilation into U.S. culture, including English language proficiency, is important for understanding risk of outcomes such as victimization (Ballard & Kubrin, 2023; Desmond & Kubrin, 2009). Unfortunately, due to our use of administrative data, we were not able to incorporate measures of assimilation or language proficiency. Future research should continue to explore whether and how immigration status, country of origin, assimilation, and language proficiency are associated with correctional outcomes such as institutional misconduct and victimization. In spite of these limitations, the null result for citizenship suggests legal status may not be as important a predictor of victimization among foreign-born people as expected. This is consistent with past research showing no difference between documented and undocumented immigrants on other correctional outcomes (Ramos & Alaniz, 2022).

We also examined whether risk factors for experiencing prison violence differed across foreign-born and native-born incarcerated people. The results showed that younger individuals and those with more physical health problems were more likely to experience violence and experienced it more quickly than those who were older or had fewer physical health issues. Notably, age and physical health shaped risk for victimization more strongly among foreign-born people. This is parallel with the intersectionality literature, which shows that when risk factors for an outcome combine, the negative impacts increase (e.g., Bell, 2018; Spohn & Holleran, 2000). In terms of victimization, multiple personal characteristics that indicate vulnerability can compound to produce greater risk of victimization than would result from each characteristic on its own (see Clay-Warner et al., 2016). In particular, youthfulness appeared to be especially risky among foreign-born people. This finding is consistent with the broader literature on immigrant victimization, in which young noncitizens have a higher risk of victimization (Xie & Baumer, 2021). The particular relevance of age for foreign-born incarcerated people may be consistent with findings that noncitizens have a lower likelihood of criminal behavior when compared to their U.S. citizen counterparts (Rumbaut et al., 2006), which in turn reduces the likelihood of experiencing victimization via lower target antagonism. In particular, Watts and Evans (2023) found foreign-born people were more likely than native-borns to desist from crime as they aged. Older incarcerated people are less involved in misconduct in general, reducing their risk of experiencing victimization, and this may be especially true for older foreign-born incarcerated people.

Consistent with past research (Logan & McNeeley, 2023; McCafferty & Scherer, 2017), the MnSTARR 2.0 risk level was an effective predictor of victimization; those with higher MnSTARR 2.0 risk levels were more likely to be victimized and experienced victimization more quickly. However, this was only true among the native-born subsample; MnSTARR 2.0 risk level was not associated with victimization risk among the foreign-born subsample. There are several potential explanations for this finding. First, this could be because risk for victimization is higher for those with higher MnSTARR risk levels, and MnSTARR risk levels were generally lower among foreign-born incarcerated people. Second, it is possible that the predictors of victimization that are used in the calculation of the MnSTARR 2.0—such as prior criminal history, prior prison stays, sentence length, program participation, visitation, and gang membership—are not as important for foreign-born people as they are for native-born people. Finally, it is possible the MnSTARR 2.0 could be less accurate among this population. For example, some data—such as history of prior convictions—may be incomplete when assessing people born outside the United States, especially if they are recent immigrants.

It is also notable that prison activities (including work, treatment, and education) did not predict victimization among foreign-born incarcerated people. Participation in legitimate activities while incarcerated has been shown to be protective (Ellison et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2020; McNeeley, 2022; Teasdale et al., 2016; Wooldredge, 1998), but we only observed this relationship among native-born U.S. citizens. It is possible this was the result of lower statistical power in the analyses predicting victimization among foreign-born people. Still, given past evidence that immigrants are less likely than non-immigrants to recidivate (Ramos & Alaniz, 2022), future research should consider how foreign-born individuals engage with programing while incarcerated and whether their participation has different outcomes compared to native-born incarcerated people.

Some limitations of the study highlight avenues for future research. First, as discussed earlier, we were unable to examine more nuanced measures of legal status, country of origin, immigration history, or assimilation (e.g., English proficiency). We urge scholars working in this area to examine the relationships between these characteristics and correctional outcomes such as victimization. Second, as we used official data to measure victimization, we were not able to account for the dark figure of prison misconduct. It is possible that some violence went undetected by staff or was not included in the discipline data used here because the perpetrator was unknown. It is especially possible that foreign-born people may have been reluctant to report victimization to prison officials, as has been suggested about the criminal justice system more broadly (e.g., Erez et al., 2009; Zatz & Smith, 2012), impacting our results. Still, it has been suggested that self-reports could also undercount victimization (Western, 2021). Future research on prison violence should attempt to triangulate using different sources in order to better capture all incidents of violence. Finally, we used Cox regression because it allowed us to account for differences in time exposed due to some individuals being released before the end of the follow-up period. Future research may benefit from using alternative methods, such as employing a matching technique.

Reducing prison victimization is an imminent issue for prison administrators as it can create a negative living or working environment for both incarcerated individuals and correctional officers. Contrary to what prior literature may have suggested, not having U.S. citizenship was not a significant factor in predicting risk of victimization among foreign-born incarcerated people. Rather, it appears that the relationship between citizenship status and prison victimization observed in past studies could be due to lower risk of violence among foreign-born people more broadly. Therefore, it is important to identify characteristics of foreign-born people that reduce their risk of being targeted for violence.

Accordingly, the results of this study indicated that there are some clear differences between foreign-born and native-born U.S. citizen incarcerated populations in terms of risk factors for prison victimization. Being a minority (Black or indigenous), young, held in higher security level prison, having physical health diagnoses, and prior violent misconduct were statistically significant predictors of experiencing violent victimization in prison among foreign-born incarcerated individuals. Among incarcerated native-born U.S. citizens, in addition to the factors listed above, idle status (i.e., non-participation in programing) and MnSTARR risk level were also useful for predicting violent victimization in prison. When it comes to reducing violent victimization in prison for the foreign-born incarcerated population, it may be especially advantageous to focus on those who are young minorities with physical health diagnoses, as these characteristics are especially likely to influence which foreign-born people experience violence during prison conflicts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Susan McNeeley

Notes

Author Biographies

Susan McNeeley is a senior research analyst at the Minnesota Department of Corrections and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include imprisonment, criminological theory, and victimology. Her work has been published in outlets such as Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Justice Quarterly.

Doyun Koo is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis. Her research interests include sentencing disparities, immigrants/noncitizens in the criminal justice system, corrections, and reentry. Her recent work has appeared in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

References

Ballard

M. M.

Kubrin

C. E.

(2023). Immigrant victimization: Centering language in theory, data and method. Societies, 13, 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13040101

Barranco

R. E.

Shihadeh

E. S.

(2015). Walking ATMs and the immigration spillover effect: The link between Latino immigration and robbery victimization. Social Science Research, 52, 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.03.003

Bell

K. E.

(2018). Prison violence and the intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society, 12(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047x.12.2018.1.132-148

Blitz

C. L.

Wolff

Shi

(2008). Physical victimization in prison: The role of mental illness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31(5), 385–393.

Bowker

L. H.

(1980). Prison victimization. Elsevier.

Caraballo

Topalli

(2023). “Walking ATMs”: Street criminals’ perception and targeting of undocumented immigrants. Justice Quarterly, 40(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.2005819

Carson

E. A.

(2021). Prisoners in 2021–Statistical tables. NCJ no. 302776 (pp. 1–50). Retrieved August 8, 2023, from, https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/prisoners-2021-statistical-tables

Cepeda

Negi

Nowotny

Arango

Kaplan

Valdez

(2012). Social stressors, special vulnerabilities and violence victimization among Latino immigrant day laborers in post-Katrina New Orleans. In Kubrin

C. E.

Zatz

M. S.

Martinez

(Eds.), Punishing immigrants: Policy, politics, and injustice (pp. 207–231). NYU Press.

Choi

Wentling

(2021). Convict code, risky lifestyles, and violent victimization among inmates in South Korea. Violence and Victims, 36(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1891/VV-D-19-00118

10.

Clay-Warner

Bunch

J. M.

McMahon-Howard

(2016). Differential vulnerability: Disentangling the effects of state dependence and population heterogeneity on repeat victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1406–1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816636415

11.

Clemmer

(1940). The prison community. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

12.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589

13.

Cohen

L. E.

Kluegel

J. R.

Land

K. C.

(1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094935

14.

Copes

Higgins

G. E.

Tewksbury

Dabney

D. A.

(2010). Participation in the prison economy and likelihood of physical victimization. Victims & Offenders, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2011.534005

15.

Davis

R. C.

Erez

(1998). Immigrant populations as victims: Toward a multicultural criminal justice system. National Institute of Justice.

16.

Davis

R. C.

Henderson

N. J.

(2003). Willingness to report crimes: The role of ethnic group membership and community efficacy. Crime and Delinquency, 49(4), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703254418

17.

Decker

M. R.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2007). Sexual violence against adolescent girls: Influences of immigration and acculturation. Violence Against Women, 13(5), 498–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207300654

18.

Desmond

S. A.

Kubrin

C. E.

(2009). The power of place: Immigrant communities and adolescent violence. The Sociological Quarterly, 50(4), 581–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01153.x

19.

Duwe

(2014). The development, validity, and reliability of the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk (MnSTARR). Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(5), 579–613.

20.

Duwe

Rocque

(2017). Effects of automating recidivism risk assessment on reliability, predictive validity, and return on investment (ROI). Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 235–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12270

21.

Ellison

J. M.

Steiner

Wright

E. M.

(2018). Examining the sources of violent victimization among jail inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(11), 1723–1741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818788590

22.

Erez

Adelman

Gregory

(2009). Intersections of immigration and domestic violence: Voices of battered immigrant women. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 32–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085108325413

23.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

(1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11(1), 3–19. citation1996/04/01 00:00Finkelhor D

24.

Freemon

K. R.

Gutierrez

M. A.

Huff

Cheon

Choate

Cox

Katz

C. M.

(2022). Violent victimization among immigrants: Using the National Violent Death Reporting System to examine foreign-born homicide victimization in the United States. Preventive Medicine Reports, 26, 101714. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pmedr.2022.101714

25.

Fussell

(2011). The deportation threat dynamic and victimization of Latino migrants: Wage theft and robbery. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(4), 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01221.x

26.

Haney

(2006). Reforming punishment: Psychological limits to the pains of imprisonment. American Psychological Association.

27.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

(1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballinger.

28.

Hochstetler

Murphy

D. S.

Simons

R. L.

(2004). Damaged goods: Exploring predictors of distress in prison inmates. Crime and Delinquency, 50(3), 436–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703257198

29.

Howard

M. V. A.

Corben

S. P.

Raudino

Galouzis

J. J.

(2020). Maintaining safety in the prison environment: A multilevel analysis of inmate victimisation in assaults. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(10-11), 1091–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19871633

30.

Irwin

Cressey

D. R.

(1962). Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10(2), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.2307/799047

31.

Jachimowski

K. G.

(2018). The relationship between mentally disordered inmates, victimization, and violence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1416438

32.

Khaja

Jaggers

J. W.

(2018). Immigrant inmates in the correctional system. In Church

W. T.

Springer

D. W.

(Eds.), Serving the stigmatized: Working within the incarcerated environment (pp. 333–350). Oxford University Press.

33.

Kuo

S. Y.

Cuvelier

S. J.

Huang

Y. S.

(2014). Identifying risk factors for victimization among male prisoners in Taiwan. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(2), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12465272

34.

Lahm

K. F.

(2009). Physical and property victimization behind bars: A multilevel examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(3), 348–365.

35.

Lasley

J. R.

(1994). The impact of the Rodney King incident on citizen attitudes toward police. Policing & Society, 3(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.1994.9964673

36.

Listwan

S. J.

Sullivan

C. J.

Agnew

Cullen

F. T.

Colvin

(2013). The pains of imprisonment revisited: The impact of strain on inmate recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 30(1), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.597772

37.

Logan

M. W.

McNeeley

(2023). Victimization among incarcerated military veterans: A target congruence approach. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231187303

38.

McCafferty

J. T.

Scherer

(2017). Beyond recidivism: Exploring the predictive validity of a correctional risk assessment tool on offender victimization. The Prison Journal, 97(6), 674–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517734493

39.

McNeeley

(2015). Lifestyle-routine activities and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214552607

40.

McNeeley

(2022). Reaffirming the relationship between routine activities and violent victimization in prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 78, 101883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101883

41.

Meade

Wasileski

Hunter

(2021). The effects of victimization prior to prison on victimization, misconduct, and sanction severity during incarceration. Crime and Delinquency, 67(12), 1856–1878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720977440

42.

Menjívar

Bejarano

(2004). Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study from the Phoenix metropolitan area. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(1), 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987032000147968

43.

Mirande

(1980). Fear of crime and fear of the police in a Chicano community. Sociology and Social Research, 64(4), 528–541.

44.

Morash

Jeong

Bohmert

M. N.

Bush

D. R.

(2012). Men’s vulnerability to prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence: A state correctional system case study. The Prison Journal, 92(2), 290–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885512439185

45.

Negi

N. J.

Cepeda

Valdez

(2013). Crime victimization among immigrant Latino day laborers in post-Katrina New Orleans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986313488089

46.

Ousey

G. C.

Kubrin

C. E.

(2018). Immigration and crime: Assessing a contentious issue. Annual Review of Criminology, 1(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092026

47.

Pare

P. P.

Logan

M. W.

(2011). Risk of minor and serious violent victimization in prison: The impact of inmates’ mental disorders, physical disabilities, and physical size. Society and Mental Health, 1(2), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869311416828

48.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x

49.

Peduzzi

Concato

Kemper

Holford

T. R.

Feinstein

A. R.

(1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), 1373–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3

50.

Pérez

D. M.

Gover

A. R.

Tennyson

K. M.

Santos

S. D.

(2010). Individual and institutional characteristics related to inmate victimization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(3), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09335244

51.

Piatkowska

S. J.

Brown

J. M.

Ramos

Bales

W. D.

(2022). The effect of legal status on prison misconduct. Crime and Delinquency, 68(12), 2328–2354.

52.

Ramos

Alaniz

(2022). Is legal status a marker for recidivism? Examining the reoffending patterns of previously incarcerated immigrants. Crime and Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221111781

53.

Rumbaut

R. G.

Gonzales

R. G.

Komaie

Morgan

C. V.

(2006). Debunking the myth of immigrant criminality: Imprisonment among first-and second-generation young men. Migration Information Source, 1, 1–19.

54.

Sampson

R. J.

(2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7, 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fctx.2008.7.1.28

55.

Sasseville

Maurice

Montminy

Hassan

St-Pierre

. (2022). Cumulative contexts of vulnerability to intimate partner violence among women with disabilities, elderly women, and immigrant women: Prevalence, risk factors, explanatory theories, and prevention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 23(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925773

56.

Spohn

Holleran

(2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed Black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38(1), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00891.x

57.

Steiner

Ellison

J. M.

Butler

H. D.

Cain

C. M.

(2017). The impact of inmate and prison characteristics on prisoner victimization. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015588503

58.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2015). Individual and environmental sources of work stress among prison officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814564463

59.

Strong

S. M.

Motivans

(2021). Non-U.S. citizens in the federal criminal justice system, 1998– 2018. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 252647.

60.

Sykes

(1958). The society of captives. Princeton University Press.

61.

Sykes

Messinger

(1960). The inmate social system. In Cloward

(Ed.), Theoretical studies in social organization of the prison (pp. 5–19). Social Science Research Council.

62.

Teasdale

Daigle

L. E.

Hawk

S. R.

Daquin

J. C.

(2016). Violent victimization in the prison context: An examination of the gendered contexts of prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(9), 995–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15572351

63.

Vittinghoff

McCulloch

C. E.

(2007). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(6), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052

64.

Von Hentig

(1948). The criminal & his victim: Studies in the sociobiology of crime. Yale University Press.

65.

Watts

S. J.

Evans

S. Z.

(2023). Trajectories of offending: Comparing US born and non-US born respondents in the Add Health. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(3), 830–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09693-6

66.

Weitzer

(1996). Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system: Findings and problems in the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(4), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(96)00015-3

67.

Western

(2021). Inside the box: Safety, health, and isolation in prison. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(4), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.35.4.97

68.

Wood

S. R.

(2013). Dual severe mental and substance use disorders as predictors of federal inmate assaults. The Prison Journal, 93(1), 34–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885512467312

69.

Wood

S. R.

Buttaro

(2013). Co-occurring severe mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders as predictors of state prison inmate assaults. Crime and Delinquency, 59(4), 510–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712470318

70.

Wooldredge

(2020). Prison culture, management, and in-prison violence. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041359

71.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1998). Inmate lifestyles and opportunities for victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(4), 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427898035004006

72.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1999). Inmate experiences and psychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854899026002005

73.

Wooldredge

Steiner

(2012). Race group differences in prison victimization experiences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.011

74.

Wooldredge

Steiner

(2014). A bi-level framework for understanding prisoner victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9197-y

75.

Xie

Baumer

E. P.

(2021). Immigrant status, citizenship, and victimization risk in the United States: New findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 59(4), 610–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12278

76.

Zatz

M. S.

Smith

(2012). Immigration, crime, and victimization: Rhetoric and reality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173923

77.

Zweig

J. M.

Yahner

Visher

C. A.

Lattimore

P. K.

(2015). Using general strain theory to explore the effects of prison victimization experiences on later offending and substance use. The Prison Journal, 95(1), 84–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885514563283