A DIUDY UE ”nu ATTLTUUfio UE miUfliUAfl mnnn UAADUATD bUUiAL wunn ofdynflrb TUWAnu mumnnlufi Inn fithy UK UUAAEUTLUHS by Joseph R. Palmer May 1960 t l- 8 W mm' '/~ LIBRA‘Z Ev *5 M‘ibgafl Siam LmVCISity A STUDY 01' TM ATTITUDES OI" MICHIGAN HALE GRADUATE SOCIAL WORK STUDEMfl TOWARD ENTERING THE FIELD OF CORRECTIONB by Joaaph R . Palm” A PROJECT REPORT Submittad to tho School or Social Hort Michigan stat. Univaraity in Partial Pultillnant of tho Raquiramanta go:- tho Dogma o mam 0! 800111. WORK May 1960 /” /'/ ” ‘ Z [l /&06Z£%Q_ bah-man, fiaaiarch omit a £22.“; nanior,‘Roaonroh‘fiannittoo ACIIOULEDGMENTS Tho influonco of a groat nunbor or pcroono. oooial work and ocrroctiono oducatara and practitionoro. havo had a part in othnulating tho uritor'c intoroot in carrying out thio otndy. Tho prorooaional and friondly ccunool or Mr. Robort lorloo, Michigan Dopartnont or corrocticno, hao boon oopocially inotru-ontai in thio rogard. I uioh.to oxprooo approciation to Mr. Lcron Boiknap anfl.Nr. Arnold.0nrin of tho School or Social work otarr. who havo gonoroualy aooiotod no in carrying out tho oovoral phaaoo of tho prcjoct. Spocial approciation io tolt for tho thoughtful and noro than adoquato holp or Mr. Hurry Entrican in tho proparaticn of tho nanuocript. Finally. I rich to acknowlcdgo tho aooiotanoo and con- tinuing oncouraga-ont of Iv wiro, Pit. without uhooo nndor- otanding tho otudy could not haro boon dono. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Plgo ACKNOWLEDGMENT 3 o o o o o o o o o o .. o c a o o o o o o 1 1 L18! 0? TA Em o c o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o 1V Chaptor I. mnonucnou.................. 1 II. ms'ronrcu. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT ornuon. . . . III. muons AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED In 2313 STUDY. . 15 Iv. mssmuxon up ANALYSIS or mu. . . . . . . . 20 v. concmsxons or THE STUDY: mrLIcquu AND nncommnous............... he APPENDIX 1o (3151103719111) o a o o o o c o o o o o o o o 51 APTENDIX 2. (Qnootionnairo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 ‘PPENDH 3. (T‘bl..) o c o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o o 65 111 Tablo 1. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. L13! 0’ EAILII Qnootionnairca Scat Out and Roturncd by Univ~ oroity and.!oar or Graduato Study . . . . . . . . Pooition or Ghoioo or Corroctiono Fran Ion Poo- oiblo Fioldo or inplcymont by Uhivoroity and 1"? of Gr.dflfit. Study. o o o o o o c o o o o o c Pooition or Ohoioo or Oorrcctiono Pron.Ton Poo- oiblo Fioido or Elploymont by Statuo or commit- Ifln‘ tO‘EIPIOIICBto o o o o o o o c o o c o o o a Principal Sourco or Knowiodgo.ibout Oorroctiono by Pooition or choioo or Corrootiono Among Ton Pbfllibl. r101‘. 0f ‘IPIOIIDHD o o o o o o o o o o Pooition or Choico or Oorroctiono Pro- !‘on Poa- oiblo Fioldo or Enploymont and.Attitudina1 Total aooro for All Roopondonto With Corroctional l:- porionco Prior to‘H.8.V} Training . . . . . . . . Roopondcnto Who Took at Loaot Ono Uhdorgradnato Gourao Having "Sonothing to Do Hith.Corrootiono' by Pooition or Choioo or Oorroctiono Pro-.Ton P0.I1b1. 1101‘! of Elploylfint o o a o o o o o c o Roopcnooo Evaluating Errocto of Attitudoo on Choico or Corrootiono ao Piold or llpicy-ont. . . 'noan Attitudinai Total Scoroo tor Roipondonto by Position of Choioo of Corrooticna Pron.Ton roo- Iibl. ’101d. of Ripley-nut. o o o o o o o o o o o lhnbor or Rooponooo Indicating Agroo-ont with unfavorablo Btatanonto Concorning Corroctiono ao . P1014 0f EIPIOIMDDD o o o c o o o o o o c o o o Pooitivo and Hogativo Rooponooo (thoring or lot Favoring) Givon to Attitudinal Quootiona Involving tho Oharaotoriotio of Zroatabigitz in Corrootional Enploynont, by Group in Which orroctiona aa ch01.. 0r ulp1°ylflnt FCII o o o o o o o o o o o c iv "8‘ 20 23 26 28 30 31 37 38 no LIST or minnlc (Cont.) Tablo Pogo ll. Pooitivo and logativo Rooponooo (’ovoring or lot Favoring) Givon to.Attitudinal Qnootiono Involving tho charactoriotio ot.igthoaity in Corroctional Imploynont, by Group n ch.Cor- roctiono ao Choico or Employ-out Poll. . . . . . . kl 12. Pooitivo and logativo Rooponooo (PIvoring or lot Pavoring) Oivon to Attitudinal Quoationo Involving tho choraotoriotio of Staégo or egg: rootiona; gagloigong, by Group in c or- root ono ao ho cc of luploynont Poll. . . . . . . RR 13. Attitudo Rooponooo of studonto Ranking Cor- rootiono High as a Piold or hploynont. Comparod UithllllwoponIOI................Mi LIST or IABLIS ‘LPIIHDIX III 1. Pooitivo and logativo Roaponooo (Fhvoring or t ono lot Pavoring) Givon to Attitudinal Qnoo Involving tho Charactoriotic or H rk oa a. Salarioo. and Civi§ Bogzioo Statuo, n orroot- iona ploynont, y roup n oh Oorroctiono ao Ohoico or llploynont Poll . . . . . . . . . . . 6S 2. Pooitivo and lo tivo Rooponooo (Favoring or lot Favoring) G van to Attitudinal Quootiono Involving tho Choractoriotio of Attggotgvoaoao or Buildin a, Pool b o “ oicu a‘.or to or or @5311 9mm . - r oo ' ‘or oro arc an o b 0 rroo ona, ~y troup . " co 00r- rootIono an 5533 [cc o htploynont Poll. . . . . . . 66 3. Positive and Hogativo Rooponooo (Favoring or Not Favoring) Given to Attitudinal Quootiono Involving tho Choraotoriotioo of Vhothor gho H.S U. Pro roo for Corrootiono, o t o oo- gonoibillty Upon tho Worfior, and EgogtomonE E: tho Work, by Group in which Corroot ono ao hoioo OfEmploymontFoll................67 I INTRODUGTION There seems to be general agreement among social work practitioners and educators that the field of adult cor- rections provides appropriate settings for the employment of social workers.1 However, the observations of the writer and others, and some surveys in this area,2 have indicated that a disproportionately small number of persons who possess tho M.S.W. degree seek employment in this field. Kurts has con- cisely summed up much of the literature concerning this problem when he said. "Treatment...is necessarily conducted within an authoritarian setting. This, together with limitations of pro- fessional staff, inadequate financing, the use of physical plants designed for security and regimentation rather than treatment, uncontrolled intake and discharge, and many other factors, compound the difficulties..."3 This study has been an attempt to determine the extent to which these and other factors play a part in creating the apparent lack of interest in this field by professional social workers. 1Elliot Studt, Education for Social Workers in the 0339 gggtional Field, Vol. V, A Project Report of the Curriculum Study, Earner w1gBoehm, Director and Coordinator, Council on Social work Education (New York: 1959). p. 1h. 2Ernest Nitte, ”Recruitment and Retention of Personnel," C. S. W. E., N. P. P. A. Journal, Vol. III, (1957), p. 115. 3Ruesell H. Kurts, (od.) Social Work Year Book, 1251, N. A. 3. H., (New York: 1957), p. 201. -1- The cost of criminality in terms of both unproductive lives and monetary expenditure has been, and remains today, a tremendous waste by our society. Crime is recognised as one of the major social problems of our time. As is the case with.many other social problems, however, there are far too few persons with proper training who are applying their know» ledge and abilities toward a solution of the problem. The problem which underlies this study was initially recognised by the writer before he began graduate social work training. Both a contact with the literature and a brief experience in correctional agencies made it clear that a dis- proportionately small number of trained social workers were entering the field of corrections for employment. During the period of graduate study the writer's interest in corrections as a major field has continued. The problem and some possible answers have been made clearer by the graduate course work and field training. Both years of the writer's field training have been carried out in Michigan Department of Corrections agencies, the first year in the Lansing parole office, the second year in the psychiatric clinie of the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jhckson. The total experience in both of these settings provided additional indication of unmet need for trained social workers in corrections. -2- The three graduate schools of social work within the State of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, and wayne State University, provided readily avail~ able sources for the obtaining of data for the study. The director and deans of the schools helpfully consented to the use of their students as respondents to the questionnaire which was used and furnished the writer with the names and addresses of the students. To facilitate the study it was assumed that: (1) adult correctional agencies, including the areas of probation, parole, and institutional counseling, are appropriate settings for the employment of trained social workers, (2) a dispropor- tionately small number of trained social workers seek employ- ment in corrections, (3) many of those trained workers who do not seek employment in corrections do not do so because they possess negative attitudes and perceptions regarding this field, (h) graduate social work students possess many of these same attitudes and will reflect them in a questionnaire if requested to do so, and (5) these attitudes and perceptions are amenable to individual analysis by a researcher. Further, to facilitate the study it was broadly hypothesised that: The negative attitudes which graduate social work students possess toward adult corrections as a field of employment are based upon a variety of factors and not only upon the authoritative characteristics, a distinctive factor which is frequently cited. II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CURRENT OPINION Empirical studies in the area of social workers' attitudes toward corrections are notably absent. The writer found no such studies, pertaining directly to subject of his own project. As will be noted later in this chapter there has been a mod- erate amount of expression of opinion, both by practitioners and educators, regarding the special characteristics of cor- rections as a field of employment for persons trained in social work. Such literature reflects the observations and opinions of the authors, however, and cannot be termed "research“. The writer reviewed two studies which related quite in- directly to the area of interest. One of these was an attempt to measure the authoritarian element in the personality of social workers.1 This study showed, through the use of tho Authoritarian Personality Social Attitude Battery (TAP), that social work students tended to be more liberal in their view regarding "anti-democratic tendencies" than were the members of the control group.2 The social work students of this study favored to a greater extent the allowing of freedom to others to "control their own lives".3 1John C. Kidneigh and Horace W. Lundberg, “Are Social Work Students Different?” Social Work (July, 1958), pp. 57-61. 2Ibid., p. 60. 31bid. Norman Polansky and his co-workers sought for insights regarding possible causes of feelings of conflict and frus- tration among social work practitioners in Detroit.1 His study gave evidence that there is a predominant feeling among social workers that they are underpaid, either in reality, or in rela- tion to other professionals.2 Polansky reported that a second type of marginality for social workers is the conflict created by worker's identification with the interests of the least privileged group.3 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, social workers in 1950 generally conceived of correctional work as a "marginal” activity.’4 For purposes of this study the writer <3 found it unnecessary to either accept or reject the use of the term "marginal" in this sense. It does assist, however, in pointing up the writer's basic assumption that social workers possess certain negative attitudes regarding employment in cor- rections. This assumption is more firmly supported by Witte's observation that, of the 28 schools, graduating a total of 1,930 students in 1953-Sh. only 92 of this total are now em- ployed in correctional settings.s 1Norman Polansky et a1. "Social Workers in Society: Lesults of a Samgling Stud " Social Work Journal, Vol. XXXIV, N0. 2’ (April, 1 53); ppe $11-80. 21bid., p. 80. 31b1d. hU. 3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ”Social Worker in 1950," Family Service Association of America, New York: 1952. SErnest Witte, "Recruitment and Retention of Personnel,” C. S. w. E., N. P. P. A. Journal, Vol. III, (1957), p. 115. -5- OhM alter fl Intercom md empli They eta ution of work pra tbout pr fusion: (2) he I Ida to 1 public I met be Plrticu A Joct of charact 11.33. Actor-11 Itudy. \ 1 “)3 So as. ( 2 Ohlin, Piven, and Pappenfort have submitted what the writer feels to be one of the most thoughtful and penetrating statements regarding the problems arising out of the need for, and employment of, social workers in the field of corrections.1 They state that social workers must, "participate in the sol- ution of three problems, each demanding revision of social work preparation for the field: (1) Community expectations about probation and parole must be modified to allow the pro- fessional sufficient freedom to pursue treatment interests; (2) he must be given the knowledge and skills which will enable him to do constructive work when alternatives are limited by public opinion and agency organisation: (3) the practitioner must be provided with the knowledge required for work with his particular ClientOIQe e e e"2 A preponderance of the literature pertinent to the sub- ject of this study has been written about the authoritarian characteristics of the field and a concern regarding whether M.S.W. training prepares the worker to deal with these char- acteristics. It will be noted that the bibliOgraphy of this study, (Appendix 1) cites at least eight articles dealing 1L. Ohlin, H. Piven, and D. Pappenfort ”Major Dilemmas of the Social Worker, in Probation and Parole, N. P, P. A, Joggr nal, (July, 1956), pp. 211-225. 21b1d., p. 22h- particularly with authority. These eight articles are merely a representative sample of a much larger body of writings on authority which exists in the literature today. The early social worker of the nineteenth and first part of the twentieth centuries viewed corrections as a very appro- priate field for the placing of their efforts. With the dev- elopment of the principle of self determination, however, the growing profession began to see corrections clients, with their legal status and strong feelings toward authority, as persons who did not want help and could therefore not meet this new necessary criteria of asking for it. As a result of this social workers began to withdraw from practice with per- sons who had been convicted by the courts for doing "criminal” acts. In the last decade, however, there has been a decided trend in the Opposite direction and corrections is again being seen as an area in which social workers may properly and bone- ficially provide services. Current social work literature on this aspect of practice emphasizes the existence of authority factors in all social work practice and frequently speaks of the therapeutic use of this factor.1 The use of authority is frequently discussed together with the ”setting of limits” which is generally seen as not only necessary but also beneficial to the cor- rectional client. Kawin, for example, feels that "authority is a prop, a brace...on which one may loan for support. All human beings need such support at times...(and) the delinquent needs it because he lacks either the will or will power to control himself. Resistance to support indicates failure to acknowledge need; but this does not alter the fact of such need.'2 Other writers have recognised the authority factor in correctional work as being both an asset and a liability to the worker.3 Shorriffs speaks of the influence of the position of authority of the worker upon himself, noting the frequent emotional over-involvement on the part of the worker and his own need to adjust and be aware of this element.h 1Dale Hardman, "Authority in Casework - A Bread and Butter Theory," N. P. P. A. Journal (July, 1959): Irene Kawin ”Therapeutic Use of Authority,' Federal Probatio (Sept.,l953), pp. 22-26; Alex Sherriffs, "The.AutEErity Aspect of the Worker- Client Relationship: Asset or Liability? Federal Probation (June, 1953), pp. 22-25; Elliot Studt, ”An Outline for Study of Social Authority Factors in Casework," Social Casework (June, 19Sh); Studt, "Treatment of Persons in Conflict with Authority,‘ Proceedings of the 1956 Social Work Progress Institute, School of Social Work, U. of M. (Ann Arbor, Mich., I936);‘Walter Wallack, "The Place of Authority in Rehabili- tation Programs of Prisoners and Reformatory Inmates," Eggs oral Probation (March, 1955). 2hawin, loc. cit., pp. 22-23 3Sherriffs, loo, cit. ”Sherriffs, loo. cit. p. 23. -8- Still other workers and educators feel that correctional tasks, relating to the authority factor, require certain "adaptations” in social work practice.1 Among these tasks are the investigation and surveillance aspects, the use of con- trols to modify human behavior, the acting as a legal authority person with responsibility for value change, and certain cor- rectional decision-making which results from the legal status of the client.2 The literature reveals that equally stimulating as the subject of authority is the question of whether graduate social work training prepares the student for correctional work.3 Members of a number of the many disciplines which have 1Elliot Studt, Education for Social Workers in the Cor- rectional Field, Vol. V, A Project Report of the Curriculum Study, Werner W. Boehm, Director and Coordinator, Council on Social Work Education (New York: 1959). P. 50. 21bid., pp. 17-18. 3Vernon Fox, "The University Curriculum in Corrections,“ Federal Probation (Sept., 1959). pp. 51-57; Kenneth Johnson, 1rThe Role of Social Work Education in Preparing Personnel for the Corrections Field," Federal Probation (Sept., 1956), pp. Sh-SB; Clarence Leeds, "Probation Work Requires Special Train- ing," Federal Probation (June, 1951): Ben S. Meeker, "The Social Worker and the Correctional Field,“ Federal Probation (Sept., 1957): Pp. 31-h2: S. J. Roach, and Eleanor Cranefield, "The Educational Needs of Personnel in the Field of Correctionsf' C, S. W. E. (New York: 1956): A. C. Schnur, "Training the Cor- rectional Worker: Pro-Service Training,” Proceedings of the American Correctional Association (1958); Studt, loo. cit.: Studt (ed.) "Social Work Education for Personnel in the Field of Corrections," Ad Hoc Committee, C. S. W. E. (New York: 1956): Studt, ”The Contribution of Correctional Practice to Social Wzrk gheory and Education,” Social Casework (June, 1956), pp. 2 3-2 9e demonstrated an interest in corrections have engaged in dis- cussions regarding this matter. And the views expressed are as diversified es the several disciplines of the writers. The researcher was given the distinct impression that pro- fessional jealousy has become very much a part of the varied opinions. Members of the disciplines of sociology, psychology, education, theology, social work, and others have viewed their own training as that which best prepares the correctional worker to function in his setting. Some correctional admin- istrators themselves have seemed undecided as to the preferred kind of training for their social workers.1 The writer feels that Meeker helpfully removes the cloud of confusion from this apparent indecision, as it relates to social work, by pointing up two misconceptions. First, correctional admin- istrators, practitioners, and members of other disciplines which . are interested in correctional practice, misunderstand what is taught in schools of social work. Secondly, there has resulted a dilemma within corrections, resulting from its having never established its own identity in relation to professional education.2 1Ben S. Hooker, I'The Social Worker and the Correctional P1.1d'. D. 35s 21bid.. p. 37. -10- A number of social workers and correctional workers have discussed the question of whether the generic nature of social work training provides sufficient understanding of the special problems of corrections to the beginning practitioner.1 Fox and Schnur insist that the trained generic sccial worker is not prepared to perform adequately in the correctional setting because courses dealing particularly with the correctional agency are not offered, attention is not given to the “police. like” duties of the correctional worker, and criminal legal information is not provided.2 Other writers feel that, essen- tially, the trained social worker is best prepared to carry out the goals of the correctional agency but that certain "enrichments' in the generic program are needed.3 The 1959 Council of Social work Education Curriculum Study states that "no separate specialty seams required in order to prepare social workers to take their place in correctional service."h Johnson sees social work as having a “basic contribution... (and) corrections (as) an tapertant aspect of the (social work) profession's responsibility...'5 He sees the possible 1Vernon Fox, "The University Curriculum in Corrections”: Kenneth Johnson, “The Role of Social work Education in Pro- paring Personnel fer the Corrections Field": Ohlin, Piven, and Pappenfort, "Major Dilemmas of the Social Workor, in Probation and Parole 3 A. C. Schnur, "Training the Correctional Worker: Pro-Service Training”: Elliot Studt, "The Contribution of Cor- rectional Practice to Social Work Theory and Education.” 2Fox, 192, c; .3 Schnur, loc, cit. 3Johnson, leei ci§.: Studt, Education for Social Workers in the Corrections old: Studt, loo, cit. ”Studt, log, Cite, P. h9e 5Johnson, loo. ci§., p. 55. -11.- deficiencies as being remedied by the schools' obtaining of teaching personnel with first hand experience in corrections, and tho insertion of two special courses into the curriculum. One of these would be a general survey of corrections, the other on “casework in the authoritarian setting."1 Social work educators Studt and Jehnson have been among the few writers who have expressed concern over social work's failure to encourage interest in corrections on the part of its graduate students.2 Mrs. Studt has observed that many students possess an interest in corrections when they begin their training but that ”subtle pressures” within the pro. fession cause the students to be deflected to other areas of work. She feels that the fact that social work faculty members rarely have correctional experience has done much to contribute to this situation.3 The literature reflects only a relatively slight concern with the status of corrections, per se. Class and Witte indicate that the status of the field does play a part in the extent to which it is able to obtain trained social workers.h 1Kenneth Johnson, “The Role of Social Work Education in Preparing Personnel for the Corrections Field," p. 55. 2Ibid.) Studt, "The Contribution of Correctional Practice to Social Work Theory and Education." 3Ibid., p. 267. hNorris E. Class, ”Qualifications," N. P. P..A. Journal, Vol. III, (1957), pp. 107-110; Ernest Witte, "Recruitment and Retention of Personnel.‘' ' -12- In the area of probation, for example, Class wonders if the probation officer ”is to be regarded as a handmaiden of the Judge...or...is his role similar to that of the court psychol- ogist1"'1 Hitte outlines the elements by which status is earned by social workers in any setting! 1. 2. 3. h. S. 6. Degree of mastery of skills of their profession, possession of a clear sense of responsibilities, and security by the worker in his knowledge as to his defined area of practice. Degree of commitment and dedication to the pro- fession. Extent to which leadership respects educational base. Extent to which practitioners exercise independent judgment in their practice. Extent to which the professional interests himself in keeping up-to-date on new knowledge and methods. Degree of courage and conviction of the professional in standing up for what he believes to be the public interest. The degree to which (the profession's) members adhere to a code of ethics whose first consider- ation 12 the well-being of those the profession BOrVOQe Witte, along with a few other writers, has discussed the need for a total recruitment effort in corrections.3 He speaks of the necessity for an increased national recruiting 1Norris E. C1ass,"Qualifications,' p. 108. ZErnest Witte, "Recruitment and Retention of Personnel," pp. 115-116. 3Ibid. -13- effort, need for greater financial aid to students who possess an interest in corrections, and the importance for increased salaries in the correctional field.1 By and large, however, the literature reveals very little constructive thinking about these three matters. Thus, it appears that there yet remains much to be done before a satisfactory resolution of the problems preventing a harmonious union of social work and corrections can be effected. Social workers and correctional administrators ultimately will both have to desire to understand more fully the problems of each other as they have affected past and current conflicts. 1Ernest Hitte, “Recruitment and.Retention of Personnel,” pp. 115-116 e III METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED IN THIS STUDY The initial phases of the study consisted of the writer's gathering general information about the employment of trained social workers in the field of corrections. The writer had gained prelhminary and basic knowledge about the problem.through his background of experience in the core rectional field and a contact with the literature. in additional review of the literature, with this study in mind, however, was made by the writer in the autumn and winter months of 1959-1960. Drawing from this experience and the knowledge gained in this way it was possible to prepare an inclusive list of factors which were believed to be char. acteristic of social work in corrections. As a result of this same experience a list of personal background factors which may play a part in influencing the individual to be inclined in favor of, or against, corrections was formulated. Social work practitioners in corrections and social work educators were consulted in developing these lists in an attampt to make them.as all-inclusive as possible. Parts A and C of the questionnaire (Appendix.2) reflect these lists. -15. The construction of a questionnaire which would not be excessive in length and which.would call forth attitudinal responses and elicit a number of personal background factors proved to be a difficult task. There was the basic question of whether the attitudinal questions should be of a “closed” or 'open' ended nature. In order to facilitate the later analysis of the data closed-end, objective-typo questions were decided upon. Parts D and E of the questionnaire (Appendix 2) were made subjective however, in order to permit the respondent to note factors about corrections which he felt the researcher had overlooked and, also, to give the respondent an opportunity to sum up his attitude regarding corrections as a field of employment. There was also the problem of providing Opportunity for the respondent to indicate how important he felt a particular characteristic of corrections to be and the extent to which the character- iatic influences social workers in deciding whether or not to seek correctional employment. To solve this problem and at the same time maintain a method which.readily lends itself to classification of data, the system of checking one of several relative degrees of influence was adopted. (See Appendix 2, Part C, Questions "8”). Finally, among the more important problems in construct- ing the questionnaire was that of providing opportunity for the respondent to state personal background factors concerning himself, factors which might provide the researcher with some clues as to the source of development of attitudes toward corrections. The questions used in the questionnaire to elicit this information were largely a derivation of the writer's own general knowledge about the contacts of social work students, both prior to and during social work training, which play some part in forming knowledge and opinions about corrections. Obviously an inclusive number of such potential contacts and sources would be practically endless. The questions regarding this area, for purposes of the question- naire, were therefore of necessity limited to those which seemed to the writer to likely be the most significant. The fact that only nine respondents checked the ”other" blank in response to question A-ll indicates that the selection of such questions was adequate. In the construction of all parts of the questionnaire, the absence of any prior similar study and the absence of literature directly relating to the kind of information sought forced quite a subjective development of these factors by the writer. There are, doubtless, additional factors regarding the personal background of respondents, as well as additional characteristics of corrections as a field of employment for social workers. To the extent that general knowledge in this area is limited the writer was also limited in including the factors and characteristics to which the respondents might reply. The deans and director of the three schools of social work in which the respondents were enrolled were contacted by mail. The names and home addresses of the male, full-time students, enrolled in both the first and second years of graduate study in their schools were requested and furnished for use as respondents. Only male students were used in the study because the obvious lack of employment opportunity for females in the correctional field would adversely limit their knowledge and attitudes concerning the field. Only full-time students would be more likely to be seeking employ- ment within at least one and one half years hence and would therefore be more vitally interested in the general employ- ment outlook than would be part-time students. Secondly, by selecting only full-time students, and since the question- naires were mailed after February 15, 1960, the writer was assured that all respondents would have completed at least one-fourth of their graduate training and would therefore have this minimum level of opportunity to learn about social work and corrections. The questionnaires were individually mailed to the home addresses of the respondents. As a result of this it was -13- felt that a minimum of ”outside influence" would be exerted upon the respondent while he was completing the questionnaire. Further, it was felt that the mailed questionnaire method was to be preferred over the personal interview'method of gathering data because of the possible influence upon the respondent by the interviewcr, with his "vested interest.” A final consideration which favored the mailed questionnaire method was the greater expense of the personal interview, in terms of time and money of the researcher. . 19- IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The deans and director of the three schools of social work provided the writer with lists of students, qualified as described in Chapter III, to serve as respondents to the Questionnaire. Table 1 indicates the return of the completed questionnaires, by university, and year of graduate study. TABLE l.- Questionnaires sent out and returned by university and year of graduate study. University Year of Questionnaiges graduate study Sent out Returned Michigan First lo 10 State University Second 12 10 Total: 22 20 University First 57 20 of Michigan Second (both years) 25 Total: 57 h5 Hayne State First 22 13 University Second 22 15 Total: hh 28 Granada-.1: 123 93 -20- The ninety-three returned questionnaires represent 75.6 per cent of the total of 123 mailed out. It will be noted from Table 1 that the percentage of returned questionnaires from Michigan State University was higher than for the other universities. Responses to Question h revealed that sixty-nine of the ninety-three persons responding had a field of future employ- nent ”in mind" before beginning M.S.W. training. The numbers of such persons and their preferences are as follows: Psychiatric Social Work Child Welfare Family Service Juvenile Delinquency Community Organization Adult Corrections Recreation Group Work Medical Social Work Public Welfare School Social Work ”Other" p (Two persons who had not indicated that they had a field of employment ”in mind" nevertheless indicated a field in response to Question 5.). Question 6 sought a rank-ordering of preference of social work fields of employment. The first choice selections, by decreasing number of respondents, are as follows: Psychiatric Social Work Juvenile Delinquency Family Service School Social Work Community Organisation Adult Corrections Public Welfare Recreation Medical Social Work Adoption "Other“ an» ‘1 H HUUU‘I’O‘EO‘H It is noted that, while "adult corrections" falls at the midway point on this listing, ”psychiatric social work" received more than six times as many first place "votes“ as did adult corrections. Table 2 reflects the position of choice of corrections by all eighty-four persons responding to Question 6. There appears to be a definite indication that Wayne State University students are more favorably inclined toward practice in a correctional setting than are the students of the other two universities. Of the thirty-seven Wayne students responding, eleven, or 29.9 per cent placed corrections as their first, second, or third choice. Only 20.0 per cent of both.Miohigan State's and.Hich~ igan's students placed corrections as their first, second, or third choice. The five students from all three schools, who selected corrections as their first choice of employment, -22- TABLE 2.- Position of choice of corrections from ten possible fields of employment by university and year of graduate study. W University Year of Group in which corgections graduate choice fell study I 2 f h Michigan First 1 l h 2 State University Second - l 3 3 Total: 1 2 7 S University First h 10 6 of Michigan Second - 3 12 7 Total: - 7 22 13 Wayne State First 1 2 8 1 University Second 3 5 h 3 Total: h 7 12 h Grand.Totalx 5 16 hi 22 ‘Group 1 includes those who selected corrections as lst employment preference from ten possible fields of employment. Group 2 includes those who selected corrections as 2nd or 3rd employment preference from ten possible fields of employ- ICHt a Group 3 includes those who selected corrections as hth through 6th employment preference from ten possible fields of employment. Group h includes those who selected corrections as 7th through 10th employment preference from ten possible fields of employment. -23- represent only 5.9 per cent of all responding to the question. This figure is in contrast to 10.0 per cent which would exist if all ten fields of employment were selected equally. The mean position of corrections on a scale of one through ten (representing the ten fields) is h.9. Group 3, on Table 2 includes those who selected corrections as their fourth through sixth choice out of a field of ten. Forty-one, or h8.8 per cent of all respondents fell within Group 3. The reader will recall that five respondents stated that they ”had corrections in mind” as a post-training field of employment before they began M.S.W. training. It is noted from Table 2 that five respondents now selected corrections as their first choice for post-training employment. In other words, the graduate social work training process for the res- pondent group had, to date, produced a net gain of '0' in influencing students to primarily desire corrections for employ- ment. Twenty-four students indicated they had had no particular field in mind upon beginning their training. From this number one student from all the respondents had subsequently selected corrections as first choice, while one of the five who favored corrections before beginning training later selected a differ. ent field of primary interest. Table 3 reveals that 7l.h per cent of those persons placing corrections in Group 1 or Group 2 were committed to post- training employment. Only h9.2 per cent of Groups 3 and h persons were similarly committed. These commitments were not to the field of corrections. Only two persons in the group were so committed. This means that persons committed to other fields tended to rank corrections higher than people who were totally uncommitted. One might present a number of hypotheses regarding this significant difference. Since only two persons indicated that their commitment was to corrections it is evident that a commitment in itself is not a direct, positive causal factor to the significant difference. Tabulation of responses to Question 8 showed students committed to the various fields, as follows: Psychiatric Social Work Family Service Child Welfare Public Welfare Juvenile Delinquency Adult Corrections Recreation Community Organisation Group Work p HHNNumqoq As might be expected.a comparative examination of the above listing and the listing of preferences on page 22 showing first choice selections, reveals smme shailarity. One may infer in agreement with Witte1 that more stipends, involving commitment from the field of corrections are needed if more social work students are to enter corrections. 1Ernest Witte, “Recruitment and.Retention of Personnel,” C. S. W..E., N. P. P. A. Journgl, Vol. III, (1957), pp. ilk-115. -25- Forty—nine of the ninety-three respondents indicated a Job commitment following training. It was hoped that res- ponses to Question 7 would facilitate the examination of possible relationships between commitment status of students and their regard for corrections as a field of employment. Table 3 gives some indication of such a relationship. TABLE 3.- Position of choice of corrections from ten possible fields of employment by status of commitment to employment. .__— I Group containing Commitment status position of choice Ag“ for corrections Committed fibt committed Total Group 1 2 3 5 Corrections 1st choice Group 2 l3 3 16 Corrections 2nd-3rd choice Group 3 22 19 kl Corrections hthvoth choice Group R 9 13 22 Corrections 7th~lOth choice Totals he 38 8h -26- Responses to Question 9 of Part A revealed that 33 of the 5k responding, (those who were not committed) would “consider" accepting employment in corrections. Question 10 showed that no persons of the 90 responding planned now to 'consider' correctional employment some time during their professional careers. A major question to which the writer sought answers through the study was the extent of social work students' general and professional knowledge about the field of cor- rections. Closely allied to this question was that of the main sources of knowledge about corrections. Table h presents this information about the respondents of this study, by the position of their choice of corrections. (The reader will recall the choices included in each group, as indicated in the footnote to Table 2, page 23.) As seen in Table h, "own experience“ and “school of social work,“ in that order, are numerically the most significant sources of knowledge about corrections. But of the seventeen persons who indicated ”school of secial work? as major source of knowledge none 'indieated corrections as their first choice and only four such persons placed it second or third choice. On the other hand, the students most interested in correctional employment -2 7- TABLE h.- Principal source of knowledge about corrections by position of choice of corrections among ten possible fields of employment. W Principal Position of choice of corrections - source of by group knowledge ‘_ Group 1 Group 2 Gran: 3 Group h 'Tetal lst 2nd~3rd hthp th 7thrlOth choice choice choice choice School of social -- [k 9 k 17 work Own experience 2 6 7 S 20 A relative -, -- l l 2 A friend - - 3 h 7 College instruc- l 3 6 2 ll tor (nndergrad.) lewspapers - a 2 I 6 Socks 1 l I .. 10 Other 1 - 5 3 9 Total: 5 l6 kl 21 83 -23- hove gained a large part of their knowledge about the field from their own experience and from undergraduate college instruc- tors. The figures in Table h seem to supply support to the observation in the literature that social workers and social work educators have differed and vacillated in their thinking as to whether or not corrections is an appropriate field of practice. The Table also tends to support the generally accepted ebservation that correctional workers are frequently not profes- sionally trained, but enter the field directly fro-.undergraduatc training. Responses to Question 16, Part A, as shown in Table 5, provide additional data indicating that the social work educ- ational process has failed to encourage students' interests in corrections as a possible career. Although nine students had prior experience in corrections (and we might therefore expect that at one time they had a very strong interest in this field) the mean position of corrections for employment fell between second.and third choice. These.figures seem to suggest that the social work training process has geduced, rather than strengthened, an interest in corrections. The researcher wanted to know whether or not there was a relationship between a student's having taken an undergraduate course having to do with corrections and his subsequent interest in entering corrections following professional training. -29- TABLI 5.- Position of choice of corrections from ten possible fields of employment and attitudinal total score for all respondents with correctional experience prior to H.S.W. training. r—v 7—. m Group eontainin Attitudinalb ‘Hean for all respondents: h.9 bMean for all respondents! 1.9 -30- Respondent number position of she ce total score for corrections‘ 26 h .3 37 - 5 39 2 k k7 1 9 5h 1. ~11 56 3 -1 73 1 7 db 2 d6 1 1 2.25 1.2 TABLS 6.- Respondents who took at least one undergraduate course having ”something to do with.corrections' by posi- tion of choice of corrections from ten possible fields of employment.. Group containing Took under- Did not take position of graduate undergraduate Total choice for course. course. corrections. --- ~- -~- no. Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent Group 1 5 100.0 - 00.0 5 05.9 Group a c 50.0 a 50.0 16 19.0 Group 3 23 56.1 18 1.3.9 In. 1.8.9 Group R d 36.h lb 63.6 22 26.2 “—c —_ Total: m. 52.5 to 1.7.6 on 100.0 Table 6 indicates a strong possibility of such.a relationship. Although 52 per cent of all persons responding said they had taken an undergraduate course “having something to do with corrections,” all five of the members of Group 1 had taken such.a course. This difference would at least seem to be significant from.the point of view of “interest carry-over“ into graduate training. Possibly the percentage difference indicates a stimulation of such interest by the undergraduate course. Such.a conclusion cannot be Justified, however, by the data collected for this study. -31- Responses to Question 19 revealed that only five of the ninetybthree respondents, or 5.h per cent had, as graduate students, taken 'at least one course having directly to do with corrections.“ Three of the five respondents who said they had taken a course having directly to do with corrections failed to rank-order the fields of employment in Question 6.- It was therefore impossible to obtain valid findings in examp ining for possible correlation between the responses to Questions 6 and 19 of these five students. ‘ As can be seen, Part C of the questionnaire (Appendix.2) contained twenty-four attitudinal statements to which the students were asked to respond. These statements each.reprc- sent a factor which might be related to encouraging or dis- couraging the choice of corrections as a field of employment. Each.respondent was asked to indicate first whether be per- sonally agreed or disagreed with the statement. He was then asked to express his opinion on the degree to which the char- acteristic reflected in the statement would have an affect upon discouraging persons from entering corrections. The possible rankings were “no effect”, “negative", and ”very negative.” The researcher assigned standardised positive or negative values to a response of agreement or disagreement to each of these statements. (Statement 0.3 is excepted since the researcher felt that ”amount of responsibility” could.bc a -32- positive (favoring) factor to some respondents and a negative (not favoring] factor to other respondents.). These values for each statement are indicated in Part 0 of Appendix 2 by the symbols of plus (+) and minus (-) which have been inserted. Attitudinal total scores (AT8) for each of the ninetye three respondents were obtained by adding positive and negative responses to the twenty-three statements. where a student failed to respond to a statement that statement was assigned no value and only those to which he responded were totaled. One of the first questions presenting itself to the writer, regarding attitudes and perceptions, was ‘which characteristics of corrections are seen as exerting the strongest negative influence upon workers who might be considering entering the field?“ Table 7 indicates these characteristics, by statement in Part 0, in order of decreasing 'negativeness.‘ Not only did Question 21, concerning the correctional agency restrictions to unobstructed.prastice, receive the most negative responses but it also is the most widely separated, in number of responses, from any of the other characteristics. The sixty-seven “negative" plus ”very negative” responses clearly and emphatically illustrate that the social work students perceived the ”built-in” agency restriction as being the most influential factor in keeping workers from entering this field of practice. Question 10, which is sixth.in the decreasing order on Table 7, re~emphasises and.adds suppert to the response to Question 21. -33- it. in? In E... H. B mm P k. F e Bl bl bu... . m w a E E. h H... m «H .m w WWI. mm. L... $«l B. mm, W lmmfl - W h. . eecuhhee e .heanos s s "mung“? . u u. L n amen»... no can an?“ e scream a no: as honem< . mfl mm “H 1MP who nouhueeh one a chance sacs eon: no no . «nut. 5n 0 mm .esaeae decode-ouch henna eeann have o Arm . .m. n .e no o .E s. .. .. it mm W .aeeh» 0» Eu 98... .aaemelan LP a: BI. .eouucsn v vocab-non: o» ouano H m eeeno ash era» vebaornd can-«heuoeneno eeenoneen eeencneeh xeraasUen news: hherc ceadn was ne‘er: coma-enw.. swoemme on: er ewe has»: .ermweuen=c no Ian .anelhodnle no vueuu es eneuueehucc no coacno no eevsauaae he eueeuue Innuennsre eeenoaeem 3.» lunda The reader will note that Questions 16, h, and 2 all fall within the first eight places in the decreasing order. All of these questions sought responses to the basic charac- teristic of "treatability' of correctional clients. The res- pondents therefore looked upon 'treatability" , the opportunity to effect constructive change in the client, as another major factor in discouraging their entering corrections. Questions 22 and 20 both had to do with the professional status of correctional workers. It is of interest to note that the respondents apparently felt that the public's per- ception regarding status of the worker in corrections exerts a considerably more negative influence than does the worker's own feeling about the professional status of the correctional worker. Thus, the data reveal a rather wide divergence between status attributed by the public and status perceived by the respondents, regarding corrections. One might deduce from this divergence that the respondents feel that efforts in the area of public education about corrections is badly needed. Responses to Questions 23 and 18, in Table 7, indicate a significant amount of feeling regarding the appropriateness of social work education in preparing for corrections, the extent to which it prepares, and the perception of social work students regarding the ambivalence of corrections departments -35. toward this kind of preparation. The social work students participating in this study have thus re-cmphasiscd the varied thinking found in the literature concerning these matters. Clearly, social work itself is not totally accepting of cor- rections as a field of practice. Table 7 data further reveal that the characteristic of 'authcrity' in corrections was recognised by the students as one which.exerts a rather strongly negative influence upon workers considering that field. Questions 10 and 1h concern- ing general agency and.worker authority are seen as being more negative than the factors of Questions ll and 13, concerning the ”police-like" duties of the worker and his working with persons from.other, authority disciplines. The idea that the correctional worker engages in a l'teemxapproach." with police officers, attorneys, and prison guards seems to be an only slightly negative influence. Table 7 is self-explanatory in pointing out the relative degree of haportance of the other characteristics of corrections, as perceived by the respondents. The researcher was faced with the question of whether the several characteristics included in Part 0 were all, or at least the major ones, of these which.influencc social workers regarding corrections. is we shall see later the answers to part I of the questionnaire tend to answer this question affirmatively. But Table 8 brings additional statistical affirmative response. TABLB 8.- Mean attitudinal total scores for respondents by position of choice of corrections from ten possible fields of employment. Group containin Number of lean attitudinal position of cho cc respondents. total score for corrections Group 1 S 2.60 Group 2 16 2.3. Group 3 hl 1.05 Group E 22 0.73 "Hcan attitudinal total score for all respondents is 1.90. is was expected there is strong correlation between having placed corrections high on one's preference for employment list and.respcnding positively (or, 'lcss negatively”) to the several characteristics of the field which may be seen by some persons as strongly negative determining factors. In slight contrast to Table 7 the data of Table 9 affords a somewhat different comparison of the several characteristics, as responded to by the students. -37- TABLI 9.- lumber of responses indicating agreement with unfavorable statements concerning corrections as a field of employment. lumber of characteristic involved lumber of respondents Question in in the Question agree that the char- tart c of the acteristie exerted Questionnaire ne tive effect Statue of the r gency res c on o uno e ruc c prac cc b t ke or use a cam cpproac ty persons po cc offi s a as s a s cc 0 agency upon as n e cser ve , go s a - cc c v serv ce sys cm upon wcr ac y y y 0 en or or s pcrce on correc on s cc eb ss 0 e on o prepares or c 1013: ittitudinal questions Ice. 3, 7, and 17, are not shown in the above table. Questions) 3and7 7pertained to “responsi- bility' of the worker and the “exciting nature of the work, respectively. From the responses it was impossible to deter- :mine whether these characteristics created a predominantly favorable or unfavorable feeling about corrections. Question 17 concerned the clients' 'descrvin‘ of treatment. All 93 res- pondents agreed that correctional cfients "deserve" treatment. -33- Although the general trend of the ranking of characteristics is similar to that of Table 7 some important differences may be noted. For exmmple, Table 9 indicates that there was greatest agreement that "status of the worker“ has ”some degree' of negative effect. Table 7, however, indicates that the first "status” statement fell as far down as fifth place, in terms of degree of ”negativencss.' This kind of inconsis- tency may be seen regarding several of the characteristics. Those of 'team.approach with authority persons,’ and the I"aescrtivc,' 'going out' clement” offer examples. flush in- consistencies seam to point up a lack of resolution or under- standing of which characteristics should properly be seen as negutivc, and the extent to which they may be felt to be nega- tive in the influencing of workers who may consider corrections. This apparent failure to resolve and.understand these factors is seen by the writer as further indication of the failure of social work education to provide adequate total preparation fer corrections. Tables 10, 11, and 12 will provide the reader with further evidence of the inconsistency in the attitudes of respondents of Groups 1 and 2 regarding the characteristics of treatability, authority, and status of correctional employment, respectively. The reader will note that in many cases the respondent was not consistently positive or negative in his responses to a given basic characteristic, as presented in different attitudinal -39- TABLE 10.- Positive and negative responses (favoring or not favoring) given to attitudinal questions involving the char- acteristic of treatability_in correctional employment by group in which corrections as choice of employment fell. ATTITUDIEAL QFESTIONS RESPONDED TO Group in which Question Question Question Totals corrections as a b c choice of em- 0'2 C.h 0'16 ployment fell Pos. Neg. Poe. Neg. Pos. Neg. Poe. Neg. Grgup ; (Corrections lst choice out of field of ten) dc o 3 Group 2 (Corrections 2nd or 3rd choice cut of field of ten) ‘Question 0.2; “A large percentage of clients in cor- rections settings are not able to use the social worker's services constructively." bQuestion O.h: “The prognosis for clients of correctional social workers is generally poorer than for clients in most other social work settings." °Question 0.163 ”It is generally more difficult to treat correctional clients than those in other social work settings.” ~h0- Till! 11.- Positive and negative responses (favoring or not favoring) given to attitudinal questions involving the char- acteristic of authority in correctional employment by group ATTITUDINAL QUESTIONS‘ Group in which Question Question corrections as b choice of em- C’s‘ 0'10 ployment fell Pos. “3% Pos. Beg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Poe. leg. (Corrections lst choice out of field of ten) s Totals o : ‘Qgggp_g, (Corrections 2nd or 3rd choice out of field of ten) ‘Questien 0.53 ”Corrections utilises punishment to carry out its agency responsibilities.” bQuestion 0.10; IThe corrections worker uses more controls and restrictions in his work than do social workers in other IOtt1n8'e. °Question 0.11: 'The social worker in corrections performs duties of a 'policc-like' nature.” dQuestion 0.123 ”Corrections calls for 'assertive' social work with the worker 'going out' to provide his client with scrv 00's 4,1- TABLE 12.- Positive and negative responses (favoring or not favoring) given to attitudinal questions involving the char- acteristic of status of corrections; employgent, by group in which correct one as choice of employment fell. ATTEC'I'UDINAL QLUESTIONS RESPONDED TO Group in which Question Question Question Totals corrections as a b c choice of .m_ 0.1 0.20 0.22 ployment fell Pos. Neg. Poe. Neg. Poe. Neg. Pos. Neg. (Corrections lst choice out of field of ten) 0:23p 2 (Corrections 2nd or 3rd choice out of field.of ten) Total: 7 9 12 h 9 7 26 19 ‘Question C. l; “Correctional workers enjoy high status and recognition.” bQuestion C .20; ”Corrections is a less 'prcfessional' field than other social work areas.‘ °Questicn C .223 ”The public generally attributes a lower professional status to workers in corrections than to those in other social agencies." 4,2- statements. Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix 3 provide compar- ison for similar relative inconsistencies by Group 1 and Group 2 members, for the characteristics of work loads, salaries, civil service status, attractiveness and comfort of buildings, possible physical danger to the worker and family,.whether* social workers are wanted by employers in correctional agencies, whether the n.s.w. properly prepares for-correctional practice. amount of responsibility upon the worker,.and excitement of the work. Another major question asked by the researcher was how.‘ those persons ranking corrections high in order of choice of‘ fields for employment differed from the total group of res-- 2 pondents in their perceptions of and attitudes toward various characteristics of the field. Table 13 facilitates such a comparison. This broad.view'cf the several characteristics presents clear evidence of a number of differences in perceptions by the three groups specified in the Table. Students in Groups 1 and 2 (students ranking corrections as first, or second or third choice, respectively, out of ten possible fields of em. ployment) expressed less agreement that corrections work presents comparative reduced treatability, more authority, and reduced professional status. In addition, these persons tended to disagree more strongly that H.8.H. training does not prepare ‘for correctional work. These students have, for whatever reasons, achieved perceptions less negative regarding treat- -h3- TABLE 13.- Attitude responses of students ranking as a field of employment, compared with all corrections high responses. Characteristic and Per cent of all Per cent of res— Per cent of rea- Mean of Question Number in respondents who pondents in pondents in Means of Part C. felt the char- Group 1 who felt Group 2 who felt Group 1 acteristic was the characteria- the characteria- and true of cor- tic was true of tie was true of Group 2 rections. corrections. corrections. Reduced Treatability 2 Saeo 00e0 14307 2 61.5 1.0.0 53.3 1 6 e OcO ééhé' Mean: 1. . 1.1 38.8 More Authorit 5 u1.3 20.0 50.0 10 77.1 80.0 86.6 11 3b.? 00.0 37.5 12 62.6 60.0 . Mean: 3.9 50.0 2.9 56.5 Reduced Profes- sional Status 1 80.6 100.0 50.6 :3 23.9 no.0 25.8 1.1 0.0 1 0 _WV Mean: 1.9 %0.0 39.8 9.9 Larger Case Loads an 56.5 80.0 66.6 73.3 Lower Salary Incentive Reduced by Civil Service 6 32.3 1.0.0 25.0 32.5 Unattractivencas gigBuildings 8 5h.8 100.0 50.0 75.0 Uncomfortablenoas of Buildings 9 37.6 80.0 1.2.8 61.1., Possibility of Bodily Harm 19 29.3 h0.0 33.3 36.6 Corrections Prefers Persons Trained in Disciplines other than Social Work 23 26.h 60.0 33.3 u6.6 M.S.W. Training Does not Prepare 18 17.6 00.0 06.3 03.1 Greater Worker Regponsibility 3 30.0 100.0 33.3 66.6 ability, authority and status, which.are the three character- istics seen by the total respondent group as exerting the strongest negative influences upon workers who are considering corrections for employment. Groups 1 and 2 members either do not see the conflicts created by these characteristics or else they have achieved a degree of resolution which the total respondent group has not achieved. 0n the other hand, according to the data of Table 13, those persons who placed corrections as their first, second, or third choice saw even more vividly than the total group the negative aspects of larger case loads, lower salary, unattrac— tiveness and discomfort of buildings, corrections' preference for persons trained in disciplines other than social work, greater worker responsibility, and the possibility of bodily harm.by the client to the worker or his family. Both groups perceived to approxtaatcly the same extent the reduction of worker incentive because of civil service control of the setting. Part E of the questionnaire provided opportunity for the respondents to summarise, in their own words, their feeling and perceptions of corrections as a field of social work ea- ployment. They were encouraged to emphasise any factors or characteristics which seemed especially important to them. In utilising the data of Part I the writer screened the res- ponses according to general content, characteristics specifically mentioned, and value (positive or negative attitude) of the 4,5. general content or characteristics. Eighty-one of the ninety-three students responded to Part B. The data revealed eightybtwo comments reflecting negatively upon corrections, thirty-five reflecting positively, and six comments which seemed to be mostly neutral. The cements were, in many cases, repetitive of the student's responses in Part C. In a few instances characteristics which the researcher had not incor- porated into Part C were mentioned. The negative factors, in decreasing order of numerical significance, and number of respondents mentioning the factor, are as follows: Limited knowledge of corrections; schools of social work do not encourage students regarding corrections. - 21 Poor relationship and hard to work with law enforcement and custody. - 11 Apathetic community attitude; absence of community support. - 7 Emphasis upon punishment. - 6 Low status of the field. - 5 Less professional field. - 5 Reduced treatebility. - 5 Too large case leads. - 5 ”Depressing" work and surroundings. - h Negative affects of authority and legal controls. - h Low salaries. - 3 ”Lack of interest” in corrections. - 2 Corrections not now a "proper field for social workers. - N The positive factors, in decreasing order of numerical significance, and number of respondents mentioning the factor, are as follows: Exciting, stimulating, challenging work. - In There exists a strong need for social workers in corrections. - 8 Corrections is a growing field of social work. - 7 Corrections is a proper setting for social workers. - 6 The comments which seemed to be of a mostly neutral nature were as follows: Much research needed in corrections. - h Expression of "admiration” of persons entering corrections. - 2 4,7- V CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY; IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It will be recalled that the writer's major hypothesis of this study was: The negative attitudes of social work students toward corrections as a field of employment are based on a variety of factors, and not only on the authoritative charac- teristics, a distinctive factor which is frequently cited. The data of this study support the hypothesis and reveal the existence and influence of a number of factors in addition to those having to do with authority. The study indicates that the perceived factor of reduced I'treatability" of the cor- rectional client is the one characteristic which is most in- fluential in discouraging graduate social.work students from entering corrections. Treatability is closely followed by authority cf the field and status of its workers, however, in negatively influencing students. There is some contra-indica- tion, however, that social workers are not strongly opposed to functioning in a 'tcamF with members of authority disciplines such as law enforcement, legal practice, and prison custody. The data tend to support the writer's basic assumption that a disproportionately small number of trained social workers enter corrections. It is assumed that the several negative factors which are indicated in this study combine -53- to act as a deterrent to social workers in any consideration which they may give to entering the correctional field. The less negative attitudes of the'wayne State University students as opposed to the Michigan State University and University of Michigan students, are of interest to note. This study did not reveal the factors which may be playing a significant role in the less negative attitudes of Hayne State University students. There is substantial evidence from the study that the social work training process is not adequately preparing workers for entering correctional work. There is also evidp cues that the schools of social work are not otherwise pro- viding encouragement to students to enter corrections. 1 number of the respondents demonstrated an awareness of their limited knowledge of the field of corrections. In addition, many of the students expressed their awareness of the failure of the social work training process to prepare and encourage students for corrections. These conclusions are supported, among other findings, by the data indication that approximately only one student out of twenty had taken a graduate course . ”having directly to do with corrections," and the finding that those students most interested in entering corrections felt that their knowledge of the field had mostly been gained fr- sources other than a school of social work. The findings of this study provide empirical support to many of the observations of the literature in the area of the subject. The writer's recommendations, therefore, are similar to many of the recommendations currently in the literature. The relative lack of interest in corrections I finds much of its genesis in the lack of complete acceptance of this field by social work educators. Relatively negative attitudes about corrections and lack of knowledge and pre- paration for dealing with the characteristic aspects of this setting are the results of this lack of acceptance. Until a greater understanding and acceptance of corrections is gained by social work education there is little reason to believe that trained social workers will enter this field in significantly greater numbers. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Fink, i., Uilson, 3., and Conover M. The Field of Socia Hg; . Hew‘lork: Henry Holt a Co., I933. 333-533. Hollis, B. V., and Taylor, A. L. 3°°li1 work Educatiog in the United States. New York: e um n vers y Press, 195l. H55. hurts, Russell H. (ed.) Social work Igag Book. 1251. New York‘ No As 8c Veg 19 g 19 " 0 e Ohlin, Lloyd. Sociology and the Field of Corrections. New York! 1956e Studt, Elliot. Education for Social workers in the ngf rectional Field. Vol. V, A Project Report of the Curriculum Study, Werner w Boehm, Director and Coordin- gtor, Council on See a or E ucation. Hew'Iork: 1959, O. Tappan, Paul. Contemporary Corrgctions. New‘Iork: 1951, Articles and Periodicals Class, Norris E. “Qualifications,“ H, P,P..i, Journal, Vol. III, 1957. 101-110. lsselstyn, T. C. "Trends in Social Work Toward Corrections,” P deral Probati , June 1957, 30-33. Fox, Vernon. 'The University Curriculum in Corrections,” ngera; Probation, September 1959. 51-57. Rardman, Dale. liutherity in Casework - 1 Bread and Butter Theory," 3, P, P,.i, Journal, July 1959. Hess, Loren. "A.Graduate School and Court Cooperate in Train- ing for Probation work,” Federal Prgbgticn, June 1951. -51. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cont'd Johnson, Kenneth. "The Role of Social Work Education in Preparing Personnel for the Corrections Field,” ggdy eral Probation, September 1956, 5h-58. Johnson, Kenneth.D., “The Prof. Schools Face the Challenge of Correctional Work,” Focus, Vol. IIVIV, lo. 5, Sept- ember 1950, 150-151. lawin, Irene. “Therapeutic Use of Authority,” Federal gro- bation, September 1953, 22-26. Kidneigh, John C., and Lundberg, Horace W._ 'ire Social Work Students Different?“ Social Wo k, July 1958, 57-61. Leeds, Clarence. ”Probation Work Requires Special Training,” Federal Pr bation, June 1951. Lundberg, D. E. ”Methods of Selecting Prison Personnel,“ Journal of ginninal La! and Criminology, May-June 191.7. Meeker, Ben S. "Probation and Parole Officers at Work - A Job Analysis,” I, P, P,.i, Journal, Vol. III, 1957. 99-106e . ”The Social Worker and the Correctional Field,” F deral Probatio , September 1957. 31-h2. Ohlin, L., Piven, H. and Pappenfcrt, D. 'Hajcr‘Dilemmas of the Social worker in Probation and Parole,” N, P, P,.i. Journa , m: 195 . 211-225. Polansky, Norman: Bowen, William; Gordon, Lucille; and Conrad, Hathan. "Social Workers in Society: Results of a Sampling Stud ,' Sog}c; Work Journal, Vol. XXXIV, se. 2, ‘pl'll 1953s 7%-“. Sherriffs, Alex. ”The Authority Aspect of the Worker-Client Relationship: issct or Liability?” Redgral Probatigg, June 1953. 22-25. Studt, Elliot. "An Outline for Study of Social.iuthority Factors in Casework,” Social Casework, June 195k. -52- BIBLIOGRAPHY Cont'd Studt, Elliot. "Casework in the Correctional Field,” ngera; Probation. Vol. XVIII, September l95ho 19-26. . "Learning Casework in a Juvenile Probation Setting,‘I Social Casework, October 1951. . ”The Contribution of Correctional Practice to Social Work Theory and Education,” Social Casegork, June 1956, 263-269 a Taits, P., Ellenbogen, 3.. and.Ramse%, C. "Occupational Choice - Some implications for ecruitment, Social Work, April 1958, h6-h9. Trecker, Harleigh. "Social Work Principles in Probation,“ Federal Probation, March 1955. Whllack, Walter. ”The Place of Authority in Rehabilitation Programs of Prisoners and.Reformatory Inmates," Egggggl Probation, March 1955. Wilson, 0. W. “Survey of Training in Criminology,‘ Amegigag Societ of Criminolc Newslette ,‘Hay 1959. Witte, Ernest. IRecruitment and Retention of P'e‘rscnnel,‘l c. s. w. 2., a. r.4r.31. Journal, Vol. 111, 1957, 111-119. Ziskind, Louis. ”Social Work and the Correctional Field," Federal Probatic , March 1950, h6-h9. W “Recruitment for Social Work Education ' C. S. W. E. Bimgnthly N rub11 ation, April 1958. ' Reach, S. 5., and Cranefield, Eleanor. "The Educational Needs of Personnel in the Field of Corrections,‘ C, 5. ‘. Es H." York. 19$6e Studt, Elliot (ed.) “Social Work Education for Personnel in the Field of Corrections,‘. Ag Boo Committee. C. S. W,_§., NOW York: 1956e -53. BIBLIOGRAPHI Cont'd U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Social Worker in 1950,“ Family Service Association of Ame ica, Hew“1orkx 1952. Proceedings Schnur, A. C. “Training the Correctional Worker: Prc~Scr- vice Training," Proceedings of the.American Corrections; Association, 1958. Studt, Elliot. ”Treatment of Persons in Conflict with.Author- ity,‘ Proceedings of the 1956 Social Work Progress Institute, School of Social Work, U. of M., Ann.Arbor, Michigan, 1956. QUESTIONNAIRE TITLE OF STUDY: A Study of the Attitudes of Michigan Male Graduate Social Work Students Toward Entering the Field of Corrections. AN EXPLANATION: With the exception of PART B wherever the word "Corrections" is used it refers to adult corrections. The Study is of atti- tudes toward the services of adult pro— bation, parole, and imprisonment. INSTRUCTIONS: Please write in, encircle, or check (as apprOpriate) to indicate your answer. 1. Your age at last birthday was .............. . ........ 2. The university you are now attending is. 3. Your current year of graduate social work study. lst 2nd (Circle one) A. Did you have a particular field of employment or type of agency in mind when you began . graduate social work training? .................... Yes No (Circle one) 5. If you circled "yes" to Number 4 indicate the particular field or agency you preferred. 6. Please arrange the following fields of social work employment in the order of preference for your first preference, "2" beside your second preference, etc.) ......... Adoption Community Or anization Corrections %Adult) Family Service Juvenile Delinquency Medical Social Work Psychiatric Social Work Public Welfare Recreation School Social WOrk Other (Fill in) -55- . k . . . . . 4 t . . . I . ,. . 1 . _ . . r‘ . . I o .1 v n o i . . i. _ ~ . . n . . . l . m . . . . . W. a , .1 . . . . o. C n - _ o . . , . v . . q i. . . . . t . . t u . . , ... . . . . . ‘ 1 c \ t . . .., . . . p . . I . . . . I . n. . . . . _ . .. r g A _ . . J . a . . . . . . v . v . . n. . . . . .. . . a n . . , . . n . O ,. v a . . r a . _ a . n . c v . . . I I l i . . . . . E l d . . ,V. . . i. a p . .., . . 1 . . . . . , I I :0. ¢ . t J . o v 0 I. n .. . . . . . . w} 0.. s . . .. n . .. . . v . . .4 . , f | . . . I .y a V . . . V . i . . .- r . . a 1 . A . . . . 1 v V. , u _ I I y . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Page 2 Are you committed, because of a stipend, work-study program or other aggangement, to a particular job upon graduation?. . . . . . . Yes No (Circle one) If you circled "yes" to Number 7, in what area of social work will you be employed?.. If you are not committed, as indicated above, would you consider accepting employment if the field of corrections?. . . . .Yes No (Circle One) Do you now plan at any time during your professional social work career, to consider employment in corrections?. . . . . . . Yes No (Circle one) Your present knowledge about the field of corrections has mostly been gained from what source? (Check one) . school of social work own experience a relative a friend college instructor (undergraduate) newspapers books other (specify) Illllll The type of agency in which your first year of graduate social work field training was/is done. . . . . . . (Write out answer) (For second year students only) The type of agency in which your second year of graduate social work field training is being done . . (write out answer) Did you have employment experience in social work before beginning M. S. W. training? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No ' (Circle one) If you circled "yes" to Number 8, for how long were you employed?. . . (Indicate to nearest year) -56- _ vm’l- -. o I n o ... I I , -. x“ 7- .- . .- . o .~ . -. u ' I v . n . Page 3 16. Have you had employment experience in the field of corrections before beginning M.S.W. training?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No (Circle one) 17. If you circled "yes" to Number 9, for how long were you employed?. . . . . . . . (Indicate to nearest year) 18. As an undergraduate student did you take at least one course having something to do with corrections?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No (Circle one) 19. As a graduate student have you taken, or are you now taking, at least one course having directly to do with corrections?.. . . . . Yes No (Circle one) 20. Do you have a relative or close friend who is working or has worked in the field of Corrections?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No (Circle one) 21. Do you have a relative or close friend who is working or has worked in the field of law enforcement?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No (Circle one) PART B INSTRUCTIONS: In the space below please state the way in which you perceive juvenile Hcorrections as differing from adult corrections as a field of practice for professional social workers. -57- Part C INSTRUCTIONS: The numbered statements which follow Page A indicate wome of the factors which have been suggested as being characteristic of corrections as a field of employment for social workers. You are asked to respond in two ways to each statement: a. In the first set of blanks following each statement (Question A) indicate whether you agree or disagree with the statement by placing a check mark in the appropriate blank. b. In the second group of blanks follow- ing each statement (Question B) indi- cate the kind of influence which you feel that the idea expressed in the statement has upon social workers entering corrections. You may do this by also placing a check mark in the appropriate blank. (Each Question "B" asks you to indicate how important you think the stated factor is in influencing the decision of social workers to work in the field of corrections.) c. Your immediate and spontaneous replies, rather than a deliberate and consider- ed judgment, will be most helpful. 1. Corrections workers enjoy high status and recognition. A. (Check one) i I agree - I disagree The idea expressed here has the following influence upon the decision of social workers to work in corrections: Very positive Positive No effect A large percentage of clients in corrections settings are not able to use the social worker's services constructively. A. (Check one) - I agree + I disagree The idea expressed here has the following influence upon the decision of social workers to work in corrections: No effect ~58- Negative Very negative «.1 wt. _ .—- ...... .. F“ 7 . 0!. J . x .‘ to u u . v. r , .. . O. _ . . . . . . . ’0 . w. . . . 5. _ , ... . Page 5 The corrections worker is given a greater amount of responsibility than workers in most other areas of social work. A. (Check one) £33 I agree “60' I disagree B. The idea expressed here has the following influence upon the decision of social workers to work in corrections: Very positive Positive No effect Negative Very negative The prognosis for clients of correctional social workers is generally poorer than for clients in most other social work settings. A. (Continue as before) ' I agree + I disagree B. (Continue as before) No effect Negative Very negative Corrections utilizes punishment to carry out its agency responsibilities. A. ’ I agree + I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative The fact that civil service systems frequently govern the employment of correctional workers tends to reduce worker incentive. A. - I agree i I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative -59- i1 ff ,‘ .- .L Page 6 7. Corrections work is frequently more exciting than other 10. 11. areas of social work. A. (Check one) + I agree ’ I disagree B. The idea expressed here has the following influence upon the decision of social workers to work in corrections: Positive Very Positive __ No effect _ Negative - Very negative The physical buildings and offices in which corrections social workers are employed are generally unattractive. ___ I agree i I disagree A. (Continue as before) B. (Continue as before) No effect --—-- ——-. Negative Very negative The physical buildings and offices in which corrections social workers are employed are generally uncomfortable. A. - I agree + I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative The corrections worker uses more controls and restrictions in his work than do social workers in other settings. A. - I agree i I disagree B. __ No effect _ Negative Very negative The social worker in corrections performs duties of a "police-like" nature. A. - I agree + I disagree B. Very positive Positive No effect Negative -60- Very negative Iilll 12. 13. 14. 15. Page 7 Corrections calls for "assertive" social work, with the worker "going out" to provide his client with services. A. (Check one) + I agree - I disagree B. The idea expressed here has the following influence upon the decision of social workers to work in corrections: Very positive Positive No effect Negative Very negative The correctional worker is frequently engaged in a "team approach", together with police officers, attorneys, and prison guards. A. (Continue as before) ‘ I agree + I disagree B. (Continue as before) No effect Negative I Very negative The kind and amount of authority inherent in the correc- tions agency prevents full use of social work methods and techniques. A. - I agree i I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative Corrections workers are generally paid a lower salary than social workers in other settings. A. - I agree i I disagree B. No effect _____ Negative Very negative -61- 6".“ . . . . i N . . . c u i j. . I . e .L. . u. ‘a i l . . a y 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Page 3 It is generally more difficult to treat correctional clients than those in other social work settings. A. (Check one) - I agree + I disagree B. The idea expressed here has the following influence upon the decision of social workers to work in corrections: No effect Negative Very negative The severely anti-social nature of their acts indicates that many corrections clients do not deserve treatment. A. (Continue as before) - I agree + I disagree B. (Continue as before) __ No effect _____ Negative Very negative M.S.W. training does not prepare persons for entering corrections. A. - I agree i I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative The possibility of bodily harm by the client to the worker or his family is a consideration of the trained social worker regarding entering corrections. A. - I agree _“_ I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative Corrections is a less "professional" field than other social work areas. A. :__ I agree i I disagree B. No effect Negative _ Very negative -62.. 21. 22. 23. 24. Page 9 The corrections agency presents more controls to the worker's unobstructed practice of his profession than is found in other social agencies. A. (Check one) - I agree i I disagree B. The idea expressed here has the following influence upon the decision of social workers to work in corrections: No effect Negative Very negative The public generally attributes a lower professional status to workers in corrections than to those in other social agencies. A. (Continue as before) - I agree + I disagree B. (Continue as before) No effect Negative Very negative Corrections departments prefer to hire persons trained in disciplines other than social work. A. - I agree .+ I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative The size of corrections case loads makes more work per worker necessary than in most other social agencies. A. - I agree + I disagree B. No effect Negative Very negative -63- “"1 ‘1 cl 7.: (I. |. A . .. . . .. o .L a P. v -n .y. ..I.< Id .— -— -... . .. . . . . . . .. . .7. 5 W . I t c» . T. . in. ._ _ .. I .I I, V . . .2 .c . . .. .I . .. I n } v.1 .~ . . ,1 a... . . .. \ . _ . e . I I y I ._ . . A . I . . . . _ . . 0 1 J . rL . . .. . U . . It . .. . A . . _. I _ .‘4, .- tra ~ \A. a .. .l r .. 1 s . e I .tl . PART D INSTRUCTIONS: PART E INSTRUCTIONS: YOUR NAME (OPTIONAL) Page 10 In the space provided below you may note any additional factors which you think are characteristic of corrections as a field of employment for social workers. Please include the way in which the factor(s) bear upon social workers entering the corrections field. In the space provided below you are asked to summarize your own attitude regarding corrections as a field of practice for social workers. If you possess particularly strong feeling about corrections generally, or about certain aspects of corrections, please indicate them here. (If additional space is needed use the reverse side of this page. ‘ -6h- - _ :1 .LPPENDIX III TABLE 1.- Poaitivo and nogativo roaponaoa (favoring or not favoring) givon to attitudinal quoationa involving tho char- aotoriatio of workloada, aalarioa, and civil aorvioo atatuo, in oorrootionaI mmploymont. by group in wEIah oorrootiona aa ohoioo of onploymont roll. _.——m-— m”.~——.— -—. _.....-__,_.,....,-__. -_-——.-~-.—._ ---—. ,.,,_ ..__._._. m_m—- c.- w—“W -— ‘o-w'..-——..——~_—-— ---———..-....-.u_. m“ A ATTITUDIHAL DEBT 0N8 RESPONDEQWQO Group in whioh Quoation Qnoation Qnoation oorrootiona aa a h o ohoioo of on- 0'2“ 0.15 0.6 ployment roll Poo. Hog. Poo. Hog. Poo. log. (Corrootiona lat ohoioo out of tioll of ton) Grgug 2 (Oorrootiona 2nd or 3rd ohoioo out of tiold of ton) O 8 ‘Quoation c.2h; “Tho aiao or oorrootiona oaaoloado nakoo noro work por workor noooaaary than in moat othor aooial agonoioa.‘ bQuoation 0.153 'Corrootiona workora aro gonorally paid a lowor aalary than aooial‘workoro in othor ao tinga.’ °Quoation 0.63 “Tho fact that civil aorvioo ayatmma fro uontly ovorn tho onploynont or oorrootional workora ton to ro uoo uorkor inoontivo.‘ -55.. 1?!!an III TABLE 2.- Poaitivo and no ativo rooponooo (favoring or not favorin ) givon to attit inal quootiono involvin tho char- actorio ic fig att activonooa of buildi.;o, comfor .f build- inga, oooi o a a r ;o - wo 'o ans ‘Vi , n. guootion o? whol«or aoc a wor.oro aro wan o- . corrocticno. y group in uh oh corroc ono ao o o co 0 cup oymon . W _r_ ATTITUDINAL Group in which corroctiono ao Quooticn Quoation Quootion Quoation choico of om- 008‘ c-9b 0.19c 0.23d ploymont foll Poo. log. Poo. Hog. Poo. log. Poo. log. (Corroctiono lot choico out of fiold of ton) O 8 Group 2 (Corroctiono 2nd or 3rd choico out of fiold of ton) ‘Quootion 0.83 ”Tho phyoical huildingo and offiooo in which.oorroctiono oocial workoro aro o-ployod aro gonorally unattractivo.' bum-tion 0.9; “Tho phyoioal buildinga and offiooo in which corrootipno oooial‘workoro aro onplcyod aro gonorally unconfortahlo. ‘Quootion 0.19: “Tho poooihility of bodily harn.hy tho oliont to tho workor or hio family ia a conoidoration of tho trainod oocial workar rogarding ontoring ccrrootiono.‘ aQuootion 6.23 ”Corroctiono dopartnonto profor t hiro poraono trainod in liociplinoo othor than aocial work.9 -“- APHIDII III IABLI 3.- Pooitivo and nogativo rooponaoa (favoring or not favoring) givon to attitudinal quootiona involving tho char- actoriotico of . oo for corroctiogo, ano t of roo onaibil t u n tho workor, and oxc tamont of tho work, by group in w ch corroctiono aa ohoico of onploy- I‘DU {Cllo W ATTITUDIHAL ammo Uroup in union oorroctiono ‘. Quootion Qnootion Quootion ohoico of one 0.15. 0.31’ 0.7. ploynont fall Poo. log. Poo. log: _ Poo. log. (Corroctiono lot choioo out of fiold of ton) o : gggg!_g (Oorrooticno 2nd or 3rd ohoico out of fiolc cf ton) O I ‘Qnootion 0.18; "H.8‘H; training coco not proparo porocao for ontoring oorroctiono. bQuootion G.33 “Tho ccrrootiono workor ia ivon a groator (moonnt of roapcnaibility than workoro in loot o hor aroaa of oocial work.” “emotion 0.73 'Gcrrooticno work ia froquontly ncro ox- oiting than othor aroao of oooial:work.' -57. JUL,26 1961 43 “7171117111111 (Illfllllll’lfl (Ill fill“