Sex logics: Negotiating the prison rape elimination act (PREA) against its’ administrative, safety, and cultural burdens
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474520952155 |
| Published date | 01 April 2021 |
| Author | Angela Hattery,Shannon Portillo,Danielle S Rudes,Shannon Magnuson |
| Date | 01 April 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Sex logics: Negotiating
the prison rape
elimination act (PREA)
against its’
administrative, safety,
and cultural burdens
Danielle S Rudes and
Shannon Magnuson
George Mason University, USA
Shannon Portillo
University of Kansas, USA
Angela Hattery
George Mason University, USA
Abstract
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) reforms correctional institutions via adminis-
trative mechanisms and represents a major shift in both correctional policy and work-
place practice. Using qualitative data within six prisons in one U.S. state, finding suggest
that staff view PREA as an administrative, safety, and cultural burden, which creates a
misalignment of institutional logics. Rather than seeing themselves as central to elim-
inating prison sexual misconduct/violence, staff see PREA as interfering with their “real”
custody/control work. This misalignment has major implications for the productive
implementation and use of PREA and the broader shift to administrative rather than
legal processes for institutional reform.
Corresponding author:
Danielle S Rudes, George Mason University,4400 University Drive, Ste. 460, MS 6D3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
Email: drudes@gmu.edu
Punishment & Society
2021, Vol. 23(2) 241–259
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474520952155
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Keywords
administrative burden, carceral/penal, institutional logic, organizational change, Prison
Rape Elimination Act, qualitative
Introduction
During the mid-twentieth century, federal courts played a pivotal role in prison
reform (Feeley and Rubin, 1998; Schuhmann and Wodahl, 2011; Smith, 2003),
especially related to civil rights litigation. Feeley and Rubin (1998) argue the legal
momentum during the civil rights movement shifted courts from a hands-off to a
more bureaucratic model focused on prisoners’
1
rights. However, legal mobiliza-
tion as the mechanism for prison reform faced backlash as some states confronted
significant expenses and unfunded mandates from federal litigation efforts (Smith
and Nelson, 2002). In the late twentieth century, bureaucratic processes and
administrative mechanisms institutionalized becoming the new norm dictating
prison management. In particular, the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act of 1996 (PLRA) (Rubin, 2019) codified this shift away from litigation
strategies towards administrative and legislative efforts (Schuhmann and
Wodahl, 2011).
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) also represents this type of
shift. To comply, prisons report sexual violence to national databases and create
administrative avenues for prison residents to report and secure recourse for sexual
violence. These changes emphasize (re)defining sexual violence and assault within
carceral settings. Importantly, PREA requires staff to consider sexuality different-
ly, including formally addressing a broader spectrum of sexual behaviors beyond
rape. While scholars write extensively about the history of PREA (Arkles, 2014;
Dumond, 2005; Nielsen, 2017) and the policy shifts the law represents (Schuhmann
and Wodahl, 2011), few explore PREAs actual use within correctional institutions.
Here, our research question considers PREA in practice by correctional staff in
six U.S. prisons. Specifically, we explore how PREA requirements interact with
prison staff’s institutional logics (Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury, 2012)—
frames of reference often used “in contested environment[s] to influence decisions,
justify activities, or advocate for change” (McPherson and Sauder, 2013: 167). We
find staff perceive their agency’s mission of “care, custody, and control” at odds
with the minutiae of PREA. Our findings suggest staff do not perceive PREA as a
beneficial civil rights reform, but rather understand PREA as an administrative,
safety, and cultural burden. This perceived misalignment between penal reform
(including legal templates, see Rubin, 2019) and on-the-ground practice is key to
understanding how staff logics impact reform. This gap is not new to researchers.
Scholars note pervasive policy/practice changes may not operate as designed or
yield anticipated outcomes (Goodman et al., 2017; Lynch, 1998). However, prior
work largely takes a macro- (i.e., field, national, state, jurisdictional) or meso- (i.e.,
242 Punishment & Society 23(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial