- ‘ -o

-~»'4 ._‘

'J'l—v1'T’i'cW'ra' .

1w,

— ->—'

  
  

  
 
 

555.55%“ ‘5’ 555.5 54555 5415 55 5 444.
5.‘ ”Elfviéfi 515555 5:5555'5g‘5 .55? 425:;5'15555’5 $L
55. 55555555555 5555'; E44 W45 55559355445555?“ .E
555 5555 5. . 55W
55455555554535; 55 55 '45.. 5. ~5,55:e.555455~555°55555'5
4 5‘ 55555355555“

5545.554..555454154 555 5545
Imufwflfiwkflhu

 

)5 '4‘5
45

5‘
5.55
5 55.5.5.4

  

: 45555:; ’5' 555' 55155 5 55
, 55.555 5 5» 55455
5 5l5‘ 4H

5wl4 £54" 45544}. 55
5555555555 55555
55555555 51}. 54.?!“ 45 4 4%55:
,5 5 .544" 4'4 .

    
 

'5

 
 
 
 
  

5,4.

  
 
  

        
  
 

   

   
     

.f-fi‘

  
    
   
  
    

 

FW-
.4,
W‘
.
.
.

.o-
a

dag

,_~ .
cg:
a-fg‘
.c— . .-—«-l
'3’; "2.

   

 

l "V‘55.-5l.5‘5 5:5 5:5: .

. 5 . ‘ "i‘551l}..}. ék“l‘5:"1. .H‘. E" I . 5 . ’ .‘
- 5 ~‘fiT5'V nfizfi. 2n
. = .~ . 5.5" 555555 . 5555555
. I . 4o 55555‘15155555‘53555555-W 3:25‘3.” ' ‘ "g . ‘ ‘,l ‘.
5 '- 555555-55 “55555:“515255551-553' *3 55‘” 45' ' '
4 45 555,_55'55 “5545; 5:311:14? _5.:_' N“; 5 3“-
- ~53. - ’55'E15 ' -,~.~~
55 w. . . . -

5? fifi
k&{%55,9-3

‘5 5 5 ‘5 5 05.3".1’5'HY5 "
5 .. 543533.}.‘4. ° : ‘2: 2 . 1?'555;41 4.

5444442!

 
     
 
 

  

31.4

  
     
    

    
  

      

          
    

     

I:
-Ilic‘h

5555““ 5153455

5.5"“15'~ 55 ‘25?" 4
55 555.“
5 555 55.. 5 5} 5555 555

55‘5 -. .
55555555555 5 .5 :5

551‘5L

.1“,
5”:

4555555555 55 5
555‘54 454
5545 {*4

  
           
 

v i; - . z;
_ 5 .555
. ‘,~., 355555555 ‘ ' 5 .5
Q1“4h. égnm' 4 .2 n
‘3“ ‘555‘5’1: 55.5515 4-... " .. .5 1 '.
E59 ”:L Hufl 3::
V 4 a u .H .1 "u
5 .5 . '5 5.552.524 -. 5'49“. {3‘
O4 ‘ U I
. 5"; . - r5
.. - 5

Sgt-13:.
Sf
—-' O’- O.
" "I—v-ov— ’0'
I-”
a ”:3" .u:0'. fl
m;$:. - - ”o
«I? '4 fl- -;';’5‘ .war.‘
.- m:.r:y o“ .- ‘_-.
~£C’L?1EET‘=’
”1".“
‘0’”
”3‘5-
M:-
wi?’

            

' v:

 

 

1111111111111 111

fwd—M 31293 0110 7097 0

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF
MMPI AND DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
FOR ESCAPEES’IIi A MINIMUM SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

’9... “,‘m m- — ”‘

pnesentedmby -p, , ,

d-r I p.» -

GEORGE PRESTON WILSON

"mu-“t t.
. ..vP' .

r i

has been accepted towards fulfillment .
of the requirements for

Ph.D.' Criminal Justice

degree in

 

 

    

Major professor

E/Zf/fj

MSU is an Affirmative Action /Equul Opportunity Institution 0' 12771

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

W999

~93 {.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M WWW-9.14

.....’"t.' "(FEELS E‘GHL..3.‘

I/éflg7-—‘$¢1:2Tr

205:!

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF
MMPI AND DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
FOR ESCAPEES IN A.MJNIMUMISECURITY ENVIRONMENT

BY

GEORGE PRESTON WILSON

A DISSERTATION

-Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Criminal Justice

1983

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF
MMPIINWJEHWEERAPHHCFUCWORS
FOR ESCAPEES IN A MINIMUM SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

by
George Preston Wilson

The problem of escape is not new to the field of
corrections. In fact it is inherent in the operation of
correctional institutions, particularly those with minimum
security environments. On the other hand, correctional
institutions could not operate effectively without the many
functions regularly carried out by inmates. Thus the task
of classifying and selecting individuals to perform
necessary activities which provide a great opportunity flor
escape has become a major concern for correctional
administrators. Limiting the potential for escape will
continue to be a dilemma for administrators due to their
dual responsibilities of protecting the community while
maintaining order within the institution. The question then

becomes under conditions of greatest opportunity to escape

which factors provide the best indicators of potential
escape behavior? The primary objective of this study was
to investigate the factors which are useful as predictors of
escape behavior. It had two related objectives:
l) to create a psychological and demographic profile
of escape offenders at the State Prison of Southern
Michigan

2) to determine whether Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory factors are more reliable
predictors than demographic factors in predicting
escape

In order to implement the objectives, three hundred
inmates were selected from minimum security environments at
SPSM; the files of two hundred escapees were matched'wiu1
one hundred non-escapees. The data collected on all
subjected included ten MMPl scales and twenty-six demo-
graphic variables that previous studies indicated had some
relationship to escape behavior. This data was analyzed via
regression analysis to develop a model that would best
predict escape.

The results produced three models of significant
variables related to escape behavior. The demographic model
contained six variables: security level,rumber ofrnflson
terms, regular family contact, juvenile commitments,
custodial record, and adult probation. The second model
included three MMPI variables: the psychasthenia scale 7,

depression scale 2, and psychopathic deviate scale ii. The

third model was a combination of demographic and MMPI
variables which included security level, psychasthenia scale
7, number of prison terms, regular family contact, juvenile
commitments, supression scale 2 and adult probation.

The three hundred inmates in the study were randomly
divided into two representative groups with each of the
three models used to determine their ability to differen-
tiate between escapees and non-escapees. The conclusion
demonstrated that demographic variables are better
predictors of escape behavior than MMPI variables, however a

combination of the two is better than either independently.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to thank the Michigan Department of
Corrections and the State Prison of Southern Michigan,
without whose help and consideration this dissertation could
not have been completed. A special thanks to Mr. Michael
Nhrtemucci and his staff at the State Prison of Southern
Michigan for their invaluable assistance in the data
collection. Dr. John Prelesnick, Director of the Reception
and. guidance Center at the State Prison of Southern
Michigan, demonstrated his understanding of the issues
involved in correctional research by granting access to
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality inventory files, thus
making this dissertation possible.

The author owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to David
Kalinich, Ph.D., Chair of the Dissertation Committee, fin"
his empathy and support during the completion of this
dissertation. Dr. Kalinichls persistent efforts with a
sometimes difficult student, taught that student a valuable
and important lesson about research and himself. He will
always be a valued friend and associate.

The author also would like to thank the members of the
Dissertation Comittee: Drs. Peter Manning, Neal Schmitt
and Professor Louis Radalet. Their responsiveness regarding
scheduling, reading of the draft and resulting comments

significantly improved the final dissertation.

To my Mother, and all those who prayed that I would
finally complete this project, thanks for your love and
prayers. And finally, to my wife, Zenobia, and daughter,

Kaia, whose love, understanding and devotion through the

difficult times sustained and supported me, a very special

thanks and all my love.

- TABLE OF CONTENTS -

Ab’traCteeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeoeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeee'

ACRNOWIngementeeeoeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeooer

LISt Of Tab'es.O....0...0.0.00.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVI

Chapter

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ,1

Historical Perspective of the Penal System........2
we" InstitutionSOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.000000000000008
Purpose Of the StUdYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.10
Limitations and Scope of the Study...............ll
Definition of Terms..............................12
Organization of the Study........................In

sumary...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIq

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I9

Impact of Incarceration.........................l9
The Evolution of the Prison

Classification System.........................2u
Sociological Escape Studies.....................27
Early Escape Studies............................28
Contemporary Studies and Prediction of Escape

Behavior......................................36
The Use of Psychometric Instruments and

Criminal Behavior.............................u3
MMPI Research and Criminal Behavior:

A Selected Review.............................fl5
MMPI Research Regarding Sex and Race............50
MMPI Studies and Escape Behavior................51
Sumary.........................................513

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 62
Research Questions..............................63
Organizational Setting..........................6fl
Site Selection..................................67
Sampling........................................70
Escape Group....................................7i
Non-Escape Croup................................71
Data ColIections................................72
Demographic Variables...........................72
MMPI Variables..................................73
Analysis of the Data............................78
Summary.........................................80

IV.

ANALYSIS OF DATA 82

Demographic Characteristics.....................83
Criminal Justice History........................87
Institutional Information.......................90
Special Problems................................93
Psychological Factors...........................95
Regression Analysis.............................98
Selecting the Best Model.......................105

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 115

Demograph i C FaCtors O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O .116
WPI FactorSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000000‘ZO
DiSCUSSion 0f the Made| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00......‘21

BIBLIOGRAPHY 12¢
APPENDICIES
Appendix AOOOOOO0.0.0.0.0...0.0.000000000000131
Research Findings of Demographic
Characterizations and Escape
Behavior

Mpendix 8.0.0.0....0..0.0.0.000000000000000132
Data Coding Form

Mpendix COOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.00.00.0000000000138
Profile and Case Summary
of Escape and Non-escape Groups
for the MMPI

Mpendix 0.0.0.0...0....0.0.00.0000000000000139
Mean and Standard Deviation Scores
for Demographic and MMPI Variables

Appendix EOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOIn‘
Correlation Matrixes for
Demographic and MMPI Variables

10.

II.

12.

I3.

I“.

IS.

- LIST OF TABLES -

Page

Michigan Department of Corrections
Escapes 1973-1976000I0.0.0.00.000000000000068

SPSM Escapes 1973‘I976.....................69

Demographic Characteristics of the
Escape and Non-escape Sample...............8u

Prior Criminal Justice History of
Escape and Non-escape Sample...............88

Current Institutional Information of
Escape and Non-escape sample00000000000000091

Special Problems of Escape and
Non-Escape sampleeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeega

t-test of Escape and Non-escape

saW'e by “WI scaleSOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO000.96
Regression Analysis Between Independent
Demographic Variables with Escapees........99

Regression Analysis Between Independent
MMPI Variables with Escapees..............IOI

Regression Analysis Between Independent
Demographic and MMPI Variables
With EscapeeSOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000.0102

Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Demographic Variables
and Escape Behavior.......................106

Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent MMPI Variables
and Escape Behavior.......................108

Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Demographic and MMPI _
Variables with Escape Behavior............109

Comparison of Multiple R and R2
ReSUIts.............0......0000000.00.0...110

cross-va|idation.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCCO0.0112

(JMPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The modern correctional administration and staff are
charged with many responsibilities concerning inmates
legally committed to their control. Probably the most
important of these responsibilities is maintaining physical
custody. If the correctional system cannot prevent an
inmate from escaping physical custody, it cannot reform,
rehabilitate or punish the inmate. Originally it was
believed that the answer to the escape problem was high
walls and well-armed security officers; "however, these are
sometimes not enough and despite such precautionary measures
a prisoner will of his own volition, manage to leave the
custody of the keeper without authorization." (I) it has
become increasingly apparent that simply locking up the
inmates is not an efficient solution to the escape problem.

The problem of escape is not new to the field of
corrections and part of the problem is inherent in the
operation of these institutions. It would be almost
impossible for a modern correctional system to function
efficiently without the thousands of jobs which must be

performed by inmates. Many of these jobs require inmates to

be in minimum security or positions of trust outside the
security of the prison walls. inmates that reach honor or
trusty status no longer are required to wear standard
prison uniforms, have great amounts of freedom outside the
‘walls, and work in positions of responsibility that provide
nmny opportunities for escape. Because these situations
exist, the questions of preventing escapes can no longer be
resolved with walls, fences and security officers. The
question now becomes can a particular inmate, under
conditions of trust and responsibility, be expected to
remain in custody or will he attempt an escape?

The decision-making process to place an individual
inmate in minimum security or trust positions is a major
concern of correctional administrators. In large correc-
tional institutions like the State Prison of Southern
Michigan (SPSM), the administrator is responsible for the
smooth operation of the facility and the custody of its
inmates. This is becoming more difficult with the increase
in prisoner rights, educational and vocational programs and
community involvement with the prison. However, this trend
has not always existed as a brief history of the penal

system will indicate.

Historical Perspective of the Penal System

 

The historical development of American prisons may be

traced to the development of European countries. in

Anglo-Saxon England, for example, the practice of imposing a
term of imprisonment for a specified period of time was
unknown; guilty felons were either killed, mutilated, or
sold into slavery.”’ Early English law also relied
extensively on physical punishment instead of a fine or
imprisonment, and when imposed, it was severe. Death was
imposed by hanging, beheading, burying, drowning, and
stoning, as well as castration, flogging, and body mutila-
tion. (3) Although mutilation ultimately disappeared from
English law, the brutality of Anglo-Saxon criminal punish-
ment continued unabated until the seventeenth century.

The transition from corporal punishment to imprison-
ment, as a source of punishment, took place in the
eighteenth century and subsequently this period has been
viewed as the Age of Enlightenment. It was characterized
by humanitarianism which was responsible for both the
elimination of galley slaves and the improvement of the
wretched conditions in hulks and goals; during the same time
opportunities were decreasing for transporting criminals to
other countries. These factors were instrumental in
fostering the shift from corporal and capital punishment to
imprisonment. The development of the social and political
philosophies of prisons was greatly influenced by the
contributions of classical criminologists and philosophers
such as Beccaria, Voltaire, Rousseau and their rationalistic

fol lowers. (it) John Howard, a contemporary of the Age of

Enlightenment, proposed ideas for prison reform that still
have impact in modern times by anticipating the penitentiary
system. His life and fortune were dedicated to the cause of
humanity, particularly to those incarcerated in the jails,
workhouses and prison hulks of Europe. He brought the
attention of the world to the sordid conditions existing
there and made recommendations for changes and/or improve-
ments. His recommendations epitomized the philosophy
underlying the systems that were later developed in England
and subsequently America. (5)

During 1775 through 1777, Howard undertook a
continental tour and focused his attention on prison
developments that would provide a pattern for penal programs
in England and America. He was significantly impressed by
the House of corrections established by Pope Clements Xi at
Rome in 1704, but he was even more influenced in several
respects by the "Maison de Force" under construction at
Ghent in 1775. The Hospice of St. Michael in Rome was
designed to care for two types of juvenile delinquents,
incorrigible boys submitted to its supervision for
discipline, and youthful offenders committed by the court
for a stint of hard labor and penance. The wing erected for
youthful offenders had small rooms or cells for the separate
confinement of each boy, though most were permitted out for
work in silence during the day. The reconstructed House of

Corrections at Ghent likewise provided small, separate

cells, arranged in pentagon cluster, around a control
center. it was a new architectural model which could be
adopted for the imprisonment of adults. (6)

Howard described each of the wretched jails he visited
in England with meticulous detail and compared them with the
foreign models he had toured. in doing so, he provided such
a sharp contrast in conditions that Parliament was
challenged to take action. With his classical publication,

State of Prisons, such able men as Popham, Blackstone,

 

Bentham and Romiliy rallied to Howard's support. (7)
Together they mounted a campaign for the reform of the
criminal law and for a decision to replace the transpor-
tation system, which the revolt of the American colonies was
just then interrupting, with national penitentiaries.

After the American Revolution, according to David

Rothman in his classic book, The Discovery of the Asylum,

 

considerable endorsement was given to the position that the
roots of crime and poverty are-in the social structure, the
faulty organization of the community.

This belief led to the establishment of social action
to solve social problems and became the prevalent major view
advocated in America following the revolution. in the case
of criminals and delinquents, it was thought the institu-
tionaiization would serve the dual purpose of rehabilitating

the inmates as well as setting an example for others; it

would serve to reinforce individual and general deterence.
(8)

in 1787, in Pennsylvania, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin
Franklin and others met to discuss punishment and prison
reform. Rush proposed a new system for the treatment of
criminals which included classification, individualized
treatment, and prison labor to make them self-supporting.
In 1790 a law was passed that established the principle of
solitary confinement and hard labor. The Walnut Street
Jail, described by Barnes and Teeters, as "the first real
penitentiary in America," was remodeled to implement this
new philosophy. individual cells would be provided for
serious felons, and other prisoners would be separated
according to sex and whether they had been sentenced or were
only being detained awaiting trial. This was the develop-
ment of the American Penal System.

The prisoners at the Walnut Street Jail worked an
eight-to-ten hour day and also received religious
instruction. They worked in their cells and were paid for
the work. Guards were not permitted to use weapons, and
corporal punishment was forbidden. (9) By 1800, problems
with the system were obvious. Despite the thick walls and
high security, escapes did occur. Overcrowded facilities
could not produce enough work for theincreasing number of
prisoners. Vice flourished prisoners revolted, and the

prison began operating at a loss. The Walnut Street Jail

ultimately failed because of politics, finances, lack of
personnel and overcrowding. But not before it gained
recognition throughout the world as the first model prison
system.

The response to the failure of the Walnut Street Jail
was the development of two district types of prison systems;
the Pennsylvania system (‘0) based on solitary confinement,
and the Auburn system, based on the silent system. (‘1) By
the 1830's these two American penitentiary systems were
famous around the world.

While these developments were in process, determined
philanthropists in New York City, Philadelphia and Boston
planned houses of correction for misdemeanor offenders. The
continuing reform efforts of these men finally led to the
acceptance of the Auburn system as the model for American
penitentiaries. Their efforts also established the National
Prison Association, known today as the American Correctional
Association. The first meeting of the organization was held
on October 12, 1870, in Cincinnati. What emerged from this
nmeting was the Elmira Reformatory, established in 1876.
This Institution was based on the philosophy of reformation
which included, indeterminate sentences, cultivation of
inmate's self-respect, classification of prisoners,
opportunity for parole, and an emphasis on rehabilitation

through education and trade training. (12) These changes in

philosophy laid the groundwork for the establishment of more

open correctional institutions.

Open Institutions

The idea of open institutions also began in Europe.
The penal farm, originating about 150 years ago, was used in
Belgium; Switzerland and Holland as the solution to
vagrancy. (‘3) Later, several penal farms started in the
United States. The first was Cooley Farm near Cleveland,
Ohio. (1“) The ideas found in the honor camps of today can
be traced to the penal farms. Little change has occurred in
the basic principles. Modern honor farms are used for the
more trustworthy prisoners. Those selected from the larger
population are sent to camps outside the walls and often
some distance from the central institutions.

According to penal scholars, open institutional
settings bring self-respect, develops responsibility, and
better prepares prisoners for release from custody. The
development of this system has proven to be a valuable
contrfitnition to correctional treatment. Several advantages
of that development were almost predictable. First,
overcrowding can be alleviated by- allowing prison
authorities to screen out the better risk inmates and those
more amenable to rehabilitation. Second, the cost of
building and operating large institutions can be saved.

Third, more opportunities could be pmovided for self-

improvement through educational, vocational and idividual-
ized treatment programs. Finally, illness and boredom is
reduced by allowing the prisoners to work at public service
jobs (state parks, forestry, roads) that otherwise remain
undone or at the cost to the taxpayer. It is therefore
obvious that open correctional facilities such as camps,
farms or slmfllar institutions can serve a useful purpose in
preparing inmates for re-entry in society.

In spite of obvious advantages, prison authorities
still experience considerable risks with open systems. They
cannot predict whether a prisoner, once outside the walls,
will live up to their expectations. Prison officials have
isolated certain factors that are related to the success or
failure of a trustee -- but there are no guarantees of
success. ‘These factors (interviews, psychological and
academic tests, observations and practical experience) are
useful in making decisions on outside placements, yet use of
these procedures do not automatically end escapes. Many are
employed merely with the hope of reducing the percentage of
escapes.

It is paramount that the selection of prisoners for
outside placement be based on solid decision. The selection
should focus on prisoners who are low risk for escape and
who would benefit most from this type of treatment. Prisoner
selection from outside placement is the key in making the

system WOH<. lt insures public safety and stems the tide

for fear created by the increasing number of escapes from

minimum or open security facilities.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the
relationship between demographic correlates and personality
correlates, as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality inventory (MMPI), as predictors of prison
escape.

This study has two related objectives;

l) to create a psychological and

demographic profile of the

escape offender in SP9“.

2) to determine whether MMPI

factors are more stable escape

predictors than demographic

factors.
’The criminal justice system continues to seek out the
behavioral science for assistance in how to explain criminal
behavior. ' The two schools of thought explaining or
predicting escape behavior center around gathering important
descriptive and demographic data on individual case shun!
and psychological data. According to Megargee, in any
attempt to predict a given behavior, it is necessary for

some sign, agent or event to be highly correlated with that

10

behavior. Yet the correlation alone is insufficient; the

sign, agent or event must also discriminate between
behaviors. (‘5) Those who believe that external and
demographic factors discriminate behavior more accurately
are from the first school of thought, and those who believe
internal and psychological factors more accurately

discriminate behavior are the latter.

LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The use of statistical prediction has several major
limitations, the major one being the unit of analysis. In
order to reduce the error rate for statistical tests, a
group of cases rather than an individual case must be the
unit of study. Consequently, it is concerned with the way
in which a given factor operates In the majority of cases,
disregarding individual variations.

Another limitation of this study, one that appears to
be common in criminal justice research, is the condition of
the person's records used to obtain data. These records
were completed by various sources and individuals with
varying degrees of proficiency. Records were not always
accurate, verified or completed.

Finally the study is limited to one group of escapees
from a general population of the State Prison of Southern

Michigan. Therefore, the findings of this study must be

II

used cautiously when applied to escapees from prison
populations in general.

Overall, the quality of this research must be viewed in
terms of these limitations. An awareness of these
constraints coupled with a thorough research design can help

minimize these obstacles.
DEFINITION OF TERMS

In every major field of study there are some terms that
require defining. The field of corrections is no exception.
The purpose here is to define terms used in connection with
this study.

Escapee - An inmate who has officially been reported to

have escaped or attempted to escape, and an official

escape report fjled hi his institutions folder.

Inmates who have attempted escape but have not official

escape report filed were excluded.

Non-Escapee - An inmate who has not had an official

 

escape report filed against him at the time of the
sample selection.

First Prison Offender - Am inmate who is experiencing

 

his first period of incarceration within a prison.

Maximum Custody - Generally a walled institution with

 

the inmates occupying cells at all times. Armed guards

are posted on the walls.

12

Mggium_Custody - Generally an institution with no walls
but perhaps a fence. Inmates are confined in cells at
night' and are under constant supervision on work
assignment during the day.

Minimum Custody - Generally an open institution, like a

 

camp, with no fences, walls, or armed guards. Little
direct supervision is maintained on work assignments.
Parole - The serving of a sentence in the outside
conmnuiity, usually after a portion of the sentence has
been served in prison.

Probation - A.court action whereby an offender is

 

placed under supervision in the community without eVer
entering a prison. The offender need not enter prison
as long as he observes the conditions laid down by the
court. Probation is frequently used for first
offenders and juveniles.

Maximum Term - The maximum nunber of years a prisoner

 

must be confined before he can be considered for
release on parole. All prison inmates except those
sentenced for life are assigned a minimum term. In
Michigan, judges have some leeway in determining
minimum terms..

Trustee - A prisoner who is permitted to serve his

prison sentence in a setting relatively free of armed

guards or prison walls.

13

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The second chapter will examine some of the issues
surrounding the hardships and effects of prison life, and
will review the pertinent research conducted on escape. lri
the third chapter the research methods include the

organizational setting, sample selected for this study, a
description of the psychological test and the statistical
methods employed for analysis will be discussed. The
results of the study, as arrived at through various
statistical analyses, are presented in Chapter lV.
Discussion of these findings, comparison of present findings
with other pertinent research in the field, critique of the
study, and implications for further research are presented

in Chapter V.

Suma rz

The American Correctional System has played a major
role in the development and reforms of the prison systems
throughout the world. From its earliest inception, it has
moved toward building a basic philosophy of penology that
reflects the democratic principles and view of our society.
In doing so, the system has undergone several reform
movements; from a philosophy of corporal and capital

punishment to imprisonment and custody, to open institutions

14

and treatment.

The shift from a philosophy of custody to treatment has
led to the establishment of rehabilitation programs in
almost every correctional institutions throughout the

country. The purpose of these programs is to reform and

rehabilitate inmates. The belief is that these programs
will enable the inmate to live a crime free life upon
release. Recent attempts to rehabilitate prisoners and the

increased use of the alternative programs has resulted in
more open types of institutions than those of early America.
The rapid expansion of these programs was in part forced on
the correctional system by overcrowding and Supreme Court
decisions to ensure prisoner rights. Many correctional
authorities believe that the programs have greater
rehabilitative potential when compared to the traditional
walled institution. However, the programs often require
minimum security areas and provide greater opportunity'fom
inmates to escape.

The establishment <rf alternative programs in
correctional institutions have increased the administrative
and staff concern for security and the potential for inmate
escape. There is a growing awareness of the psychological,
sociological and physical stress of imprisonment. This
awareness has led to a movement to guarantee prisoner's
rights and to increase the programs and services offered in

institutions. In spite of this trend, the primary

IS

responsibility of correctional authorities remains
maintaining custody and protecting society. The dilemma
faced by prison administrators is maintaining alternative
programs and more open institutions, while screening inmates
that are potentially high escape risks.

In order to aid prison authorities in this dilemma, a
good deal of research has been conducted, with the purpose
of screenimg inmates and identifying relevant factors
related to escape. The next task is to examine research on

prison escape.

16

IO

II.

Chapter 1

Footnotes

 

W.S. Loving, FkF. Stockwell and D.A. Dobbins, "Factors
Associated with Escape Behavior of Prison Inmates,"
Federal Probation XXIII, September, 1959, p.09.

Leonard Orland, Prisons: House of Darkness, The Free
Press, New York, 1975, p.13.

 

Ibid, p.14

Blake McKelvey, American Prisons: A History of Good
Intentions, Patterson Smith Publishers, Montclair, New
Jersey, 1977, p.5.

 

 

Harry Barnes and Negley K. Teeters, New Horizons in
Criminology, Prentice-Hall, 1903, p. 080.

 

Ibid, p.1182

Some of the reasons for the rapid acceptance of
Howard's work was the spirit of the time and new
philosophies of crime sparked by the "age of
enlightenment" and the works of Baccaria and others.
For an excellent discussion of these developments see:
Harry F. Barnes, The Story of Punishment, Blake
McKelvey, American Prisons. Patterson Smith, 1972 and
1977.

 

 

Davicl.l. Rothman, The Discovery of Asylum: Social Order
and Disagger in the New Republic, Little Brown and
Company, Boston, 1971, p.XlX.

 

Op cit, p.490

The influence of the Pennsylvania system on American
penalogy passed through two main stages. The first was
marked by the wdde use of the system of administration
established in the Walnut Street Jail in 1790, and the
second was characterized by solitary confinement,
single cells and hard work as put into operation in the
Eastern Penitentiary in 1829. For more detailed
discussion of the system seen Harvey Elmer Barnes, The
Evolution of Penalogy in Pennsylvania, Patterson Snifl1
1968.

The Auburn System was the direct antithesis of the
Eastern Penitentiary System and was characterized as
congregate and silent. It's prisoners were permitted
to work together in shops during the day under a strict

I7

12.

13.

14.

IS.

rule of silence, and at night were locked in individual
cells. For a more complete discussion, see Barnes and
Teeters, New Horizons in Criminology, Prentice-Hall
1943.

 

Sue Titus Reid, The Correctional System: An

 

Introduction, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York,
1981, p. 155.

 

Gregory Allen Miller, "The Predictive Efficiency of
Certain Factors in Selection of Prisoners for Trusty
Status," Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1955, p. 3.

Ibid, p.3 .

Edwin l. Megargee, Research in Clinical Assess-
ment, Harper and Row, New York, 1966.

18

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

introduction

 

This chapter contains a review of the literature
directly related to adult prison escape behavior. The
literature follows three distinct patterns of discussion
about escape; this chapter will parallel these patterns.
The first section reviews the impact of incarceration on
inmates and the influence of imprisonment on the adjustment
of inmate behavior. The second section reviews the
development of prison classification and its impact on the
sociological escape prediction studies that are based
primarily on demographic data. The third section contains
a review of psychological predictors of escape behavior

-focusing primarily on M.M.P.l. data.

The Impact of incarceration

 

A man is free within the limits of his economic
position until he is sentenced for a crime by the court.
Then his situation h; raditally altered, i.e., “his

movements are restricted to a few hundred square yards

within high walls, his daily program must conform strictly
to a timetable of overpowering punctuality; his means of
communication with friends or relatives reduced to a bare
minimum, he may be forced into association with a
heterogeneous crowd of men whom he would never have chosen
for companions."(') For this reason, Erving Goffman has
called the prison a "total institution."(2)

The entry into a total institution often marks the
beginning of a destructive process for the inmate. He
enters with the self-image and supports which permitted him
to survive; however, he is immediately stripped of these and
is systematically, even if unintentionally, mortified.(3)
The institution's admission procedures -- the relating of
personal history, taking of photographs and fingerprints,
the assignment of a number, a corporal search and
inspection, the abandonment of personal objects, they
undressing, the bats, the disinfection, the cutting of the
hair, the issuing of clothes typical of the institution, the
indoctrination of discipline and the assignment to a ward --
signal the first state of this process and provoke the
disintegration of roles that preceeded imprisonment. After-
his admission to the institution, the inmate's life is
organized according to this monotonous rhythm and according
to schemes that induce the inmate to resort to a series of

subterfuges and to suffer a series of humiliations in

20

exchange for i1hs psychological and sometimes physical
survival.i")

According to Goffman, the mortification process is the
same in prisons, mental hospitals, and concentration camps;
ha fact, it exists in all total institutions. It includes
cutting off family and occupational ties, and other channels
of communication with the outside world are restricted or
eliminated. Deprived of his unique outside world, each
inmate assumes the stigmatized status of prisoner. The
justification for this treatment in prisons is security, and
the process does help to maintain discipline and control.

The mortification process described by Goffman in
Asylums has greatly influenced sociological studies of
prisoners and prisons. One of these studies by Richard
Cloward views the process "as a series of 'status
degradation ceremonies' which begin at the time of contact
with the police and end with the expiration of one's
sentence."(5) Cloward concludes that status degradation
destroys an individual's former identity and replaces it
with a new identity. it is only natural that incarceration
places great pressure to restore prisoner status and in many
ways explains deviant behavior within the prisons.

Donald Clemmer in his study states that prisonization,
which he defines as, "taking on in greater or lesser degree
of the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the

penitentiary" is one way of achieving inmate status.(5) He

21

also believes that "every prisoner undergoes prisonization."
Sykes and Messinger(7) describes this stripping away process
in terms of ego destruction. They concluded that the pain
of deprivation is not simply physical, it has deeper
psychological significance, as an attack on the prisoner's
sense of himself and of his personal adequacy.

Another major study of the mortification process, 1h;

Society of Captives, by Gresham Sykes,(3) posits that

 

prisoner behavior is greatly influenced by psychological
pressures on the prison staff. According to Sykes, custody
predominates over treatment in prisons because officials
know that their continued employment is linked to security»
Sykes believes the concern for security in prisons at times
resembles paranoia. The staff is convinced some unknown
number of inmates will attempt escapes and this feeling is
reinforced by occasional escape attempts.

The consequences of staying in prison has been studied
by sociologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists alike, and
most agree that lnstitutionalization has a negative impact
on persons. Sommer and Osmond synthesize the results of the
research and identify the following effects of staying in an
institution: (I) erosion of'iruihviduaiity (deindividuali-
zation), damage to the individual capacity of thinking and
acting in an autonomous manner; (2) disculturalization, the

loss of values and attitudes that the subject has before

entering the institution; (3) estrangement, the incapacity

22

to adjust to the technological development and external
environment after being released from the institution; (0)
physical and psychological damages that afflict the
individual during the period of his institutionalization;
(5) isolation, the lack of social interaction with the
external world and with other institutionalized individuals;
(6) stimulus deprivation, adaptation to the stark physical

environment that surrounds the individual and the slow,

monotonous rhythm of institutional life.(9)

The prison even at its best is still an abnormal
environment. It denies men their basic liberty and freedom
which is sufficient to cause them to rebel. It compels men
to live social lives under unsocial conditions, it degrades
men physically, mentally and spirituallyn. If that was not

enough, he is confronted with a prison subculture that
promotes crime, violence, and sexual abuse. The physical
abuses often are less devastating than the psychological
ones. He must adapt or be destroyed. He may simply ignome
the institution and situationally withdraw, or he may rebel.
in either case, he strains to the breaking point those
things that come naturally to people in a free environment.
The healthiest and most logical conclusion he can reach to
maintain his individual personality from prisonalization is

to escape.

23

The Evolution of the Prison Classification System

 

Historically the identification of criminals is not new
to the field of criminology. Early criminological theories
attempted to identify criminal or criminal types from the
general population. Later as the movement for prison
reform shifted from a punishment to a rehabilitation model,
interest transferred to identifying specific types of
criminals and the development of a prison classification
system.

One of the early studies that attempted to identify
criminals was conducted by Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso, who
is generally considered the father of modern criminology,
believed that criminals were psychologically different from
the rest of society. Lombroso's work led him to identify
five types of criminal, the "born criminal", the "insane
criminal", the "criminal of passion", the "habitual
criminal", and the "occasional criminal".- He felt that the
born criminal, who represented atavistic throw-backs to
earlier and more primitive stages of human evolution,
represented the vast majority thus he devoted most of his
attention to them. He maintained that this group would be
characterized by primitive physical characteristics such as
low sloping forehead, long lower jaw, flattened nose, scanty
beard and low sensitivity to pain.(1°) Although studies

showed Lombroso's approach and theories were invalid, the

2H

fact that they were empirically testable was a major
advance. However, the impact of Lombroso's work laid the
foundation for the biological theory of criminal identifica-
tion and classification of criminals which prisons readily
adapted. Classification under this system really meant
segregation - by race, age, and sex, with no attempt to
assess the problems of offenders within a context of a
treatment program.

in 1870 American correctional leaders from all parts of
the country met in Cincinnati, Ohio and discussed new
correctional policies and practices that resulted from
shifts in correctional philosophy. These new concepts of
the nature of man and of the Interrelationship. between man
and society led to the development of 36 principles to
guide the new correctional approach to the offender.(i‘)
The National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory
Discipline endorsed the “declaration of principles" which
included two statements concerning the early classification

system. Those statements are as follows:

Declaration Ill

The progressive classification of prisoners,
based on character and worked on some well-
adjusted mark system, should be established in
all prisons above the common jail.

Declaration XIX

Prisons as well as prisoners should be
classified or graded so that there shall be
prisons for the untried, for the incorrigible

25

and for other degrees or depraved character,
as well as separate establishments for women
and for criminals of the younger class.

By 1930 the classification idea was extended to include
specialized screening and individualized treatment planning
for all prisoners. The classification plan was based on
medical, psychiatric, psychological, vocational, education-

al, sociological, religious and disciplinary phases of each

prisoner's life and included assignments for placement in
housing, or treatment and for work.(‘3) In more recent
times, and with more sophisticated skills, more specific

classification systems have attempted to identify criminal
personality types. And finally, there have been attempts to
identify and predict specific types of inmate behavior like
violence and escape behavior. The assumption being that
correct or appropriate classification of inmates
significantly improves the chances of rehabilitation,
minimizes the impact of incarceration and provides greater
opportunity for the inmate to help himself. If classifica-
tion is based on the potential to "succeed" in prison, those
same factors could be used to predict other behavior, namely

escape.

26

Sociological Escape Studies

 

The evolution of prediction studies began in the early
1920's but progressed rather slowly until the late 1950's.
One of the major reasons for this occurrence was that there
were two basic approaches to prediction being studied. On
the one hand, there'were clinical or judgemental predictors,
and on the other statistical or acturial predictors.

Clinical predictors were normally made by a pro-
fessional after some form of case analysis had been
completed which involved collecting great amounts of
information. Obviously, this was a costly process in terms
of time and money in addition to the predictions being
subject to the objectivity of the professionals. Contrary
to this method, statistical predictions ultimately relied on
less information, less experience, and tended to use
information in a.more systematic way.(‘u)

Criminologists who were seeking probabilities for,
behavior which occurred at appreciable rates attached
themselves to the statistical predictor model which resulted
in a preponderance of predictor literature. This literature
was, and continues to be, devoted to prediction of parole
outcome, probation outcome of other types of correctional
outcome with base occurrence rates of 25 percent and 75
percent while neglecting behavior with extremely low

occurrence rates.(‘5) However, as statistics utilized by

27

researchers became more sophisticated in the 1970's

considerably more work upon escape prediction has emerged.

Early Escape Studies

“1 19A2, William H. Johnson, Senior Sociologist at the
State Prison of Southern Michigan, gathered data on “6
escapees and compared them with 200 non-escapees on several
factors, by percentage. He concluded that prisoners with
two or more prior offenses are the best risk, and the
assaultive offender is the poorest risk. He also found
escapees to be younger in age. Factors of no impertance
seemed to be length of residence in the state and the
presence of parental family in the state of incarceration.
This study seemed to have promise in the selection of
factors studied; however chance differences were not ruled
out and the samples were small.(‘5)

In another study, H.D. Pigeon posits that prisoners
will escape if they have long sentences, if they have long
criminal records, have a bitter attitude, are psychopathic,
have been denied parole, worry about their families, are
concerned about he fidelity of wives and sweethearts, are
young and/or have no families ties.(‘7)

Probably the last early attempt to systematically
investigate escape behavior was a study by Nelson Cochrane
in which he conceptualized the personal characteristics of

individuals indicating high probabilities of escape. Based

28

on a sample of 60 inmates who had escaped from the
Massachusetts Prison Colony between 1928 and 19118 Cochrane
selected eight factors whichiappeared‘ likely to have some
relathn:to escape risk. The list included the following
individual factors: I) amount of time to be served; 2)
proportion of term already served; 3) type of offense
committed; 4) seriousness of prior criminal record; 5) age;
6) geographic stability» 7) vocational stability; 8)
strength and nature of family ties. Several other factors
such as: intelligence, psychiatric diagnosis, attitude
towards authority, and disciplinary record were not included
because their nunbers were not sufficient for statistical
tabulation.(‘3).

An analysis of these data led Cochrane to develop a
balance sheet of ten favorable and thirteen unfavorable
factors that identified escape-prone inmates. It became
obvious after identifying the number and location of these
factors whether or not the inmate was a reasonably good
minhmm1securirytfisk. The items included in the balance

sheet were:('9)

 

 

Favorable Factors Unfavorable Factors

Congenial Marital ties Work or non-existent home ties

Served half of entire Served less than 40% of term
term

Less than 1 year to . More than 18 months to parole
parole hearing hearing

Less than 3 years to More than 4 years to maximum
maximum

Occasional or first Habitual offender

offenders

29

Over 35 years old Under 30 years old

Fair geographical Frequent transient
stability
Fair employment record Poor employment record
No detainer or file Detainer or file
Generally cooperative Uncooperative attitude
attitude
Mild inaggressive Daring, aggressive personality
personality Mental instability
Inferior intelligence

Cochrane noted that of the sixty escapees in the study, all
but four escaped while living or working outside the walls.
He also noted the inclusion of several common items not
analyzed in the study. He concluded that "the selection of
suitable inmates for minimum security assignments depends on
the good judgement and experience of a man who understands
criminals." (20)

A major shortcoming of this study rests in its
inability to ascertain the relative significance of each
characteristic because the study has no control group with
whom we can compare the findings. However, as the interest
and concern about escape prediction increased, studies
investigating escape behavior become more scientific. We
note in the earlier studies a lack of control groups for
comparison and lack of statistical analysis.

ln 1959, one of the first escape studies to utilize the
growing knowledge in statistical prediction was conducted by
Loving, Stockwell, and Dobbins at the Louisiana State
Penitentiary. They selected 100 white male inmates to

represent the non-escape control group. Black inmates were

30

intentionally excluded from this study because Louisiana and
the Federal Bureau of Prisons both have extremely low escape
rates for Blacks. The majority-of Black inmates are
long-term residents of the state, are not geographically
mobile, and presumably have relatively strong family
ties.(21)

The two groups were matched with respect to month and
year of admission and custody level at the Louisiana State
Penitentiary in an attempt to equate time served and
opportunity for escape from the institution. The two groups
were then compared on twenty-two variables thought to be
related to escape behavior. The statistical analysis

yielded the following eight significant variables:

1) Number of dependents.
-Significantly more inmates escaped
who had I") persons financially
dependent on them

2) Number of previous commitments.
-Significantly more inmates escaped
who had one or more previous
commitments outside Louisiana.

3) Type of offense.
-Significantly more inmates escaped
who had committed property crimes.

a) Number of juvenile commitments.
-Significantly more inmates escaped
who had records of one or more
juvenile commitments.

5) Age at first arrest.
-Significantly more inmates escaped
who were first arrested at an early
age.

31

6) Size of community of residence.
~Significantly more inmates escaped
who resided incities of 100,000
population.

7) Mileage to home state.

-Significantly more inmates escaped
whose home states were further from
Louisiana.

8) Years of residence in Louisiana.
-Significantly more inmates escaped
who had resided in Louisiana less than
2 years.

In additicnw to the above, three other variable, length
of sentence (6.5 years or more), tested education achieve-
ment (grade level less than 6.5 years), and age of
commitment (below 29.5 years) narrowly missed being
significant. The remaining eleven (11) variables, (IQ,
marLtal status, broken vs. unbroken homes, urban vs. rural,
number of siblings, number of prisoners commitments in
Louisiana, veteran vs. non-veteran, history of psychiatric
disorder, years school completed, and siblings in
correctional institutions) were not significant and
discarded.

Further statistical analysis of the significant
variables in this study produced two clusters of four
interrelated variables. The first cluster labeled
"Transient Criminality" described inmates as vagabond type
individuals with weak home ties who continued his criminal

activities shortly after moving into the state. The second

cluster labeled "Early Criminal History“ described inmates

32

as persons with a record of juvenile institutionalization,
youthful when first arrested and without a dependent fanfily'
and committed a property crime. Although the study was not
representative of all characteristics which were available,
the similarity between certain significant factors in this
and Cochrane's study suggest the results may be valid for
describing escape behavior in general.(23)

Another study conducted in 1967 by David 1. Morgan
attempted to isolate specific variables related to escape
behavior and to collaborate the results of previous research
in this area. He matched fifty (50) escapees and fifty (50
non-escapees on sex, race, custodial level, prison work
assignment and date of admission. He then compared the two
groups on fourteen variables with respect to their relation—
ship to escape behavior. A summary of the differences
between the experimental and control groups were as
follows:

I) Length of sentence: Significantly more

inmates escaped who were serving sentences
of five years or less.

2) Marital status: more inmates escaped who
were single.

3) Number of dependents: significantly more
prisoners escaped who had no dependents.

u) Education: more inmates escaped who had
achieved a secondary education.

5) Age: significantly more inmates escaped who
were younger than 20.5 years

6) Intelligence: significantly more inmates
escaped who had IQ scores above 96.5.

33

7) Number of commitments to the South Carolina
State Penitentiary: significantly more
inmates escaped who had only one commit-
ment.

8) Time served before escape: significantly
more inmates escaped who had served less
than half their sentence.

9) Home backgrounds: more prison
who were from broken homes.(2“)

ers escaped

The remaining variables, prior commitments elsewhere, types
of offenses, residency in South Carolina and psychiatric
comitments were not significant, while number of juvenile
commitments narrowly missed being significant at the .05
level.

Morgan's investigation of his fourteen variables
indicated that nine were significantly related to escape
behavior. Five of these variables (marital status, nunber
of dependents, time served before escape, age, intelligence
quotient) agreed with comparative studies. Two other
variables (length of sentence and education) were found to
be in disagreement, while number of commitments and home
background were not significant in previous studies.(25)

James H. Panton, a pioneer in escape studies, conducted
an important study of escape behavior in the North Carolina
Department of Corrections. Panton's descriptive study was a
computerized statistical analysis of 7,088 non-escapists and
607 escapists. He found escapists to be brighter, less

well-educated, more likely to have been divorced, less

34

religious and employment stable, and more likely to have
criminal fathers or brothers than non-escapists.(25)

A study conducted at the Robert F. Kennedy Youth Center
contained two-hundred and fifty-six males and nineteen
females who had escaped during the first five years the
Center was in operation (1966-1973). This group was
conpared to the current population that was confined at the
Center. The findings showed that the male escapee is likely
to be white, young and convicted of an auto theft, and had
the tendency to escape during the first few months at the
Center. Females, on the other hand, were more‘difficult to
characterize due to the extremely small sample size. The
fact that escapees (males or female) were more likely to be
‘white than non-white was the only hypothesis supported in
this study.(27) However, previous studies at the Center had
suggested that the demographic variables such as age,
offense, and race, were related to escape.

Several studies were conducted to investigate the
motives behind the escape behavior. One such study
conducted at the Preston School of Industry at California
(1958-1960), found that pressure from within the institution
accounts for some escapes. These pressures could range from
an inability to adapt socially to fears regarding homo-
sexuality and-aggression, or even to a seemingly slight
matter of owing a pack of cigarettes.(28) Specific

motivation would include an impetus on the part of the

3S

inmate to be home because of emergencies, a reaction
formation against dependency, or receiving a letter of the
"Dear John" variety. The study concluded that best
predictions of escape was the inmate's past record, and that
the typical escapee was white, young, and in the institution
four months or less. Another study conducted by the
Michigan Department of Corrections (1976-1978) on escape
from minimum security camps concurs with the Preston study.
'They found that a resident does not usually plan to escape,
but some crisis situation was the most likely reason an
inmate tried to leave camp or escape. According to prison
officials a crisis situation may include the following:

-Parole delay

-Famlly problems

-Disciplinary action against the resident‘29)

It should be noted that the majority of early studies

of escapes were ex post facto and descriptive in nature.

 

These studies primarily described the difference between the
escape and the non-escape groups instead of trying to

actually predict escape behavior.

Contemporary Studies and Predication of Escape Behavior
Because of a significant advancement in the field of
predicthulstudies over the classical studies (Warren and
Hart, 1923; Burgess, 1928; Gdueck and Sheldon, 1950), many
unsuccessful attempts at constructing prediction tables have

improved. However, the preponderance of studies in the

36

field of criminal justice have produced basic occurrence
rates between 25 percent and 75 percent. And, because of the
extremely low occurrence rates studies on escape behavior
were limited until more sophisticated research techniques
became available during the 1970's.

A review of the literature revealed that the majority
of escape prediction studies investigate the persons who
have escaped or attempted to escape from an "after the fact"

perspective. In doing so, an ex post facto research method

 

of comparing escapees with a control group of non-escapees
is utilized. However, there are some limitations and
assumptions that must be considered. The basic assumption
is that all variables are comparable, with the exception of
escape, and can be held constant: therefore any difference
between the groups is attributed to the experimental
variable, escape.

The second assumption is that all inmates would attempt
escape given the appropriate situational variables.

Therefore, escape behavior maybe more an environmental than

organismic factor. The other possibility is that an
escapist is a highly specialized person and that all or
almost all of these types do attempt escape. If this is

true then no true control group could exist and there would
always be difference between the experimental and control
groups.(3°) This means that sociologial prediction studies

are limited to the past history of persons, while

37

psychological studies have improved validity but are limited
to new information gained from responses to questionnaires
or tests.

The first major sociological attempt at escape
predictions was at the California Department of Corrections
by Arlene Baker during the early 1960's. She sought to
develop an escape-proneness scale through a statistical
analysis of several hundred variables on both escape and
non-escapes in the California Correctional lnstitution.(3')
She developed an escape-proneness scale of twenty-one
demographic variables which had all shown a significant
relationship to escape behavior. The results were that the

California Escape-Proneness Scale did differentiate between

escape and non-escape groups, and was utilized in California
until it was replaced with a newer and more compact scale.
in 1969, William Morrow conducted an escape prediction

study of psychiatric offenders from a state hospital maximum
security unit. The escape group was conpared with a matched
cpntrol group of one escapee and two matched non escapees. A
composite index of four demographic variables was con-
structed. "A score of -1 each was assigned for four or more
previous felony convictions, being usually unemployed, a
history of alcoholism and older sibling position,
respectively. A.score of +1 each was assigned for no
previous felony convictions or only one being regularly

employed, and youngest sibling posithun respectively.(32)

38

The results indicated that sum scores of -3 or -4 would
correctly identify twenty-five (25) percent of the escapees,
while falsely identifying only two (2) percent of the
control group. Scores of -2, -3, or -4 would correctly
identify fifty eight (58) percent of the escapees while
falsely identifying only fourteen (14) percent of the
control group.

Morrow also compared his finding with six
non—psychiatric prison populations. The finding in his
study indicated that escapees were distinctly younger; more
often had been convicted of several previous felonies; had a
record of chronic unemployment; had a history of alcoholism;
and more often were the older sibling. He also compared
these findings with six non-psychiatric escape studies and
found escape characterization of age, prior felonies, job
stability and alcoholism to be consistent with all or some
of the characteristics of the other studies.(33) However,
the realities of having an extremely small population of
escapees (00) made generalization questionable.

Escaping from prison is not solely an American problem
as indicated in a 1970 British study, Abscondingzljrom Open
Prisons concludes:

"...Using characteristics recorded centrally

for all prisoners - age, current offense,

sentence, number of previous convictions and

extent of previous sentences to prison and

borstaI-men received received into open prisons

in 1969 and 1970 were divided into broad

classes which differed in 'risk' of absconding.

All the characteristics were associated with

39

likelihood of absconding, though none very

highly. Medium-term prisoners showed a risk of

some 6% compared with about 2% among short-

term men; younger men (aged 21-24) were more

than twice as likely as older men (aged 30+) to

abscond; the risk among the more criminal (with

seven or more previous convictions) was nearly

twice as high as among relatively 'new'

offenders (with at most four). Current offense

distinguished fairly reliable between groups of

higher and lower risk; burglars were the most

likely to go (with a risk of 0.7%); next car

thieves (3:l), after which the risk tailed off

to) 1-7% of men guilty of fraud and men

convicted of sexual or violent offenses."(3u

The most important conclusions of this study are that
so few men abscond or escape, considering how easy it is to
do so. Further, the characteristics of escape behavior were
consistent with previous studies.

One of the most detailed studies of escape behavior was
conducted by Norman Holt in 197u.(35) It focused primarily
on demographic characteristics associated with escape from
camps and institutions. Extensive criminal background,
property offenses, history of escape, and being white were
again more typical of escapees than the control group. The
major exception was age. The younger group did not appear
more likely to abscond.

The study conclusions indicated that apart from prior
escape from custody, institutional behavior is irrelevant in

predicting escape behavior. It was also noted that once the

inmate's race, escape history, type of offense) age and

Q0

criminal background was known, little else was worth knowing
in terms of predicting escape potential. The most important
factors related to escape behavior in this study were:
I) Race was again a strong predictor, Blacks make up
onlyr'11.0% of those escaping from institutions and
33% from camps.
2) Prior escape history was also related to escape
behavior and prior escapes of a more recent nature

appear to be important.

3) Age was strongly related to escape behavior, and
younger offenders are more likely to escape.

0) Property offenders were found disproportionately
among the escapees, as were parole violators.

5) The background characteristics of institutional,
camp, and minimum security facilities were
surprisingly similar.

The length of sentence and long parole dates had a minimal
effect in determining high risk.escapees.

This study was conducted at the California Department
of Corrections and replaced the earlier prediction scale
developed by Baker. The new scale reduced the twenty-nine
factors to only seven while improving the prediction ability
' of the scale. The results of this study was the development
of a classification escape risk prediction profile whhfli
indicated that demographic factors are indeed the best
prediction of escape behavior.

Two more recent prediction studies by Stone (1975) and
Cowles (1982) continued the use of multiple regression

analysis and computer utilization in their investigation of

escape behavior. Stone's study “Factors Related to EScape

41

Predictions," produced an escape scale of nine demographic
variables. The variables used by Stone include: 1) age at
time of commitment, 2) escapes from other institutions, 3)
escapes from Texas Department of Correction, 4) addictions
to opiates, 5) AWOL's from Military Service, 6) maximum
sentence, 7) type of offense (robbery), 8) ethnic back-
ground, and, 9) number of solitary confinements. However,
this study differs from the one conducted by Holt (1970)
because the research used a graduated weighting system. It
was believed that the weighting would provide a finer
definition of escape behavior than the "all or nothing“
method used in previous studies.(37) On the other hand
Cowles' "Race and Correctional Institution Escape Behavior:
An Explanatory Study," produced a scale based on demographic
variables and resulting in a "Best" model of six variables;
custody level, number of furloughs, marital status, prior
escapes, type of offense and age.(33) The model was then
used to compare Black and White inmates on escape behavior,
and although the model continued to predict escape, the
hierarchical order of the variables significantly differed
between the races with whites scoring slightly higher

variances on each variable.

l12

The_Use of Psychometric Instruments and Criminal_Behavior

 

 

 

The foundation for many theoretical explanations of
criminal behavior and personality theories arelderived from
the quantification of the variables involved in some sort of
psychometric instrument. These instruments are generally
classified as projective and structured tests. The
projective tests are generally subjective in nature and the
subject is required to respond to a given stimulus such as
an inkblot or picture. On the other hand, structural tests
are generally paper and pencil tests consisting of a number
of questions or statements which can be answered true or
false. Both of these tests have their advantages and
limitations.

The hypothesis behind projective testing is essentially
that the huflvddual "projects“ aspects of his personality
onto what is presumed to be a neutral stimulus and that
paper evaluation of the projective test_ protocol will
provide information as to'the personality structure of the
Hmnvidual so tested. Regardless of the validity of the
projective hypothesis, the clinical problems revolve around
extraction of information from the protocol as well as
interpretation of the information.(39) Other limitations
and disadvantages in using projective tests include: I)
difficulty in demonstrating response reliability, 2)

agreement on scoring is poor, 3) difficulty in unambiguous

43

interpretation of given responses, u) must be individually
administered by a trained psychologist, 5) uniform training
and scoring pmocedures are missing, 6) projections still do
not adequately differentiate among normals. For these
reasons projective testing is of marginal utility in the
prediction of future criminal behavior.

Although structured tests avoid some of the inherent
problems of projective tests, they bring their own unique
set of difficulties. A review of the literature relating
various forms of structural tests to criminal behavior, with
the exception of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
inventory, reveals that consistent patterns rarely emerge,
and the few isolated reports of successful "prediction"
and/or discrimination with a given instrument are rarely
followed by successful replication elsewhere.(“°) And while
further research may provide information on criminal
behavior, it is apparent that the majority of psychological
tests contribute very little to discrimination between
criminal groups and control groups.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory has
overcome many of the limitations of the previously mentioned
test. Copyrighted in 1943, the inventory is familiar to
almost everyone in the mental health field as well as in the
field of corrections. It is presently used more than any
other standardized personality assessment device in criminal

justice settings.(4') It can be administered to anyone 15

1H1

years old or older with at least sixth grade reading
abilities and an IQ exceeding 70. The inventory can be
administered and objectively scored by clerical workers,
making it economical in terms of professional time. A
variety of formats are available, and for those with poor
reading skills, tape-recorded versions of the MMPl have been
demonstrated as reliable alternatives.

'In addition, the MMPI is supported by a wealth of
research indicating its utility in correctional settings.
It has produced profiles and actuarial tables of criminal
behavior and it is extremely economical considering the
limited professional manpower normally found in correctional

settings.

MMPI Research and Criminal Behavior

The literature on MMPI research is enormous and
includes high school students, college students, psychiatric
clients, professionals in many fields and convicted
offenders. This selected review vfill concentrate on
research conducted on offenders in the criminal justice or
correctional field.

One of the earliest applications of the MMPI involved
discriminating juvenile delinquents from non-delinquents.
Using a longitudinal design involving testing in junior high
school and follow-up examination of police files every

subsequent two years, Hathaway and Monachesi found that

45

delinquents scored higher on the psychopathic deviate (ll),
schizophrenia (8), and hypomania scales (9).(“2) They
concluded that these scales indeed would differentiate
delinquents from non-delinquents. However, later research
by R.V. Wurt and P.F. Briggs(n3) noted the importance of
interaction between these lVMPl variables and disruption in
the family life of youngsters who became delinquent.

James H. Panton, a noted expert in the use of the MMPl
with incarcerated criminals, attempted to discriminate
between six different criminal types with the MMPI. Using
1,313 profiles of inmates he found no statistically
significant differences between these groups. However, he
found that white collar criminals had profiles high on the
psychopathic deviate (4), depression (2) hypochondriasis
scales (1); aggressive assaultive and sex offenders were
high on psychopathic (£1) and schizophrenia (8),
robbery/burglary criminals had elevated psychopathic
deviants (ll), schizophrenic (8) and depression scales, and
aggressive sexual assaultive criminals had elevated
psychopathic deviants, depressions on schizophrenia
scales.(““) Other research by Christensen and LeUnes,(“5)
Kingsley,(“5) and Clark(47) also reported elevated profiles
on the psychopathic deviants, schizophrenia and hypomania
scales, and no significant differences in their studies.
Similarly, T.C. Adams“”” in his study of the differences

between first and multiple prison admission found elevations

116

on the psychopathic deviants scale of’recidivists. Bauer
and Clark(“9) in a similar study to Adams reported
elevations on the psychopathic deviants and hypomania scales
for recidivists when compared to first offenders. They also
noted that high scores on the psychopathic deviate,
schizophrenia and hypomania scales were more common among
ofifenders with longer sentences than among offenders with
shorter sentences.

The MMPl has been used to predict violent behavior and
to classify inmates in correctional institutions. Although
the major focus of this study is not violent behavior it is
interesting to note that 78 percent of incarcerated
offenders who had committed violent acts scored high on the
psychopathic deviant and hysteria MMPI scales.(5°) However,
later research conparing violent criminals to non-violent
criminals, sexual offenders and normal controls, did not
show' significant differences between violent and sex
offenders and the control group indicating that the
previously mentioned MMPl scales were not substantiated and
the prediction of violent behavior with the MMPI alone
raises serious questions.(5')

Again we find the MMPI is widely used, in part or as a
whole, in the classifications on inmates in many correction-
al institutions. Panton developed a prison adjustment scale
in 1956 from 36 items on the MMPl . He concluded that the

scale correctly identified 82 percent of the adjusted groups

#7

and 87 percent of the non~adjusted groups and is equally
applicable to young and older offenders. However, he
suggests that the prison adjustment scale be utilized as an
objective aide in the planning of rehabilitation and custody
programs for newly committed prison inmates, but should not
serve as the sole basis for recommendation for place-
ment.(52) Martin J. Bohn found that the MMPI can provide a
strong beginning base for classifhcation. He reports that
assignments of men with compatible types to the same living
unit could contribute to the improved functioning of an
institution and the desire efforts of lessened institutional
violence.(53) John Edwards investigated rehabilitation
potential as measured by the MMPI and found that he was not
able to differentiate among the more homogeneous groups made
up of minimum security and first offenders. But he was able
to separate these groups from inmates with records of

extremely poor adjustments to the prison environments.(5“)

The evidence of the use of the MMPl as a sole instrument for
prison classification is inconclusive. However, recent
studies by Megargee and others filled an entire issue of

Criminal Justice and Behavior with the results of 6 years of

 

coordinated research on development of a new MMPI
classification system.(55)

The aim of this research by Megargee was to develop a
comprehensive MMPI classification system for criminal

behavior derived from the present MMPI data. He presents a

((8

compelling case fin" economy, efficiency, reliability,

validity and operational utilization of this system compared
to existing classification systems. In doing so he
formulated eight research questions that all had to be

answered positively if the NWlPI was to be an adequate base
for this classification system. The initial development of
this system by Meyer and Megargee‘ss) answered the first
three research questions and produced nine profiles of
offenders. However, additional profiles were discovered
during the revision and refinement of the classification
rules by Dorhant and Megargee.(57) Each profile type was
presented with rules of inclusion into its respective
classification, model descriptions of significant character-
istics drawn from several assessment sources and case
history data, and hypotheses about optimal modes of manage-
ment and treatment. This computer-assisted system
successfully classified 96% of their sample of 1,214
youthful male federal offenders.(53) However, further
research delineating the types, determining their response
to different programs, and the stability of group membership
over time are needed, as are studies exploring the
applicability of the system to other groups of

offenders.(59)

as

MMPI Research RegardingRace_and Sex

 

Although we are concerned primarily with escape
behavior, the issues of race and sex differences using MMPl
must be noted. Research with the MMPI has been almost
exclusively centered on male offenders. And since women are
a minority in the prison population, research has been
neglected. Two studies were found that compared samples of
male and female inmates: Panton‘so) and Joesting, Jones and
Joesting.(5” Both studies concluded that males appeared
more emotionally disturbed than the females. On the other
hand racial differences with the use of the MMPI has
produced more concern.

Caldwell(52) found that black inmates obtained
significantly higher scores on the Hypochondriasis (1),
Depression (2), Masculine-Feminine (5), and Hypomonia (9)
scales and significantly lower scores on the Psychopathic
Deviant (0) scales. Elion and Megargee(53) found the black
inmates scored significantly higher on the Psychopathic
deviant (a) scale than both a group of white inmates and
”culturally deprived“ black male college students. They
concluded that elevations on the Psychopathic Deviant (11)
scale validity express levels of racial deviance among young
black males but that the present scale norms appear to show
racial bias. McCreary and Padilla,(5“) confronted the issue

of racial and cultural bias in the MMPl by comparing 40

SO

blacks, 36 Mexican American, and 267 white male misdemeanor
offenders. They concluded that both cultural and socio-
economic factors contribute to the observed MMPl differences
between these three groups. Rosenblatt and Pritchard,(55)
in their study comparing 100 black and white inmates tend to
support the position on racial bias in the MMPl. They
concluded that the apparent racial bias in the MMPl may
actually be due to educational factors, since more
intelligent blacks do not seem to display the differences in
MMPl performance that less intelligent groups of blacks
display. However, more research is definitely needed to

resolve the issue of racial and cultural bias in the MMPl.

MMPl Studies and Escape Behavior

The pioneering research with the MMPl to predict escape
behavior was conducted by James H. Panton at North Carolina
Department of Corrections. Panton and Beall's first attempt
had been to derive an index of "escapism" to facilitate
accurate custodial classification and subsequent assignment
of male felon inmates being processed at the Reception
Center, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina.““ They
produced a 42 item Escape (Ec) Scale from a sample tested
after escape attempts had already occurred. This scale
correctly identified 76.7% of the escapees and 73% of the
non-escapees in the sample. The results of this research

was a nZ-item scale which identified the point of greatest

51

dichotomy between escape and non-escapee groups. (However,
several attempts to replicate Panton's work have proven
fruitless.

Donald Shupe and Paul Brammell, "Predictions of Escape
From MMPI Data,“ found that Beall and Panton's Escape Scale
only differentiated the escape and non-escapee groups at the
five percent level of confidence for a one-tailed test.(57)
E.S. Stumpe and W.A. Gilbert also attempted to validate
Panton's escape scale at the Ohio Penitentiary and were
unable to get significant results from the validation.(53)
Adams and West, "Another Look at the Use of The MMPI Index
of Escapism," concurred with Stump's findings and advised
that consideration should be given to the possibility of
supplementary MMPI escape predictions with social background
data.(59)

Another study conducted by Johnson of the Iowa Stabe
Men's Reformatory did find that the MMPI System (HY) and
(MfF) scales showed significant differences between
infractor and non-infractor subgroups.(7°) However, Mandal
and Barron concluded that environmental factors may play an
equal or more impartial role than relatively minor
personality differences, at least with respect to escape
behavior prediction.(7')

A more recent study, "MMPI and Demographic Correlates
and Predictions of Female Prison Escape," by Scott, Mount

and Duffy investigated the influence of demographic factors,

52

MMPI factors and the combination of both in predicting
escape behavior. The results suggested that adult female
felons who escaped from custody tended to be younger, tended
to have longer sentences and generally experienced more
adjustment problems which resulted in juvenile imprisonment
and/or psychiatric hospitalization. The regression analysis
using both MMPI and demographic factors was more effective
in accounting for escape behavior than were the separate
MMPl and demographics above, and accounted for 29 percent
of the variance (R2=.2952, p=001).(72)

The most recent study, "MMPI Prediction of Female
Adjustment to Community Placement," Pettigrew, Shaffer,
Edwards and Blowin, indicated that "blind use of MMPl and
Beta IQ data is generally unimpressive in correctly
classifying inmates into success and failure groups related
to performance on a minimum security community work
assignment, although prediction of failure is more promising
than predictions of success."(73)

Questions regarding the use of the MMPl as a primary
element in classification of inmates has arisen (Megargee,
Meyer, and Dorhout.)(7“) Megargee stresses the need to
develop new classification systems and research to make
better use of tests like the MMPI. However, Gearing notes:
"The MMPl serves as a source of Probabilistic clinical
statements that are hypotheses for further exploration, and

employment of the MMPI as the sole basis for any kind of

53

decision affecting the life of a subject constitutes a

serious abuse of the test."(75)

Summary of the Literature

 

The literature reviewed in this study preliminarily
focused on demographic and MMPI research on escape behavior.
The studies illustrate that demographic variables are a
powerful tool in understanding escape behavior and several
studies produced consistent findings. “1 all of the
studies, age was found to be significant and escapees tended
to be younger than non-escapees. Race, educathnn and IQ
were found to be significant only in a few studies, however,
the escapee tended to be white with low'education skills.
Family ties, marital status, and state nesidency were also
important in studies using them. When we look at the
criminal background of the escapees we find significant
relationships between juvenile and adult commitments, length
or sentence, time served in prison, and type of offense (see
Appendix A for details).

On the other hand, when we look at the MMPI factors we
find inconclusive results. The MMPl had been an effective
tool in separating psychiatric and non-psychiatric inmates.
it has now, with the refinements by Megargee, become a
better tool for the classification of inmates and predicting
some violent and assaultive behavior. However, as a

predictive measure of escape behavior it finls short.1he

51-1

.escape scale has proven to be ineffective and the MMPl
alone as a prediction instrument has been seriously

questioned.

55

Chapter II

Footnotes

 

Fred Haynes, The American Pri_son System, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1939, p.335.

Erving Goffman, Asylums, Doubleday 8 Co., Garden City,
1951.

Leonard Orland, Prison: Houses in Darkness, The Press,
New York, 1975, p. 58.

 

Franco Ferranti, Simon Dinitz, Aldo Peperno, "Mental
Deterioration in Prison," originally published by the
Journal of the Office of Studies and Research of the
General Administration of the Institute of Crime and
Prevention, Italy, 1978, p.10.

 

Richard Cloward, "Social Control in Prison," NITheo-
retical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison,
1960.

Donald Clemmer, The Prison Communitj, Holt, Rinehart 6
Winston, New York, 1940.

 

Gresham Sykes and Sheldon Messinger, "The Inmate Social
System," in Richard Cloward's Theoretical Studigg_in
Social Organization of the Prison, John Wiley 6 Sons,
lnc., New York, 1960.

 

8.Gresham Sykes, The Society of Captives, Atheneum, New

9.

10.

ii.

12.

13.

York, 1960.

R. Sommer, and H. Osmond, "Symptoms of.lnstitutional
Care," Social Problems from Ferranti, Dinitz and
Peperno, Mental Deterioration in Prison.

 

A.R. Lindesmith and H.W. Dunham, "Some Principles of
Criminal Typology." Social Forces 19: 307-314, 1941.

 

American Cbrrectional Association, Handbook on
gorrectional Classification, Anderson Publishing Co.,
Cincinnati, 1978.

 

 

Transactions of the National Congress 1870, pp. 541

 

in William E. Stone, Factors Related to Escape Pre-
diction. University of Michigan, 1975.
Op cit, p.5

56

_m.

15.

16.

i7.

i8.

i9.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Todd R. Clear, "A Model for Supervising the Offender in
the Community," unpublished manuscript, 1978, p. 124.

William Stone, Factors Related to Escgpe Prediction,
unpublished dissertation, Sam Houston State University,
1975, p. 12.

 

Gregory A. Miller, The Predictive Efficiencl of Certain

 

Factors in Selectin§~PrisonErs for TrustyStatus, un-
published dissertation, Michigan State University, 1955,
p. 18.

 

H.D. Pigeon, Principles and Methods in Dealigg with
Offenders, State College, PA., Pennsylvania Valley
Publishers, 1949

 

Nelson Cochrane, "Escapes and Their Control: A Brief
Study of Escape Data," Prison World, 10 (3), 1948,
pp.3-S and 28-39.

 

lbid p. 4.
Ibid p. 29.
D.A. Dobbins, F.E. Stockwell and W.S. Loving,

"Individual and Social Correlates of Prison Escapes,"
Journal of Consultipngsycholqu, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1960.

 

lbid p. 31.
Ibid.

David I. Moran, "Individual and Situational Factors
Related to Prison Escape," American Journal of

 

Corrections, March-April, 1967: pp} 30-32.

lbid.

James H. Panton, "Characteristics Associated with
Escapism," North Carolina Department of Corrections,

updated.

H.E. Cavior, Escapes From the Robert F} Kennedy Youth

 

Center: 1969 to 1973. Kennedy Youth Center Research
Office, 1974.

 

R.J. Hildebrand, "The Anatomy of Escape," Federal
Probation. Vol. XXXIII, No. 1, 1969.

 

"CAC Reference Manual," Michigan Department of
Corrections, Escape/Walkaway Statistics, 1976-78.

57

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

William A. Stone, Factors Related to Egcape Prediction,
Ann Arbor, Michigan: University IMicrofiIms Inter-
national, 1975.

 

 

Arlene Baker, Development of Escape-Proneness Score.
Sacramento, California: Department of Corrections, June
30, 1961.

William R. Morrow, Escape of Psychiatric Offenders," The
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science,
Vol. 60, No. 4, 1969.

lbid.
Charlotte Banks, Patricia Mayhem and R.J. Sapsford,

A_bsconding From Open Prison, Home Office Research
Studies, London, 1975.

 

Norman Holt, Escape From Custody, California Department
of Corrections, unpublished research report, 1973.

lbid.

William A. Stone, Factors Related to Escape Predictions,
Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms Intern-
ational, 1975.

Ernest L. Cowles, "Race and Correctional Institutional
Escape Behavior: An Explanatory Study,:" unpublished
paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice
Science, 1982. '

James Randolph Clark, Characteristics of Convicted
Offenders As Measured with the MMPI. Dissertation,
University of Arizona, 1977, p. 21.

 

Ibid., p. 27

V.H. Elion and E.I. Megargee, Validation of the MMPI Pd
scale among black males, Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 43: 166-172, 1975.

S.R. Hathaway and E.D. Monachesi, cited by J.N. Butcher
(ed) MMPI Research Developments and Clinical @plica-
tions. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1969.

R.D. Wirt and P.F. Briggs, Personality and Environmental

Factors in the Development of Delinquency. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 73: 485, 1959.

S8

an.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

J.H. Panton, MMPI Profile Configurations Among Crime
Classification Groups, _J.9_L_i_r_nal of Clirlical Psychology,
1958, 14, 305-380.

A.D. LeUnes and L. Christensen, Reliability of Inmate
Test Results. Correctional Psycholpgist, 1970, 4.
85-93 0

L. Kingsley, MMPI Profiles of Psychopaths and Prisoners.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16: 302-304, 1960.

J. Clark, The Relationships Between MMPI Scores and
Psychiatric Classification of Army General Prisoners.
Journal of Clinical Psychology 8: 86-89, 1952.

Thomas C. Admar, Some MMPI Differences Between First and
Multiple Admission within a State Prison Population,
Journal of Clinical Psychology 32: 555-558, 1976.

G.E. Bauer and J.A. Clark, Personality Deviancy and
Prison Incarceration. Journal of Clinical Psychology 32:
279-283, 1976.

J.O. Siner Acturial Methods in Personality Assessment.
In B. Maher (ed) Progress in Experimental Personality
Research, New York: Academic Press, 1966 pp. 119-147.

J.C. Carroll and G.B. Fuller, An MMPI Comparison of
Three Groups of Criminals. Journal of Clinical
Psychology 27: 240-242, 1971.

James H. Panton, Prediction Prison Adjustment with the
MMPI, Journal (If Clinical Psychology, ‘Hl: 308-312,
1958. '

Martin J. Bohn, Jr., Classification of Offenders In An
Institutiongfior Young Adults, Federal Correctional
Institution, Tallahasse, Florida, 1977.

 

 

John Edwards, "Rehabilitation Potential in Prison
Inmates as Measured by the MMPI," Journal oflhfinfinal
Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1963, 54, l 182.

 

Edwin I. Megargee (ed) "A New Classification System for
Criminal Ofifenders," Entire Volume Criminal Justice and
Behavior, June, 1977.

 

James Meyer and Edwin Megargee, "Initial Development of
the System," Criminal Justice and Behavior, June 1977.

 

59

S7.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

Brent Dorhout and Edwin Megargee, "Revision and
Refinement of the Classificatory Rules," Criminal
Justice and Behavior, June, 1977.

 

 

Milton Gearing II, ."The MMPI As a Primary Differenti-
ation and Prediction of Behavior in Prison: A
Methodological Critique of Review of Recent Literature,"
Psychological Bulletin, 1979.

 

Edwin I. Megargee, "Directions for Future Research,"
Criminal Justice and Behavior, June, 1977.

 

J.M. Panton "Personality Differences Between Male and
Female Prison Inmates Measured by the MMPIJ'Ckiminal
Justice and Behavior, 1974.

 

J. Joestins, II. Jones and R. Joesting "Male and Female
PTison Inmates Differences on MMPI Scales and Revised
Beta IQ." Psychologjcal Reports, 1975, 37, 471-474.

M.G. Caldwell, "Personality Trends in the Youthful Male
Offender," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and
Police Science, 1959, 49, p. 405-16.

 

V. EIiron and E.I. Megargee, "Validity of the MMPI Pd
Scale Among Black Inmates." Journal of Consultation and
Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, I66-72.

 

 

C.P. McCreary and E. Padilla, MMPI Differences Among
Black, Mexican American and White Male Offenders,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33, 171-77.

 

A.l. Rosenblatt and D.A. Pritchard, Moderators of Racial
Differences on theMMPl, Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 1572-1573.

Herbert S. Beall and James H. Panton, "Use of MMPI as an,
Index to Escapism," Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12
(1956). pp. 392-394.

Donald R. Shupe and Paul F. Bramwell, "Prediction of
Escape from NWIPI Data, "Journal of Clinical Psycho_Iogy,
Vol. 19, No. 2, April 1963.

 

E.S. Stump and W.W. Gilbert, "Experimental MMPI Scales
and Other Predictors of Institutional Adjustment,"
Correctional Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1972.

Thomas C. Adams and Judy E. West, "Another Look at the
Use of the Minnesota Multiphasix Personality Inventory
as an Index of Escapism," The Journal of Clinical
Psychology, No. 32, I976.

 

 

60

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

E. Johnston, "The Use of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI) in the Prediction of
Reformatory Rule Infractions," Iowa State Men's
Reformatory, 1965. ‘

N.G. Mandel and A.J. Barron, "The MMPI Criminal
Redicivism," Journal of Criminal Law, Cer_i_Qology and
Police Science, 1966, pp. 35-38.

 

Norman A. Scott, Michael K. Mount and Patricia S. Duffy,
"MMPI and Demographic Correlator and Prediction of
Female Prison Escape." Criminal Justice and Behavhor,
Vol. 4, No 3, Sept. 1977.

C. Gary Pettigrew, C. Edward Shaffer, Dan W. Edwards and
David Blouin, "MMPI Predictions of Inmate Adjustment to
Community Placement," unpublished paper presented at the
Society of Police and Criminal Psychology, 1981.

Edwin Megargee, James Meyer and Brent Dorhout, Criminal
Justice and Behavior, June, 1977.

M.C. Gearing, "The MMPI as a Primary Differentiator and
Predictor of Behavior in Prison: A Methodological
Critique and Review of the Recent Literature,"
Psychological Bulletin, 1979, Vol. 85, No. 5.

 

61

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

 

It has been argued that the primary concern of
correctional authorities is custody and security.
Maintaining security is a basic requirement of the
institution if it is to carry out the functions required by
society, namely, punishment and protection of the community.

Prison is.a man-made environment, it is not surprising

for those being held captive to attempt escape. The

psychological, emotional and physical hardships of
institutional life are well documented.(') The problem lies
in predicting who will attempt escape and who will not.

Recent studies undertaken to date have concluded in
aggregate, that: (I) several demographic factors appear to
be fairly stable predictors, particularly age, type of
offense, and race; (2) escapees tend to be those with the
most lose in terms of release and parole; (3) most escapees
are walkaways and few are from maximum security institu-
tions; (4) several MMPI items appear related to incidents of
escape, particularly among female prisoners; and, (5) there
is little evidence that one set of indicators is better
than others, specifically when demographic variables are

compared to MMPI items.

Reseafigpgguestion

 

This study attempts/tic determine the relationship
between MMPI items and sekvcbed~demographic variables as
predictors of escape. Spe'cd'fil'cally, the questions to be

examined are:

I. Which MMPI items are lamipators of escap_e

with male inmates? The7MMPI is used in all

 

federal and most state prisOns for classi-
fication of inmates. It's'use to predict
escape. has been limited“, ”although some items
were found to be significant-escape predictors
with femake- inmates. ~By ‘examining the
relationshipsnbptween MMPI ?tems and incidents
of escape,.it.i§'believed that the question of
the stabihoty.of these items can better be

addres-sedu-pr .

 

2. Which demaglaphic facjpyg are indicators

of escape with male inmates? There is

 

considerably more research‘bn demographic
variables and escape, but some contradictions
do exist. Some studies find certain factors

significant; others do notsw Frequently this

63

factor is a function of methodological

weaknesses and dated research.

3. Which combination of MMPI items and
demogpaphic variables would allow for a better

prediction? In addition to addressing whether

 

demographic factors and MMPI items strengthen

prediction, the study will also attempt to

show which factor is a better predictor of

escape.

By addressing these specific research questions, the
results of this study should provide a systematic examina-
tion of the use of demographic factors and MMPI items “1

predicting escape.

giganizational Setting

The State Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM) is located
on a large tract of semi-isolated land near Jackson,
Michigan. It is the largest prison in the luichigan
Department of Corrections and houses almost half of the
state's 13,600 prisoners. The capacity of SPSM in I977 was
4,625 men; with the average number confined was approximate-
ly 5,400.(2) The remainder of the state's penal population
is maintained at the following penal institutions: Marquette
Branch Prison, Michigan Reformatory, Riverside Correctional

Facility, Michigan Training Unit, Muskegon Correctional

64

Facility, Cassidy Lake Technical School, Huron Valley
Women's Facility, and twelve camp jorograms scattered
throughout the state.(3)

The State Prison of Southern Michigan contains ten cell
blocks; each is approximately 350 feet long and five stories
high. The cell blocks form the front wall of the prison and
part of the two side walls. A thinty-foot concrete wall
completes the enclosure of the prison yard. This area is
approximately fifty-seven acres. SPSM owns the distinction
of being the world's largest walled prison.(“)

The prison is divided into four major divisions: close
security, medium security, minimum security and the
reception and guidance center.(5) The largest number of men
are confined to the close security facility within the
walls and under maximum custody supervision. The close
security facility housed about 3,000 (4,000 until P977) men
and offers ten federally approved apprenticeship programs in
skilled trades.(5) It offers remedial education
opportunities from secondary to the college level,
vocational trade programs, group counseling and clinical
services. Organized sports and other leisure activities are
also offered. Many inmates cannot take advantage of these
programs due to the overcrowded conditions at the prison.

The second largest population of men (averaging l,385)
were confined to the minimum custody facility. Many of the

programs and activities described for the close security

65

facility also apply to the minimum security facility, but
there are several differences worth noting. Residents in
minimum custody are housed in three cell-type living units
on the prison's main grounds and in four barrack-type living
units on the farms. Those who qualify are permitted to
attend class at Jackson Community College, and others are
able to participate in home furlough programs. This
arrangement permits some residents to go home for 48 to 72
hours, once every four weeks.

Opened In l977, the newest facility in the SPSM complex
is the medium security unit. The capacity of the new unit
is about 1,000 and it was designed to reduce the population
of the main walled close security facility. It also has the
traditional educational and vocational programs available.

The final section of SPSM Is the Reception and Guidance
Center. It is housed in a former cell block on the prison
proper. Although the facility is physically close to the
other cell. blocks, alterations in construction have
separated it from the rest of the institution. The regular
cell block contains five tiers of cells with a gallery on
each level.

The Reception and Guidance Center has, in addition to
the iron railings, a heavy one-inch wire mesh from floor to
ceiling which completely encloses each tier. This wire
guard was installed primarily to prevent inmates from

committing suicide by jumping off the galleries. The

66

Reception and Guidance Center cell block differs from other
cell blocks. They have small offices and several large
rooms, used by the staff to process newly arrived inmates.
The cell block also differs because part of the floor space
is used as a dining area. All men in the Reception and
Guidance Center eat, sleep and carry on all other activities
within the cell block and remain separated from the general
population of the prison.

h1itially, all men sentenced to prison in Michigan are
sent to the Reception and Guidance Center at Jackson. Each
humate is tested, evaluated, and subsequently placed in an

institution based on his security and programming needs.

Site Selection
The State Prison of Southern Michigan was chosen as the

site of this study because it is the largest prison in the

state and it has all levels of security. The Reception and
Guidance Center is the entry point for all male prisoners
sentenced in the State of Michigan. It has a heterogeneous

group of men serving sentences for a variety of offenses. It
is also the central facility for psychological evaluation of
all male inmafes in Michigan.

Another reason for selecting SPSM is the large number
ofi’escapees during the past few years. To illustrate the

magnitude of the escape problem, Table 1 indicates that from

67

I973 to I976, a total of 2,609 escapes occurred from all
security classifications and facilities under the Michigan

Department of Corrections.(7)

Table l

Michigan Department of Corrections Escapes I973-I976

 

 

MDC Population

 

Year in custody Number of Escapes Escape Rate
1973 21,973 646 .029
1974 21,854 ’ 601 .028
1975 25,790 632 .025
1976 26,882 724 .027

 

 

.Although the number of escapes in 1976 represents a 12
percent increase over the 1973 figure, it is interesting to
observe that the annual escape rate, which varied from 25
to 29 per thousand residents during 1973 to 1976, was
relatively stable (see Table 2). It seems reasonable to
conclude that the department's level of security did not

decline during that period, and the number of escapes

68

observed was primarily a function of the size of the
population served. This trend is supported further by the
escapes at the State Prison of Southern Michigan:(3)

Table 2

SPSM Escapes I973-1976

 

 

SPSM Population

 

Year in custody Number of Escapes Escape Rate
1973 4,279 118 .027
1974 4,306 113 .023
1975 5,353 93 .0l7
1976 5,671 ' 161 .028

 

It is within this institutional environment that Una

population was selected for inclusion in this study.

69

Sampling

The target population for this study consists of all
male inmates incarcerated at the State Prison of Southern
Michigan during the period of January, 1973 through April,
1977. This population was divided into two groups: I)
inmates that escaped or attempted escape, 2) inmates that
never attempted to escape. Each group was selected
according to the following criteria:

a. A six month or longer minimum sentence;

b. Six years of education or a sixth grade reading

level;

c. Evidence of an IQ score above 70;

d. A complete MMPI file;

e. A pre-sentence investigation report in the inmate's

file.

However, the MMPI was administered to many Inmates who
could not read at the sixth grade level. They were given an
audio tape of the questions and supervised by prison staff
while the test was taken.. And, although the above criteria
had to be satisfied by all inmates in the study, the
selection of the two groups was conducted by two different
procedures, one for the escape group and one for the control

group.

70

Escape Group

 

The escape sample was obtained from a complete computer
listing of all inmates that escaped or attempted escape
between January, 1973 and April, 1977, in the State of
Michigan Department of Corrections. Once this listing was
completed, only those inmates from SPSM were selected for
inclusion in the sample.

The selection preceded from the most recent escapee
backwards and the final escape group consisted of two
hundred male prisoners who met the aforementioned criteria.
This group represented the entire population of minimum

security escapees from SPSM during this time period.

Non-Escapee Group

The non-escapee sample for this study was a match group
of one hundred prisoners who had no reported escapes or
attempted escapes from the State of Michigan Department of
Corrections. This group was selected if their inmate
identification number was consecutive or closely aligned
wffl1that of an escapee, and that they were in a minimum
security unit at the time of escape of their'match. This
pmocedure helped to insure that the comparison sample had
served relatively similar amounts of time in prison and in
a minimum security unit. Because of this matching procedure

and the size of the total population in a minimum security

71

at SPSM, it was decided that one hundred, matched non-
escapees would be more than an adequate representation of

inmates in minimum security at SPSM.
DATA COLLECTION

Two basic types of data were required to achieve the
objective of the study: basic demographic information and
MMPI test results.

The data in this study were collected from two major
sources. These sources were the inmate's institutional
folder and a computerized print-out of MMPI reports from the
Diagnostic Reception Center at SPSM. The information from
the inmates' folder included psychological reports, the
pre-sentence investigation report and the classification
reports. AJI of the data for the study were collected from
these sources and divided into two major categories:

demographic factors and MMPI items.

Demographic Variables

The demographic factors for the study were divided “1
three major categories: (I) basic characteristics including
race, age, education, marital status, number of dependents,
drug dependency, alcohol dependency, in-state, out of state,
and community size; (2) prior and current criminal histories

including past juvenile and adult commitments, juvenile and

72

adult probation, current offense, minimum sentence and tenn
in prison; (3) institutional adjustment including security
level, work habits, adjustment .to staff and inmates,
custodial record, family contracts and psychological

evaluation.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is a
psychometric instrument designed to provide scores on
important phases of personality. Scores are based on the
responses to 566 "true or false" questions. The MMPI is
administered routinely to all new arrivals at the Reception
Diagnostic Center at SPSM as part of the inmates'
psychological evaluation. The test is composed of hine
clinical scales and five validity scales.

A brief description of the MVIPi scales as described in

the document manual, Hathway and McKinley, 1951, Dahlstrom

and Welsh, 1960(9) follows:

Scale W - Question Scale.

 

A validating scale consisting simply of

the total number of items blank or
unanswered. The size of this score
affects the significance of all other

scores; a large number of blank answers

invalidates all others.

73

Scale L - Lie Score.

A measuring of the degree of which
the subject may be attempting to falsify
his score by always choosing the response
that places lHnl “1 the most acceptable
light socially.

Scale F - Validipy Score.

This is a personality scale but a check on
the validity of the record. This scale
usually indicates that the subject was
careless or unable to comprehend the
items. Occasionally indicates a highly
individual and independent person or a
person who is rather badly neurotic or
psychotic.

Scale (1) Hs - The Hypochondriasis Scale.
Measures the amount of concern about
bodily functions. It is characteristic of
the hypochonndrias that is immature in his
approach to adult problems, tending to
fail to respond with adequate insight.
Scale (2) D - The Depression Scale.
Measures the depth of the clinically
recognized symptom, depression. A high
score suggests a characteristic

personality background, in that the person

74

who reacts to stress with depression is
characterized by lack of self-confidence,
tendency to worry, narrowness of
interests, and introversion. .
Scale (3) Hy_- The Hysteria Scale.
Measures the degree to which the subject
is like patients who have developed
conversion-type hysteria symptoms.

Scale (4) Pd - The Psychopathic Deviate

 

5.2.9.2-

Measures the similarity of the subject to
a group of persons whose main difficulty
lies in their absence of deep emotional
response and their disregard of social
mores. Although sometimes dangerous to
themselves or others, these persons are
commonly likable and intelligent. Except
by the use of an objective instrument of
this sort, their trend toward the abnormal
is frequently not detected until they are
“1 serious trouble. They may often go on
behaving like perfectly normal people for
several years between one outbreak and
another. Their most frequent digressions
from the social mores are lying, stealing,

alcohol or drug addiction, and sexual

75

immorality» They may have short periods
of true psychopathic excitement or
depression following the discovery of a
series of their asocial or antisocial
deeds.

Scale (5) Mf - The Interest Scale.
Measures the tendency toward masculinity
or feminity of interest pattern. A high
score indicates a deviation of the basic
Interest pattern in the direction of the
opposite sex.

Scale (6) Pt - The Psychasthenia Scale.
Measures the tendency toward phobias or
compulsive behavior. The compulsive
behavior may be either explicit, as
expressed by excessive handwashing,
vacillation, or other Ineffectual
activity, or implicit, as in the inability
to escape, useless thinking or obsessive
ideas. The phobias include all types of
unreasonable fear of things or situations,
as well as over-reaction .to more

reasonable stimuli.

76

Scale (7) Pa - The Paranoia Scale.

 

Measures the tendencyttoward suspicious-
ness, over-sensitivity, and delusions of
persecution, with or without expansive
egotism.

Scale (8) Sc - The Schizophrenia Scale.
Measures the tendency toward bizzare and
unusual thoughts or behavior. There is a
splitting of the subjective life or the
schizophrenic person from reality, so that
shifts in mood of behavior.

Scale (9) Ma - The Hypomania Scale.
Measures the personality factor character-
istic of persons with marked over-
productivty in thought and action. The
word "hypomania" refers to a lesser state
of mania. Although the real mania patient
is the lay person's prototype for the
"insane," the~hypomanic person seems just
slightly off normal. The hypomanic
patient has usually gotten into trouble
because of undertaking too many things. He
is active and enthusiastic. Contrary to
common expectations, he may also be
somewhat depressed at times. His

activities may interfere with other people

77

through his attempts to reform social
practice, his enthusiastic stirring up of
projects in which he then may lose
interest, or his disregard of social
conventions. In the latter connection, he
may get into trouble with the law.

Scale (0) SI - The Social Interest Scale.

Aims to measure the tendency to withdraw

from social contact with others.

The basic demographic variables and the MMPI items
listed above comprise the majority data used for this study.

The demographics are divided into two categories: basic
background information and criminal history. The MMPI
variables are the major scales when this test is given.
However, NMPI research has developed several subscales used
for more detailed assessment of certain groups. .These
scales are normally not considered in research with the MMPI

and are excluded in this study.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The data in this study presented certain analytical
problems because several of the independent variables (race,
marital status, offense) were measured on a nominal scale.

This scale is the lowest type of measurement and data can

78

only be placed into categories. This situation nude the
statistical testing for significant differences between the
two samples difficult.

-Given these limitations, the analysis of the data
proceeded in two phases. The first phase was designed to
describe the data and to illustrate the differences between
the two groups. Analysis proceeded around contingency
tables to present frequency and percentage distribu-
tions.('°) Statistical testing involved non-parametric and
parametric statistics, depending upon the level of measure-
ment.()') The analysis of the basic background data and the
results from the MMPI for the escape and non-escape groups
was performed in order to determine if the two groups
actually differed, and if so, on what factors.('2) A t-test
was also performed on the MMPI data. These data are designed
to indicate the degree to which variations in each of the
NMPI scales differ between escapees and non-escapees. This

is followed by a plot of the MMPI item results for both

groups.
The second phase of the analysis involved the
utilization of standard regression techniques. The major

dependent variable of this study was the number of escapes
or attempted escapes from custody. This variable is
represented by the actual number of attempt/escapes compared
to those inmates who never attempted to escape. Since the

two groups, escapees and non-escapees, have unequal subjects

79

a probit transfer was performed to give more accurate
analysis in the regression procedures.('3)

The predictive variables involved the aforementioned
demographic factors, and selected MMPI scales. In addition,
stepwise regression techniques were employed to rank and
compare the MMPI and demographic variable predictors.

In terms of analysis, the escapee and non-escapee group
were compared to determine:

a. If the groups really differed from each other on

demographic and MMPI factors.

b. What MMPI items and/or demographic factors are good

predictors of escape.

c. If an escape prediction model could be developed
for utilization in the prison.
d. If demographic factors are better predictors than

MMPI items.

Summary

The Prison of Southern Michigan is the largest prison
in the state with an average inmate population over 5,400.
The prison contains four classifications of inmates and has
averaged over I00 escapes per year, 1973 through 1976.

This study employed a quasi-research design, in which a
sample of 200 male escapees or attempted escapees were
selected and compares with 100 matched male inmates who did

not escape.

80

Demographic variables and NWIPI scale items were drawn
from inmate files and evaluations to determine whether or
not the two groups differed on these factors (and whether
demographic or MMPI items are good predictors of escape).

The primary in the objective of this study was to
determine what factors are reliable predictors or escape.
To determine this, multiple regression techniques were
utilized to examine the two basic predictor measurements:
demographic factors and MMPI items. In this manner, the
study should respond to the largerlquestion of determining

who will attempt escape and who will not.

81

I)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)
7)
8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

Chapter III

Footnotes

 

For a good discussion of these conditions see:

Gresham Sykes, The SocieLy of Captives, Donald Clemmer,
The Prispn Community, Erving Goffman, Asylums, and
Phillip Zimbardo, "Pathology of Imprisonment."

 

 

Dimensions: A Report of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, State of Michigan, 1977, p. 46.

 

lbid, p.46.

Edward Henry Steininger, "Changes in the MMPI Profile
of Firstlhflson Offenders During Their First Year of
Imprisonment," Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1957.

Michigan Department of Corrections Annual Report, State
Of Michigan.

lbid.
lbid.
lbid.
Starke R. Hathaway and J.C. McKinley, MMPI Manuai,
Psychological Testing Corporation, 1951, and W.G.

Dahlstrom and G.S. Welsh, An MMPI Handbook, University
of Minnesota Press, 1960.

 

 

Norman Nie, et.al., Statistical Packagg for the Social
Sciences, McGraw-Hill Company, New York, 1975, pp.
224-225.

Non-parametric statistics, primarily the chi-square was
used with nominal and ordinal levels, while the
parametric statistics, generally the t-test was
employed with an interval or ratio level of measure-
ment.

Because of Unequal grouplsizes, a test of homogeniety
of variance was conducted for all analyses involving
the t-test. For a thorough discussion of this problem,
see David G. Kleinbaum and Lawrence L. Kupper, &plied
Regression, Analysis and other Multivariable Methods
(North Scituate, Massachusetts: Doxbury Press), 1978,
p. 248.

Ibid.

82

CHAPTER IV

ANALWSHSCW'DATA

It will be recalled that previous studies of escape
relied on poorly conceived or implemented research designs
and evaluation efforts. In an attempt to address these
issues it was decided to use a quasi-experimental design
discussed in the last chapter. Essential to this study is
an examination of a number of demographic and psychological
factors related to escape.

Chapter IV consists of two sections which present
results of the comparisons of the two samples on the
demographic and MMPI data. This analysis is based on
two-hundred (200) escapees and a comparison group of
one-hundred (100) non-escapees from the State Prison of
Southern Michigan. Data were coded, punched on computer
cards and processed using data analysis programs available
in the Statistical Package for the social Sciences.(')

The first section presents an analysis of data on the
descriptive characteristics of each groups' relevant
independent variables included in the study. Of special
importance are the variables concerning: demographic

characteristics, special problems, criminal history and

current institutional information. Frequencies for each
variable have been generated for each sample to allow a
variable by variable comparison of the two groups. The
chi-square statistics were computed to determine whether a
statistical difference between the groups was evident. In
addition, a t-test was used to compare the two groups on
MMPI variables. on MMPI variables. The t-test was used
because MMPI scores were in raw form thus chi-square was not
appropriate for this analysis.

The second part of this chapter uses statistical
regression techniques to determine differences between
escapees and non-escapees use demographic and MMPI
variables. The regression analysis allows us to select
variables that attribute to escape behavior while
eliminating less important variables. This allowance is tau
build a model of the best indicators of escape behavior.
The results of both sessions are presented in this chapter.
Demoggaphic Characteristics

Table 3 summarizes the demographic characteristics of
the escape and non-escape groups. With regard to variables
of marital status, community size, and intelligence the two
groups were almost identical. The majority of the subjects
were single, grew up in urban cities of over one million and

scored similarly on intelligence tests.

83

Table 3

Demographic Characteristics of the
A Summary Table

Escape 6 Non-Escape Samples:

 

 

 

 

84

 

 

 

 

Escape Non-Escape Chi Significance
Dimension N Percent N Percent quare Level
Age:
17-21 8 4.02 10 10.02 14.25 .0065
22-26 84 42.02 27 27.02
27-31 65 32.52 27 27.02
32-36 26 13.02 20 20.02
37 + _£1 8.52 _l§ 26.02
Total 200 100.02 100 100.02
Race:
White 87 43.52 45 45.02 0.015 N.S.
Black ll; 56.52 _22 55.02
Total 2 0 100.02 1 0 100.02
Marital Status:
Single 101 50.52 56 56.02 0.976 N.S.
Married 51 25.52 21 21.02
Divorced,
Separated,
Widowed 48 24.02 23 23.02
Total 200 100.02 100 100.02
‘Birth Place:
ln-State 126 63.02 68 68.02 0.412 N.S.
Out-of-State 71 35.52 32 32.02
Foreign __3 [.52 __Q 0.02
Total 2 0 100.02 100 100.02
Dependents: '
None 109 54.52 51 51.02 1.489 8.5.
One 35 17.52 21 21.02
Two 20 10.02 13 13.02
Three 23 11.52 9 9.02
Four + ._L2 6.52 __§ 6.02
Total 200 100.02 100 100.02
Family
Composition:
Intacted 107 53.52 59 59.02 4.223 N.S.
Mother Only 71 35.52 32 32.02
Father Only 4 2.02 3 3.02
Other #8 9.07. _g 6.02
Total 2 0 100.02 1 0 100.02

Table 3 (continued)

 

 

Escape Non-Escape Chi Significance
Dimension N Percent N Percent Square Level
Community Size:
10,000 + 32 16.52 17 17.02 7.733 N.S.
50,000 + 29 14.52 12 12.02
100,000 + 19 9.52 12 12.02
250,000 + 20 10.02 9 9.02
500,000 + Z 1.02 6 6.02
1 Million + _21 48.52 _gg 44.02
Total 200 100.02 100 100.02
Intelligence 0:
Defective 0 0.02 0 0.02 4.592 N.S.
(0-69)
Boderline 17 8.52 6 6.02
(70-79)
Below Average 34 17.02 17 17.02
(80-89)
Average 92 46.02 58 58.02
(90-109)
Above Average 39 19.52 14 14.02
(110-119)
Superior 13 6.52 4 4.02
(120-129)
Very Superior 5 2.52 1 1.02
(130 +) ___ ___
Total 200 100.02 100 100.02
Education:
(Average Crad-
ing Rating)
Grade 1 - 3.9 13 6.52 8 8.02 1.075 N.S.
Grade 4 - 5.9 40 20.02 16 16.02
Grade 6 - 7.9 64 32.02 34 34.02
Grade 8 - 9.9 47 23.52 22 22.02
Grade 10 - 12 + _22_ 18.02 _32 20.02
Total 2 0 100.02 1 0 100.02

 

 

 

 

 

*Totals may be less than 200 5

85

100 due to missing values.

With regard to age, race and birth place, the escape
group has greater variation when compared to the non-escape
group, i.e., 42 percent of the escapees were under twenty-
six versus 27 percent of the non-escapees; 43.5 percent of
the escapees were white and 63 percent of escapees were born
in Michigan versus 45 percent and 68 percent of the non-
escape group.

On family composition and number of dependents the
non-escape group show little difference with 53.5 percent
versus 59 percent coming from intact families, and 28
percent have two or more dependents compared to 28 percent
for the escape group. There is little difference between
the two groups on education and on size of community they
lived in before being incarcerated. However, non-escapees
showed little differences on intelligence test with the
exception that they scored higher than 12 percent high on
the 90 to 109 scale range. The overall conclusion is that
both escapees and non-escapees were equally Intelligent.

In summary, a variable by variable analysis of
demographic factors suggest few significant differences
between the two sanples. These. data suggest that the two
groups are very similar in composition with only one factor:
age resulting in a significant difference with non-escapees
being older. This insured that any comparison of these

groups could be valid and justified.

86

Criminal Justice History

 

Table 4 presents data on the crhnhun justice history
variables of the escape and comparison samples. The time on
adult probation data indicates that 55.3 percent of the
escape group had previously been placed on probation,
compared to 48.5 percent of the non-escape group.

Data gathered on number of prison terms point cult that
the escape group has spent a significantly larger number of
terms in prison. The data also indicate that the non-escape
group consists mainly of first time offenders, i.e., 70.0
percent compared to 31.5 percent. This is further supported
by the data presented on total time served in prison. The
escape group has 31.5 percent of its members serving one
year or less to 15.0 percent of the comparison group.
Considering that the escape group has served significantly
more and longer prison terms it is reasonable to assume they
can, therefore, be considered repeat offenders.)

Finally, the data on criminal commitments are pre-
sented. Total juvenile commitments for the escape group
were significantly higher than the comparison group, with 36
percent having one or more commitments compared to 23
percent for the non-escape group. The number of adult
commitments show that 17.5 percent of the group has only one
commitment compared to 40 percent for the non-escape group
which indicates that the non-escape group has had less

involvement in a pattern of criminal activity. Again, we

87

Table 4

Prior Criminal Justice History of Escape 6 Non-Escape Samples

 

Criminal History Escape 1 Non-Escape Chi Significance
Indicator N Percend N Percent. Square Level

 

 

Adult Probation: ' . 1

None 86 43.72 ’ 52 52.02 . 4.186 i N.S.
One 72 36.52 ' 28 28.02 . -
Two or More 39 18.82 ' 20 20.52

 

Total 197 100.02 ' 100 100.02

 

Prison Terms:

l
I . .
First I 63 31.32 ' 70 70.02 . 41.70 . .0000
Second I 71 39.52 ' 18 18.02 .
Third I 42 21.02 ' s 5.02
Four or More (_33 12.02 __1 7.02
Total 120 100.02 ' 100 100.02
I .
I
Total Time Serve&

in Prison: - -
to 1 years 3 63 31.52 15 15.02 3.234 N.S.

oo-

0

1 to 3 years . 63 31.52 . 22 22.02
3 to 5 years - 36 18.02 ' 36 36.02
5 to 10 years I 38 19.02 27 27.02

Total 200 100.02 ' 100 100.02

Juvenile Commit-

—-..-.-.--o o

 

ment:
None 128 64.02 77 77.02 5.746 N.S.
One 3 53 26.5 18 18.02
Two 9 12 6.02 4 4.02
Three or More :__1 3.52 __L 1.02
Total j20 100.02 10 100.02
Adult Commit- 5
'ment ~
One - 35 17.52 40 40.02 20.00 .0005
Two 46 23.02 21 ‘ 21.01 '
Three 32 16.02 12 12.02
Four 32 16.02 7 7.02
Five or More _22 27.52 20 20.02
Total '2 0 100.02 100 100.02

88

 

 

 

Table 4 (continued)
: r l
Crimina1 History 1 Escape Non-Escape Chi Significance
indicator 3 N Percent ' N Percent [quare Level
Juvenile . [
Probation: . I
Yes 102 51.52 37 37.52 3 7.27 0.026
No 96 48.52 2; 62.52 i
Total 19 100.02 99 100.02 -
Type of Offense:
Assault . 104 52.02 43 43.32 2.160 N.S.
Non-Assault 96 48.02 57 57.02 -
Total 1 9 100.02 100 100.02

 

89

find that the escape group has a significantly higher number
of juvenile probations and parole violations when compared
with the non-escape group. The final variable in Table 4 is
concerned with the offense committed by the inmate. These
data indicate that the escape group is more violent in the
crimes they committed with 52 percent having committed
assaultive or violent crimes compared to 43.3 percent for
the non-escape group.

The purpose of these data has been to illustrate that
the escape group, while similar on basic demographics, has a

significantly less favorable criminal history.

Institutional Information

 

The data on institutional information are presented in
Table 5. The purpose of these data is to ascertain the
institutional history and adjustment problems of the two
groups.

Table 5 indicates that the custodial records indicate
the escape group has slightly more adjustment problems than
the comparison group with 85.6 percent of the escape group
adjusting compared to 90.5 percent of the non-escape group;
however, only 14.5 percent of the escape group was rated to
have adjusted excellently versus 9.5 percent of the non-
escape group. The data also indicate that the escape group
has more problems in adjustment than the comparison group in

several areas. In regards to adjustnmht with inmates the

90

Table 5

Current Institutional Information of Escape 6 Non-Escape Samples

 

 

) Escape ) Non-Escape . Chi Significance
Dimension . N Percentl N Percent ;, quare Level
0 I l
Custodial Recorda l ' 3
Major Adjustment. 3 1.52 I 0 0.02
Marginal Adjust-. .
ment 25 12.92 9 9.52
Good Adjustment 138 71.12 64 65.72 7.34 N.S.
Excellent Adjust-
ment _28 14.52 23 24.82
Total 1 4 100.02 . 97 100.02
Adjustment With
Inmates:
Not Adjusting 6 3.12 1 1.02
Marginal 23 11.82 5 5.02
Average 139 71.32 . 77 77.52 6.6280 N.S.
Above Average .31 13.82 _Lfl 19.52
Total 195 100.02 197 100.02
Adjustment With
Staff: ‘
Not Adjusting 6 3.12 O 0.02
Marginal 30 15.42 7 7.32
Average 127 65.12 73 74.92 9.555 0.048
Above Average _32 16.42 _Ll 17.82
Total 195 100.02 97 100.02
Adjustment to
Incarceration:
Not Adjusting 1 0.52 0 0.02
Marginal 29 15.02 10 10.52 .
Average 134 69.52 68 67.02 2.753 N.S.
Above Average _22 15.02 _22 20.52
Total 193 100.02 . 198 100.02
Minimum Sentence: -
1-5 years 150 75.02 78 78.02
6-10 years 40 20.02 18 18.02
11-15 years 4 2.02 O 0.02 2.416 N.S.
16-20 years 3 1.52 2 2.02
over 21 years 3 1.52 __l 2.02
Total 200 100.02 100 100.02

 

91

Table 5 (continued)

 

 

 

 

Escape Non-Escape Chi Significance
Dimension N Percent N Percent Square 1 Level
Work and Study 9
Habits: E -
Poor - 16 8.32 ~ 5 5.02 _
Marginal 1 31 16.22 - 13 13.02 4.35 : u.s.
Average j 120 62.52 - 62 62.52
Above Average ; _22 13.02 . _lfi 18.52
Total r l 2 100.02 . 9 100.02
Security Level: 3 -
Camp ' 15 7.52 - 44 44.02 _
Farm - 69 34.52 . 14 14.02 . 92.366 ' .0000
Minimum 2 116 58.0 - _33 42.02 '
Total ‘ 200 100.02 ~ 10 100.02

*The records did not indicate whether closed security was for minimum,
medium or maximum security inmates. Normally, closed security means
inmates were not with the general population of the institution -
or that they were being reclassified and final placement was in
process.

92

escape group was rated marginal to poor 14.9 percent versus
6 percent for the non-escape group; on adjustment with
staff; 18.5 percent versus 7.3 percent; on adjustment to
incarceration, 15 percent versus 10.5 percent; and on work
and study habits, 24.5 percent versus 14.9 percent. The
overall indication is that the escape group had shorter

minimum sentences when compared to the non-escape group.

Special Problems

The purpose of these data is to ascertain the special
problems of the two groups such as psychiatric history, drug
abuse and alcohol dependency.

The data in Table 6 indicate that the escape group has
a greater history of psychiatric involvement with 25 percent
having had bad problems compared to 17.1 percent for the
non-escape group. The incidence of alcohol dependency
histories shows 28.7 percent and 27 percent for escape and
non-escape groups. Drug abuse history shows almost no
difference between the groups, 44.6 percent of the escape
group versus 43.2 percent of the non-escape group had a
history of prior drug or dependency. The amount of family
contact differed for the two groups. The escape group has
significantly greater contact with family members on a
regular basis, with 66.9 percent having visits or mail

compared to 42.7 percent for the non-escape group.

93

Table 6

Special Problems of Escapes and Non-Escapes Samples

 

 

 

 

' Escape Non-Escape Chi I Significance
Problem Area 1 N Percent N Percent Square , Level
1
Psychiatric . 1
History: . ;
Yes . 49 25.02 17 17.12 I 2.152 . N.S.
No . 141 75.02 _82 83.92 1
Total 196 100.02 _ 100 100.0z ;
. i :
Alcohol Abuse:. . l : .
Yes 56 28.72 1 27 27.02 ' 0.123 . N.S.
No 132 71.32 . .12 73.02 j
Total 195 100.02 1 100 100.02 ‘
' l L
Drug Abuse: 1 . .
Yes . 87 44.62 3 43 43.22 . 2.112 , u.s.
No . ng 55.42 5 _31 57.02
Total ~ 195 100.02 1 100 100.02
1
Family Contact: 1 1 .
None . 6 3.62 i 6 6.32 . 14.676 . 0.0007
Limited 50 29.52 ' 49 51.02
Regular . LL; 66.92 i _41 42.72
Total - 169 100.02 ' 96 100.02

9‘!

Psycholggical Factors

 

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
was utilized to provide a psychological profile of the
escape and non-escape groups in this study. Table 7
presents the results of a t-test conducted on the escape and
comparison group. The data indicate that both groups were
extremely similar and show little or no significant
differences on the depression (2), hysteria (3), Masculine-
Feminine (5), Paranoia (6) and social introversion (0)
scales. There were significant differences between escapees
and non-escapees on the hypochondasis (1), psychopathic
deviant (4), psychothenia (7), schyophrenia (8) and
hypomania (9) scales, with the greatest difference being
between scales 7 and 8. These results indicate that the
escape group tends to be more inactive, rebellious, anxious,
negative and less likely to be bound by custom than his
counterpart the non-escape group.

The main thrust of this study was to look at a
constellation of demographic and MMPl variables it! terms of
their impact on escape behavior. The general hypothesis was
that demographic variables are better predictors of escape
behavior than MMPJ variables. The second section of this
chapter utilized regression analysis to investigate escape
behavior, and it was decided that two testings for the
aforementioned hypothesis were in order for both demographic

and MMPI variables. The first would be a simple regression

95

Table 7

T-Test of Escapes and Non-Escapes Samples by MMPI Scales*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MMPI item Scale N Mean Standard T-Value Significance
Deviation
N Scale
Escape 7 4.01 3.43 -0.75 NS
Non-Escape 12 4.86 7.52
L Scale
Escape 200 4.73 2.58 1.16 NS
Non-Escape 99 4.34 2.92
F Scale
Escape 200 8.51 6.57 0.30 NS
Non-Escape 100 8.23 8.32 ~
K Scale
Escape 200 14.53 5.07 -0.27 NS
Non-Escape 100 14.74 6.92
”5 Scale (1)
Escape 200 13.61 4.96 2.82 .005
Non- Escape 100 10.96 8.71
D Scale (2)
Escape 200 21.50 5.20 -0.21 NS
Non-Escape 100 21.63 4.55
HY Scale (3)
Escape 200 20.68 4.92 -0.57 NS
Non-Escape 100 22.01 7.06
PD Scale (4)
Escape 200 ' 28.30 5.02 2.68 .008
Non-Escape 100 25.87 8.33
NF Scale (5) 1
Escape 200 24.79 1 5.28 . 1.50 vs
Non-Escape 100 123.83 ; 5.10 i '
1
PA Scale (6) l ! l
Escape , 200 {11.88 i 4.52 ~0.6l NS
Non-Escape l 100 112.32 E 6 31 !
1 1
PT Scale (7) ! ' i
Escape 200 :27.66 I 7.28 , 6.33 0.000
Non-Escape E 100 121.00 1 9.8 i
l l l l

96

Table 7 (continued)

 

MMPI Item Scale N Mean Standard T-Value Significance
Deviation

 

SC Scale (8)

Escape 200 29.57 9.40 6.98 0.000
Non-Escape 100 21.11 10.79
MA Scale (9)
Escape 200 23.46 4.52 3.14 .002
Non-Escape 100 21.66 4. 9
SI Scale (0)
Escape 200 25.47 8.65 -0.21 NS
Non-Escape 103 25.69 7.93

 

 

 

 

 

 

*A breakdown of raw score distribution is provided
in the Appendix.

97

including all variables independently and together to test
for their significance and explanation of escape behavior.
The second test would be a stepwise regression analysis “1
an attempt to build the best prediction model. And finally
the models would be tested by means of the cross-validation
to determine the best prediction model for escape behavior

using demographic and/or MMPI variables.

Regression Analysis

 

The first procedure was to determine the goodnesslof
fit of all the Variables in the study.1 Table 8 displays
the results of the regression of all demographic variables
with escape behavior, and the twenty-six variables yielded a
multiple correlation (R) of .6071 and R2 of .3686 which
produced an F ratio of 5.187 that was significant at the
.000 level. These twenty six demographic variables account
for thirty seven (37) percent of the variance of escape
behavior and included five significant variables. Those
significant variables included average grade rating, number
of juvenile commitments, number of prison terms, security
level (camp) and IQ.

Table 9 examines the multivariate relationship between
escape behavior and MMPI variables. The regression
including all ten MMPI variables produced a multiple

correlation of .4939 and R2 of .2440 that was significant at

the .002 level. The MMPl variables accounted for twenty-

98

Table 8

Forced Entry Regression Analysis Between Independent
Demographic Variables and Escape Behavior

 

Independent

 

Variables 8 SE B BETA P
Family Contact
(Regular) 0.1412 0.1316 0.1451 1.151
Security Level
(Farm) 0.0152 0.0637 0.0138 0.057
Family Intacted 0.0470 0.0538 0.0484 0.764
Juvenile Probation -0.0329 0.0574 -0.0342 0.330
Community Size -0.0004 0.0151 -0.0018 0.001
Age -0.0072 0.0051 -0.0975 2.036
Maximum Sentence 0.0029 0.0055 0.0659 0.280
Marital Status
(Married) 0.0864 0.0713 0.0759 1.467
Average Grade

Rating -0.0042 0.0014 -O.2099 8.675*
Adult Probation 0.0548 0.0368 0.0893 2.217
Adjustment with

Staff 0.0523 0.0787 0.0663 0.442
Juvenile Commit-

ments 0.0632 0.0281 0.1336 5.097*
Type of Offense 0.1194 0.0658 0.1240 3.286
Prison Terms 0.1152 0.0327 0.2752 12.460**
Marital Status
(Divorced) -0.0049 0.0374 -0.0084 0.017
Security Level
(Camp) -0.4206 0.0728 -0.3648 33.378**

99

Table 8 (cont'd)

 

Independent

 

Variables 8 SE 8 BETA F
Race 0.0206 0.0657 0.0212 0.098
Crime Severity 0.0047 0.0031 0.1041 2.302
Adult Commitments 0.0093 0.0141 0.0450 0.432
Number Dependents 0.0098 0.0210 0.0323 0.220
Time Served in

Prison -0.0402 0.0262 -0.1133 2.365
Intelligence 0 0.0059‘ 0.0026 0.1705 5.071*
Adjustments with

Inmates -0.0420 0.0769 -0.0486 0.299
Custodial Record -o.1124 0.0774. -o.1339 2.109
Masimum Sentence -0.0061 0.0061 ~0.1265 0.988
Family Contact
(Limited) -0.0801 0.1323 -0.0807 0.366
Multiple R 22 Adjusted a F Change F Significance
0.6071 0.3686 0.2975 5.187 0.000
5 Significant beyond .05
** Significant beyond .001

100

Table 9

Forced Entry Regression Analysis Between

Variables and Escape Behavior

Independent MMPI

 

Independent

 

 

Variables 8 SE 8 BETA F

Social Intoversion -0.0069 0.0036 -0.1239 3.592
Scale 0

Hypomania -0.0051 0.0061 -0.0520 0.706
Scale 9 .

Conversion Hysteria -0.0088 0.0067 -0.1070 1.711
Scale 3

Masculinity-Feminity 0.0013 0.0049 0.0148 0.074
Scale 5

Depression -0.0143 0.0065 -0.8523 4.869*
Scale 2

Psychopathic Deviate 0.0081 0.0052 0.1103 2.411
Scale 4

Paranoia -0.0149 0.0063 -0.1585 5.516*
Scale 6

Psychasthenic 0.0120 0.0057 012171 4.368*
Scale 7

Hypochondriasis 0.0047 0.0063 0.0659 0.550
Scale 1

Schizophrenia 0.0149 0.0046 0.3380 10.336**
Scale 8

Multiple R R2 AdjmnedR F’Change F Significance

0.4939 0.2440 0.2176 9.262 0.000

* Significant beyond .05

** Significant beyond .001

101

Forced Entry Regression Analysis Between Independent

Table 10

Demographic and MMPI Variables and Escape Behavior

 

Independent

 

Variables 8 SE 8 Beta F
Scale 51 (0) -0.0068 0.0042 -0.1189 2.916
Family Contact -0.0216 0.1280 -0.0095 0.029
Crime 0.0044 0.0030 0.0961 2.056
Security Level (Farm) 0.0530 0.0616 0.0485 0.742
Intelligence Q 0.0061 -0.0024 0.1762 6.057
Number of Dependents 0.0194 0.0201 0.0640 0.937
Family Intacted -0.0051 0.0521 -0.0053 0.010
Scale MA (9) -0.0083 0.0061 -0.0837 1.847
Adjustment with Staff 0.0917 0.0760 0.1161 1.454
Time Served in Prison -0.0252 0.0252 -0.0885 1.549
Scale HY (3) ' 0.0008 0.0070 0.0088 0.015
Minimum Sentence -0.0053 0.0059 -0.1098 0.790
Community Size -0.0069 0.0145 -0.0291 0.228
Adult Probation 0.0627 0.0351 0.1024 3.192
Family Contact (Regular) -0.l703 0.0556 -0.1721 9.386*
Juvenile Probation -0.0323 0.0552 -0.0336 0.344
Scale MF (5) 0.0030 0.0030 0.0321 0.284
Juvenile Commitments 0.0567 0.0567 0.0273 4.306*
Security Level (Camp) -0.2539 0.0758 -0.2210 11.223**
Marital Status. Divorced 0.0009 0.0355 0.0015 0.001
Marital Status, Married 0.0598 0.0689 0.0523 0.752
Scale PA (6) -0.0090 0.0079 -0.0826 1.282
Adult Commitments 0.0035 0.0136 0.0172 0.069
Scale PD (4) 0.0070 0.0067 0.0787 1.097
Type of Offense 0.0855 0.0640 0.0889 1.784
True Age -0.0089 0.0050 -0.1202 3.170
Race -0.0308 0.0668 -0.0317 0.212
Scale 0 (2) -0.0135 0.0071 -0.1413 3.599
Average Grade Rating -0.0049 0.0014 -0.2458 11.515**
Scale HS (1) -0.0060 0.0070 -0.0724 0.744
Number of Prison Terms 0.1220 0.0319 0.2910 14.559**
Adjustment with Inmates -0.0429 0.0737 -0.0496 0.340
Custodial Record -0.1093 0.0734 -0.l301 2.219
Scale PT (7) 0.0089 0.0059 0.1638 2.271
Scale SC (8) 0.0145 0.0055 0.3256 6.901**
Maximum Sentence 0.0016 .0054 0.0390 0.094
* Significant Beyond
** Significant Beyond
Multiple R P Significance
0.6859 0.4 5.404 0.000

102

four (24) percent of the variance in escape behavior. “3
addithuithe Depression (2), Paranoia (6), Psychoasthenia
(7) and Schizophrenia (8) scales were all significant.

To complete this phase of the analysis a regression
procedure containing all twenty six demographic and ten MMPl
variables were utilized. The results indicated in Table 10
produced a multiple correlation of .6859 and R2 of .4704
which produced a F ratio of 5.404 that was significant at
the .001 level. The combination of demographic and MMPI
accounted for forty seven (47) percent of the variance.

In addition to the aforementioned regression pro-
cedures, a regression was run to investigate the influence
of MMPI variables after all demographic variables were
entered into the regression analysis. The same procedure
was also conducted using demographic variables after WP!
variables were entered into a regression analysis. The
results indicated that Multiple R for all demographic
variables was .6071 and R2 was .3686 with all twenty six
variables included (See Table 8). The MMPI variables were
then entered using a stepwise regression procedure. Two MMPI
variab.les, the Schizophrenia Scale 8 and the Social
lntroversion Scale 0 were added and increased the multiple R
to .6649 and R2 to .4421. It also found that MMPI variables
alone yielded a multiple R of .4939 and a R2 of .2440 (see
Table 9). .After a stepwise regression of demographic

variables to the MMPl variables the multiple R increased to

103

.6481 and R2 increased to .4200. The demographic variables,
number of prison terms, family contact regular, Security
Level Camps, Juvenile Commitments, Average Grade Rating, IQ
and severity of crime was responsible for the increases in
the Multiple R and R2. The indications are that demographic
variables account for a greater amount of the variance for
escape behavior and are better predictors than MMPI
variables alone. However the combination of both
demographic and MMPI variables (see Table 10) is better than
either independently. it was assumed that the multiple
correlation coefficients were not due to sampling
fluctuations or measurement error.

As discussed earlier, the major focus of this study was
to look at the constellation of demographic and MMPl factors
which would affect escape behavior and attempt to isolate
their individual relationship with escape. Once isolated,
these factors could then be examined to determine how they
differentially inpacted on the escape behavior of inmates.
The first test looked at the individual relationship between
each independent variable and escape behavior. The next
logical step would be to establish which of the demographic
and/or MMPl variables contribute most predicting escape

behavior.

104

Selecting the Best Model

The firual regression procedure sought to determine the
relative contribution of demographic and MMthactors to a
combined "best" model. lrI this multiple regression
analysis, a stepwise method was utilized with each demo-
graphic and MMPI variable being examined at each step for
entry or removal from the model. Table 11 presents a
summary of this stepwise procedure with the six best
independent demographic variables included and the twenty
remaining variables removed. The results of this section of
the analysis would indicate that the first and highest
ranked variable with a beta weight of (-.354) was security
level, indicating that as it decreases, potential for escape
increases. Security level also accounted for eighteen
percent of the variance. The second highest ranked variable
number of prison terms and the third ranked variable family
contact indicated that as they increase, potential for
escape also increases, and each variable accounts for an
additional four percent of the variance. While the first
three variables were significant at the .001 level, the
remaining three variables were significant at the .001 level
the remaining three variables were significant only'at the
.05 level. The number of juvenile commitments and adult
probation indicated that as they increased, potential for
escape also increased, however, custodial records indicates

a reversal of this trend, as it decreased, escape potential

105

amawm up

mambcnmm womnmmwuoa >=m~wm~m moncmms msamvmsaman cmaomnmvspn <m-mv~mm
was menace wm=m<pon

 

 

psamvmaaman ~
<mnumv~mm Zeunuvpm w w w mm a wma> m
mmn:n»n< rmcmw o.b~wu o.~m~o 1o.bcuu o.oow~ no.umbm mo.~uo»s
AOmva .
manna: amnam o.b-o o.-~u o.ow~o ¢:o-m o.—ou— uu.~oo»»
«ma»~< nosnmnn o.m-~ o.~o~u o.-o~ o.Om~m o.-~o No.-u»»
Axmmcaanv
cccmsfiwm noaapni

amsnm o.uu- a.mmu~ o.oo~> o.o~u~ o.~>~o ~e.umcs
ncmnon»m~ apnoea a.mbNN o.~ebm Io.~o- c.o»o~ no.-~o ~o.muo»
>ac~n wnoamnwo: a.mumw o.womu o.o~w~ o.o-c a.m—ow um.boos

» mnmsmmpnmsn amzoaa .ow
8» mumzpmpnmsn cm<o=a .oo~

106

hmcreases. The total amount of variance accounted for by
these six demographic variables was thirty-one percent.

Table 12 displays the stepwise regression results for
the MMPI variables. The first and highest ranked MMPl
variable was psychasthenia scale (7), which indicated that
as it increases the potential for escape also increases. The
second ranked variable was the depression scale (2) and its
negative beta weight indicated that as the depression scale
(2) decreased the potential for escape increased. And the
last variable was the psychopathic deviate (4) scale which
increases as escape potential increased. This model
mentioned three variables while eliminating the other seven.
The three variables explained twenty-one percent of the
variance while all ten MMPI variables only explained
twenty-four percent of the variance regarding escape
behavior.

The final stepwise regression, displayed in Table 13,
included all demographic and all MMPI variables. It is
interesting to note that with the exception of the
psychopathic deviate scale (4), all of the variables in this
combined model were also in the individual models. This
model of five demographic and two MMPI variables explained
thirty-seven percent of the variance.

In Table 14, we find a comparison of the demographic
MMPI and combined models for predicting escape behavior. it

is apparent that the combination of demographic and MMPl

107

Hacwmpn

mnmutnmm xmmnnmmno: >sm~<oum wanton: usamvosamsn zzwu cmnpmc_mm
and menace unraepon

 

Haampmaaman ~
connmvwmm Zeunnvpm z x w mm a . wma> 1

 

wmwnrmmnrmsnm o.uo~o o.~mc~ o.o-~ o.OObo o.ooue ea.~o>s»
mnmpm u

Umvnmmuuo: . o.esm~ o.~om~ no.o~mo c.0ooo uo.~¢oo u~.~u_»»
momma ~

veen:oumn:_n .
cmcpmnm a.mouw o.-so o.c~b~ o.ooos o._owm -.om~»

mom—m a

» Mnmsnnpnman cowosa .Om
s» mpmanmnnmsn cowoaa .ocn

108

mnmccnmn xmmnmmm—o: >3m—«m—m amazon: uscmvmsamsn casememcrpn and
22v~ cpn: mmnmom wo:m<—o~

duo—m pu

 

 

usamomsaman ~

<mnpmc~mm zc~n—v—m x w m mm a mma> m

mmncnnne rm<m— o.o~mm o.~m—o Io.-eo o.ooom no.~ucu wo._m04»

Annabv

amenrmmnrospm o.>o~o o.~§~o o.o_mo o.OOwu o.ueo_ s_.oou»»

mnmum u

an»mo: Hanan a.moou o.uo- o.omom o.o~—m o.~_nu wo.um—»w

«ma—we nonnann c.uu- o.u~wo o.—Mb— c.oMoo o.~mmo uo.o~o»

Awmmcpmnv .

cecmanpm noaapnu a.mmoo o.ueem o.oomm o.o~eo o.~uom ~o.~cms
amsnm

cmvnmmmeo: a.moem o.umom no.o_em o.o3mm uo.~m- ~u.u~o»

woman ~

>ac~n wnocmnpo: o.o~cm o.w-u c.o~oo o.Ou_~ o._—m_ ~_.Omu»

s m»m:pnnnm:n cowoaa .Om
s» mpwsumpnman cowoaa .oc~

109

Table 14

Comparison of Escape Behavior Prediction Variables

 

Prediction

9

 

Variables Multiple R R” Variance
Demographics 0.5552 0.3083 312
(N-300)

MMPI 0.4635 0.2149 212
(N-300)

Demographic 0.6105 0.3727 372
and MMPI

(N'300)

variables are the best predictors of escape behavior, and
support the general hypothesis that demographic variables
are better predictors of escape behavior.

The final stage of the analysis in this study was to
cross-validate the models that had been produced and to
identify the "Best" model.2 The total sample of (300)
inmates were randomly assigned to a validity (control) group
(158) and a derived (experimental) group (142) for each of
the models.3 The results in Table 15 indicate that the
cross-validation supported the demographic model with only a
three percent difference between their variances. The MMPI
model did not cross-validate. The difference between the
variances was eight percent and the control group only
contributed one percent of the variance explaining escape
behavior. And, finally, the demographic and WPI conbined
model cross-validated with the experimental group explains
thirty-one percent of the control group explains twenty-
seven percent of the variance for escape behavior. Thus, we
find that the combination of demographic and MMPI variable
produce the "best" model to explain escape behavior in this
study.

in summary, the analysis addresses three questions or
hypotheses with regard to independent variables and escape
behavior. The first dealt with demographic variables and
the results supported the fact that they are important and

explained 31 percent of the variance for escape behavior.

Table 15

Cross Validation of Escape Behavior Prediction Models

 

Prediction
Model Multiple R R Variance

I»)

Demographic Model

Experimental Group 0.3649 0.1339 142
(N'142)
Control Group 0.3218 0.1035 102
(N-158)

MMPI Model

Experimental Group 0.3128 .0978 92
(8'142)
Control Group 0.1144 .0130 12
(N-ISB)

Demograpic and MMPI Model

Experimental Group 0.5566 .3098 312

(N-142)
Control Group 0.5214 .2718 272
(N-158)

The second question addressed the importance of the MMPI
factors alone explained only 21 percent of the variance for
escape behavior of inmates. The third question addressed
the effects of both demographic and MMPI factors on escape
behavior which accounted for 37 percent of the variance for
escape behavior. The most interesting results were found in
cross-validating the models and the large reduction in the
variance for the demographic and MMPI variables. This seems
to indicate an interaction between several demographic and
MMPI variables as shown in their relatively small loss of

variance during cross-validation.

Chapter lV

Footnotes

 

Assuming you are familiar with the analysis of variance
you may have questioned whether there is anything to be
lgained by using a more complicated regression analysis
with the data in this study. It should be remembered
that analysis of variance and multiple regression are
interchangeable in the case of categorical independent
variables, however, multiple regression is superior or
the only appropriate method of analysis in the
following cases: (1) when the independent variable is
continuous (2) when the independent variables are
continuous and categorical (3) when cell frequencies
are unequal and disproportionate (See Fred N. Kerlinger
and Elazar J. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in
Behavioral Research, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, inc.
New York, 1973, pp. 112-114.

 

Note that if one were to apply a set of weights
derived in one sample to the predictor scores of
another sample and then correlate these predicted
scores with the observed criterion scores, the
resulting R will almost always be smaller than the R
obtained in the sample which occurs in this study
especially during cross-validation procedures. The
(difference between R2 of the derived sample and the R2
of the valid sample is an estimate of the amount of
shrinkage. If the shrinkage is small and the R2 is
considered meaningful by the researcher, he can apply
the regression equation obtained in the derived sample
to future predictions. (See cite above pp., 282-84.

The random selection and crossvalidation involved
merging the SPSS system file with the Biomedical
Computer Program (BNDP). The program assigns a random
number to each case then randomly divides the cases
into comparable groups before executing the cross-
validation procedure. (See W.J. Dixon and M.B.Brown
(EDS) Biomedical Conputer Promm P Series, University
of California Press, Berkely, 1977).

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The use of prediction scales to determine behavior,
whether in Criminal Justice or other fields, has some major
inherent problems. The first and foremost problem is their
limited capacity for generalizability. The second problem
is that prediction scales created for one population during
a specific time span should not be used on other populations
without first checking the validity. In fact, an escape
prediction scale created today may not be valid for next
year's population of inmates. In order to use an escape
scale over an extended period of time, it should be
periodically updated and improved in order to maintain the
validity of the scales. Being aware of these limitations,
the results of this study have investigated the similarities
and relationships of other escape predictions as indicators
for broader generalizations.

The review of the literature constantly presented
several variables in other studies on escape behavior.
These variables included the following characteristics of
escapees: They tend to be young; white rather than

non-white; committed non-assaultive crimes; have a history

of other juvenile and jail incarcerations; have longer
sentences; have attempted escape from other institutions;
are not drug law violators; single or never married; and
have significantly different MMPI profiles. Using these
variables as a base, the variables for this study will be

discussed at this time.

Demographic Variables

 

The present study considered twenty-six demographic
variables that had previously been related to escape
behavior. These variables are not inclusive of all variables
that are related to escape behavior, but rather those that
availed themselves for collection and analysis in this
study. The variables not included but related to escape
behavior are: institutions record of infraction, time
between parole denied and escape, fear of homosexual or
physical assault, dean John letters, emergencies at home or
other situational variables. However, the study did isolate
several demographic variables that attempt to predict escape

behavior.

Security Level

 

The first variable found to be significantly related to
escape behavior was security level. We must note here that

all inmates in this study were assigned to minimum security

116

placements. However, minimum security includes camp, farm
and trusty division outside the prison wall (hiring the day
but housed inside the prison walls at night. We found that
44 percent and 14 percent of the non-escape group was
assigned to camp and farm placement compared to 7.5 percent
and 34.5 percent for the escape group. The trend indicates
that inmates in minimum security with less opportunity ha
escape than inmates in camps or farms tend to escape at a

higher rate.

Number of Prison Terms

 

The second variable found to be significantly related
to escape behavior was nunber of prison terms. An example
of this is that escapees 31.5 percent had been incarcerated
in prison only one time compared to non—escapees 70 percent.
‘Hais indicates that escapees generally have longer records
of incarceration and several other studies agreed with this

finding. _

Family,Contact

 

The third variable found to be significantly related to
escape behavior was the amount of family contact. It was
found that 66.9 percent of the escape group had regular
contact with his family compared to 42.7 percent for the
non-escape group. This supported the assumption that strong

family ties and family crisis (or situational occurrence)

117

are an improvement but important factor in understanding
escape behavior. This finding is somewhat contradictory to
some of the earlier findings on family ties and escape

behavior.

Juvenile Commitments

 

.Although the relationship between juvenile commitments
and escape behavior was not significant in the preliminary
analysis, its importance is supported by its inclusion in
the regression analysis. Also, the previously mentioned
-studies agreed that the greater a juvenile is involved in
the Criminal Justice System, the greater his potential for

escape.

Custodial Record

 

The fifth variable found to be significantly related to
escape behavior was custodial record. it is common
knowledge that good conduct and adjustment are rewarded in
prison. Therefore, we expect inmates in minimum security
placement general to have good custodial records. And since
good custodial reports gain inmates more responsibility and
freedom, it also increases his opportunity for escape. This
positive relationship simply indicates that as an inmates
behavior and custodial record improves his chances for

reclarification and escape also improves.

Adult Probation

 

The final demographic variable found to be signifi-
cantly related to escape behavior was adult probation.
Although adult probation was not significant during the
preliminary analysis, it was significant in the regression
analysis. i=ifty-five percent of the escape group had been
on adultprobation one or more times compared to 48.5 percent
for the non-escape group. This finding in combination with
the findings of juvenile comitment and juvenile probation
indicate that escape behavior increases as his involvement
hithe criminal justice system prior to incarceration in
prison increases.

There were several demographic variables that were con-
sistently significan1ly in the escape prediction literature
which were not related to escape behavior in this study. The
major variable was race. lAI' of the studies reviewed
indicated that white inmates were more likely to escape
than Black inmates. However the portion of Black escapees
(56.5%)‘compared to white escapees (43.5%) revealed that a
slightly larger percentage of Blacks were escapees than
whites in this study. However we must consider the fact
that the State Prison of Southern Michigan is approximately
75-80% Black. Further research is needed with regard to
race, and some significance might be suppressed since 'race

was not controlled during the analysis of this study.

Another variable age, also, failed as a significant factor
in this study while being repeatedly sited in the literature

on escape behavior.

MMPl Variables

 

The literature on escape behavior and the MMPI
surpmisingly had little bearing on the final model produced
by this study. We found in the first testing(t-test) of
MMPl variables the hypochrondrasis (1), Psychopathic
deviatel4), Psychosthenia (7), Schrophrenia (8) and
Hypomania (9) scale were significant. In the second testing
the regression analysis only produced three significant MMPl
variables. These variables included two from the previous
list, psychopathic deviate (4) and psychoasthenia (7), and
added the depression (2) scale. However, these scales were
significantly related to escape behavior when they were not
competing with demographic variables.

The MMPI group profile for escapees and non-escapees is
worth noting. The validity scale configurations reveal that
both escapees and non-escapees are admitting problems which
.are of increasing severity as the F scale increases in
elevation and simultaneously is trying to defend himself
against these problems (see Appendix C). This profile also
indicated that the H (l), HY (3), MF (5), Pt (7), and Si (0)
for both escapees and non-escapees were in the normal range;

while the D (2) and Ma (6) scales were found to have a

120

moderate interpretation for both escapees and non-escapees.
It was also found that the Pd (4) , Pa (6) and Sc (8) scales
of the escapees differed from their counterpart with marked,
normal and moderate compared to moderate, moderate and
normal interpretation for non-escapees. It should be noted
that even without clinical interpretation that the overall
MMPI profile could be useful in a preliminary screening for

escape behavior.

Discussion of the Model

 

The model created as a final product of this study
(Table 13) is similar in some respects to other prediction
scales. As with the majority of the other studies
demographic variables appear to be better predictors of
escape behavior than personality factors. This fact was
demonstrated in the several regression procedures used to
develop the model. The last procedure being an inclusion,
exclusion stepwise regression of demographic and MMPI
variables, with the final product containing seven
. variables, two of which were MMPI variables. The two MMPl
variables ranked second and sixth in the final model. The
fact that they ranked higher than several demographic
variables indicate that the interaction of some demographic
and WPI variables together contributes to escape behavior

prediction.

121

Although this study supports the hypothesis that
demographic factors are better predictors of escape behavior
the results are limited to a select population and time
frame. The results also differ from a similar study, ”MMPl
and Demographic Correlates and Predictors of Female Prison
Escape," by Scott, Mount and Duffy. Their study concluded
that for female prisoners three MMPI factors were respon-
sible for 19 percent of the variance, and that MMPI
variables were better predictors than demographics or any
combination of demographic and MMPl variables.

Escapes are, in many cases situational and can be
expected. Prisons are not places that inmates choose for
themselves, therefore, given the opportunity, even

individuals not considered escape risk, may attempt to

escape. Furthermore, no escape prediction scale can
guarantee that escapes will not occur. The use of an escape
prediction 'scale may itself create a situation for

differential treatment of inmates not classified as escape
risks.

It is unfortunate that the utility of this model is
only representativelof the inmate population at the State
Prison of Southern Michigan and is not adequate enough to be
used as a sole predictor of escape behavior. The study,

however, does provide a MMPl profile that might be useful in

122

reviewing inmates before being placed in a minimum security
unit and several key demographic factors that should be
investigated in the future.

In conclusion, the escape prediction model developed in
this study, as in other escape studies, accounts for only a
moderate amount of variance between escape and non-escape
groups. The continued influence of situational and
environmental factors will always confound the results of
escape behavior studies. However, it is believed that
current improvement in the field of prediction studies and
the development of new methodology will continue to advance
this field. It is hoped that this study is one of these

forward steps in the field of behavior prediction.

123

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Thomas C., "Some MVlPl Differences Between First and
Multiple Admissions within a State Prison Population,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 32, No.3, July, 1976.

 

Adams, Thomas C., West Judy E., "Another Look at the Use of
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory as an Index
to 'Escapism'," Journal of Clinical Psychologl, Vol. 32,
No.8, 1976.

 

Allen, Harvy and Clifford E. Simmonsen, Corrections in
America: An Introduction McMillan Publishing Co., lnc., New
York, 1980.

 

 

American correctional Association, Handbook on Correctional
Classification, Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, 1978.

 

 

Baker, Arlene, "Development of Escape-Proneness Score,"
Sacramento, California: Department of Corrections, June 30,
I961. .

Banks, Charlotte, Patricia Mayhem and R.J. Sapsford,
Absconding Frolepen Prisons, Home Office Research Studies,
London, 1975.

Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Evolution of Penology in
Pennsijania, Patterson Smith, Montclair, N.J., 1968.

 

 

Barnes, Harry E. and Negley K. Teeters, New Horizons In
Criminology, Prentice-Hall, lnc., New York, 1943.

 

Bauer, G.E. and J.A. Clark, "Personality Deviance and Prison
Incarceration." Journal of Clinical Psychology; 32:
279-283, 1976.

 

Bohn, Martin J., Jr., Classification of Offenders in An
Institutionfigfor Young_ Adults, Federal Correctional
Institution, Tallahasse, Fla., 1977.

 

Beall, Herbert S. Panton, James H., "Use of the Minnesota
Mutiphasic Personality Inventory as an Index to 'Escapism,'"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol.. 12, No.4, Oct., 1956.

 

Bowken, Kee H., Prison Victimization, Elseview North
Holland, lnc., New York, 1980.

 

"CAC Reference Manual," Michigan Department of Corrections,
Escape/Walkaway Statistics, 1976-78.

124

Cahman, John A”, Personality Variables Associated with

 

 

Narcotic Addiction as Mea.su_r_ed by MM'P'T, Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1974 (AHG), Vol. 35 (Z-b). p.1039.

 

Galdwell, M.G., "Personality Trends in the Youthful Male
Offender," Journal of criminal Law, Criminology and Police

 

Science, 1959, 45: p.405-406.

Carroll, J.L. and G.B. Fuhler, An MMPI Comarison of Three
Groups of Criminals, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27:
240-242, 1971.

Cavior, H.E., Escapes From the Robert Fngenner Youth
Center: 1969 to 1973. Kennefh Youth Center Research Office,
1974.

 

 

Clark, James Randolph, "Characteristics of Convicted
Offenders as Measured with the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory," Unpublished Dissertation, University
of Arizona, 1977.

Clark, Jerry'II., "The Relationship Between MMPI Scores and
Psychiatric Classification of Army General Prisoners,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 7, 1952.

 

Clear, Todd R., “A Model for Supervising the Offender in the
Community," unpublished manuscript, 1978, p. 124.

Cloward, Richard, "Social Control in Prison," in Theoretical
Studies in Social Organization of the Prison, 1960.

 

 

Cochrane, Nelson R., "Escapees...and Their Control - A Brief
Study of Escape Data,“ Prison World, Vol. 10, No. 3, I948.

 

Cowles, Ernest L., "Race and Correctional Institution
Escapee Behavior: An Exploratory Study," Unpublished Paper
presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Science, 1982. ~

Deiker, Thomas E., "A Cross-Validation of MMPI Scales of
Aggression on Male Criminal Criterion Groups," Journal of

 

Consulting_ and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 2,
(196-202), 1974.

 

Dobbins, D.A., Stockwell, F.E., and Loving, W.S.,
"Individual and Social Correlation of Prison Escapees,"
Journal of ConsultngPsychology, Vol. 24, No. 1, I960.

 

Edwards, .kflu1, "Rehabilitation Potential in Prison Inmates
as Measured by the MMPI," Journal of Criminal Law,

 

Criminology and Police Science, 1973, 54, 182.

 

125

Elion, V.H. and E.I. Megargee, Validations of the MMPI PD
Scale Among Black Males, Journgl_of Consglting and Clinical
Psychology, 43: 166-172, 1975.

 

Ferracute, Franco, Siomon Dinitz and Aldo Piperno, "Mental
Deterioraticnl ha Prison," Journal of the Office of Studies
and Research of the General Administration of the
Institution of Crime and Prevention, Italy, 1978.

 

 

 

Gearing, M.C. "The MMPI as a Primary Differentiator and
Predictor of Behavior in Prison: A Methodological Critique
and Review of the Recent Literature," Psychologigal
Bulletin, 1979, Vol. 85, No.5.

 

Goffman, Erving, Asylums, Doubleday 6 Co., Garden City,
1951.

Hathaway, S.R. and E.D. Monochesl, cited by J.N. Butcher
(ed) MMPI Research Development and Clinicallfigflications,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Haynes, Fred E., The American Prison System, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, lnc., New York and London, 1936.

Hazelbrigg, Lawrence, Prison Within Society, Doubleday and
Company, lnc., Garden City,New York, 1968.

 

Hildebrand, Richard J., “The Anatomy of Escape," Federal
Probation, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1, March, 1969.

 

Holt, Norman, Escape From Custody, Research Report No., 52,
California Department of Corrections, Sacramento,
California, May 1974.

 

Joesting, J.N., Joner and R. Joesting, “Male and Female
Prison lnmates' Differences on MMPI Scales and Revised Beta
10" Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 471-474.

 

Johnson, William H., Escape From Custody, Research Report
No. 52, California Department of Corrections, Sacramento,
California, May, 1974.

 

Joesting, J.N., Joner and R. Joesting, "Male and Female
Prison lnmates' Differences on MMPI Scales and Revised Beta
IQ" Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 471-474.

 

Johnson, William H., Escppe Study, unpublished manuscript,
1942.

 

Johnston, E., "The Use of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI) in the Predicticn3<3f Reforma-
tory Rule Infractions," Iowa State Men's Reformatory, I965.

126

Kerlinger, Fred and Elazur Pedhazur, Mpltiple Regression in
gghavior Research, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, lnc., New
York, 1973.

 

 

Kingsly, L. "MMPI Profiles of Psychopaths and Prisoners,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1976 (Oct.), Vol. 32(4),
776-780.

 

Kundee, Joseph T. and Anderson, Wayne P., "Normalizing the
MMPI," Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1976 (Oct.) 32(4),
776-780.

Lanyon, Richard I., A Handbook of MMPI Group Profiles,
University of Minnesota Press, 1968.

Larson, Donna, CACI Reference Manual: Escape/Walkaway
Experience, Michigan Department of Corrections, 1976-78.

 

LeUnes A. and L.B. Christensen, Reliability of Inmate Test
Results, Correctional Psychologjst, 1970, Vol. 4, pp. 85-93.

 

Levine, Stanley, "Runaways and Research in the Training
School," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 8, No. I, 1962.

Light, Gail R. (ed), Dimensions: A Report of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, Michigan Department of
Corrections, 1977.

 

 

Lindesmith, A.R. and H.W. Durham, "Some Principles of
Criminal Typology," Social Forces, P. 307-314, 1941.

 

Loving, U.S., Stockwell, E., Dobbins, D.A., PhD, "Factors
.Associated with Escape Behavior of Prison Inmates," Federal
Probation, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, Sept., 1959.

 

McCreary, Charles, Padilla,Eligio, "MMPI Differences Among
Black Mexican American, and white Male Offenders," Journal
of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 33, No.1, January 1977.

 

McCrevy, C.P. and E. Padilla, NWIPI Differences Among Black,
Mexican American and White Male Offenders," Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33, I71-172.

McKelney, Blake, American Prison: A Study in American Social
History Prior to 1915, The University of Chicagp Presgy
Chicago, III., 1936.

 

 

, American Prisoner: A History of Good
Intentions, Patterson Smith, Montclair, N.J., 1977.

127

McMahon, R., MMPI Data on Youthful Offenders, Raleigh, N.C.,
unpublished, 1970.

Megargee, Edwin I., "Directions for Future Research,"
Criminal Justice and Behavior, June, 1977.

 

Meyer, J. and E.I. Meg_argeeI Development of an MVIPI Based
Typology of Youthful Offenders, Federal Correctional
Institutions Research Reports, Vol. 4, p.2.

 

Miller, Gregory A., The Predictive Efficiency of Certah1
Factors in Selecting Prisoners {or Trusty Status, Un-
pnflalished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1955, p.
18.

 

Moore, R.A., MMPI Scale for Measuring Psyggppathy Amopg
Prison Inmates, Marshall University, Master's Thesis, 1966.

 

 

Morgan, David I., "Individual and Situations Factors Related
to Prison Escape,” American Journal of Corrections, Vol. 29,
No. 2, I967.

 

Morrow, William R., "Escapes of Psychiatric Offenders," The
Journal of Criminal Lawy CriminologyPol ice Sciences, Vol.
60, No. 4, I969.

 

Orland, Leonard, Prisons: Houses of Darkness, The Free
Press, New York, 1975.

 

Panton, James H., "Predicting Prison Adjustment with the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory," Journal of
Clinical Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1958.

Panton, J.H., The Response of Prison Inmates to MMPI
Subscales, Corrective Psychiatry 6Journal of Social Theory,
Vol. 5, pp. 233-237, 1959. '

 

 

Panton, James H., "MMPI Code Configurations as Related to
Measures of Intelligence Among a State Prison Population,"
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 51 (403-407), 1960.

 

Panton, J.H., Atlas of Inmate MMPI Profile and Control,
Raleigh, N.C., Department of Social Rehabilitation, 1973.

 

Panton, J.H., "Inmate Personality Differences Related to
Recidinism, Age and Race as Measured by the MMPI," Journal
of Correctional Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 28-35, 1959.

Panton, James H., "Significant Increase in MMPI MF Scores
within a State Prison Population,“ Journal of Clinical
Psychology, July, 1976, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 604-606.

 

128

Panton, J.H., "Personality Difference Between Male and
Female Prison Inmates Measured by the MMPI," Criminal
Jusglgg‘gnd Behavior, 1974.

 

Panton, James H., "Characteristics Associated with
Escapism," North Carolina Department of Corrections,
updated.

Panton, J.H., "MMPI Profiles Configurations Among Crime
Classification Groups,“ Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1958, 14, 305-308.

 

Panton, James H., "Predictors Prison Adjustment with the
MMPI," Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14: 308-312, 1958.

 

Pettigrew, C. Gary, G. Edward Shaffer, Dan W. Edwards and
David Blouin, "MMPI Predictions of Inmate Adjustment of
Community Placement," unpublished paper presented at the
Society of Police and Criminal PsychologY. I981.

Pigeon, H.D., Principles and Methods in Dealin_g with
(foenders, State College, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Valley
Publishers. 1949.

 

 

Reid, Sue Titus, The Correctional System: An Introduction,
Holt, Rinehart, and Winson, New York, 1981.

 

Rosenblatt, A.I. and D.A. Pritchard, "Moderators of Racial.
Differences on the MMPI," Journal of Consultipgand Clinical
Psychology, 1978, 46, 1572-1573.

 

 

Schermer, Rodney L, "From Lovercamp to a Prisoner's Right to
Escape: An Inescapable Conclusion?" Buffalo Law Review, Vol
26 (413-434), Spring, 1977.

Scott, Norman A., Michael K. Mount, Patricia S. Duffy, "MMPI
and Demographic Correlates and Predictors of Female Prison
Escape," Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 3,
Sept., 1977.

Shupe, Donald R., Paul F. Bramwell, "Prediction of Escape
from MMPI Data," Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 19,
No. 2, April, 1967.

 

Simon, "Statistical Methods of Making Prediction Instru-
ments," Journal of Crime and Delingpency, Vol. 9, Jan.,
1972, NO. 1, pp. “6-530 ‘

 

Sines, J.O., "Acturnal Methods in Personality Assessment,"
“1 B. Maher (ed) Progress in Experimental Personaliyy
Research, New York Academic Press, 1966, pp. 119-147.

 

129

Sommer, Fl.land H. Osmond, "Symptoms of Institutional Care,"
Social Problems from Ferranti, Dinitz and Peperno, Mental
Deterioration in Prison.

 

Sykes, Gresham and Sheldon Messinger, "The Inmate Social
System," in Richard Cloward's Theoretical Studies in Social
Organizgtion of the Prison, John Wiley 6 Sons, lnc., New
York, 1960.

 

Stanton, J.M., "The Use of the I‘MPI to Determine the Group
Personality Profile of State Prison Inmates and the Relation
of Selected Aspects of Known Antisocial Behavior to Profile
Components," Fordham University, Doctorate Dissertation,
I955.

Steininger, Edward Henry, "Changes in the MMPI Profiles of
First Prison Offenders During Their First Year of
Imprisonment," Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1957.

Steuber, Harry B., "The Prediction of Academic Achievement
with the MMPI and IPI in a Correctional Institution,"
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975 (June), Vol. 35
(12-3, pt 1). p. 6117.

Stone William E., "Factors Related to Escape Prediction,"
unpublished dissertation, Sam Houston State University,
1975.

Sykes, Gresham M., The Spciety of Cgptiveg; A study of
Maximum Security Prisons, Princeton University Press, 1971.

 

Tannenbaum, Frank, Wall Shadows: A study of American
Prisons, C.P. Putnam 6 Sons, New York and London, 1922.

Wheeler, C.A. and E.I. Megargee, Normative Data for 678
Federal Youthful Offenders on 79 MMPI Scales, Federal
Correctional Institution Research Reports, 1970, Vol. 2, p.
4.

Wurt, R.D. and P.F. Briggs, "Personality and Environmental
Factors in the Development of Delinquency," Psychological
Monographs, 73:485, 1959.

 

130

APPENDIX A

RESEARCH FINDINGS OF DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERIZATIONS AND ESCAPE BEHAVIOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--ml. 1. o c c s c ---l-..s e Eli-cl Ill-lmll: m. -- 1...- ,- --.-----mss?n._-_._-a -3- 4.;

m m2 m7. o m. o lo my. I m». Elli-11ml!- 11411-101214333922333343

: - mail .1171. m7. x m. o o m. A1 !- 7. 11... A o. I - smwmmammw .3. i. .5...
-- 2 m2 m2 .4 .4 m. o a .1; 1.7411111111711111. ... l- -- m - 1-1-- - Ask-Lum- we:
2 2.. m m. o o- c m. 1. _WA 3.. m .11...» -- -----lrl_.n..._:aam... .332...

- -ml x m. z o o o x 11111.. mun-l c: . ml -l--A-.- {- mama-.253 32733
m. x. m. x o r c o o -. m -ll--.l.-:-.l.l mil-IPA- -- -- , 33$ .33...

-- m. m. m. x o m. o 2.. 1m o idilll-All- l - 23.3.2- 24.3.3
- fol y. x o .x. o y. o 11ml 0 lo -.ml... 1---. T3123”... n. A.J.-La
:i m 6.2 x o x o m. 6.2 mil m. c m. -1--- “immune-53w
m.- o o o m. o z c tw- m. o c l... : 11-na.._:-mma.w4_...._.
----lo 9 o o o o S y. x c o o ill-l 3:35-35 .4...
2-171. m2 o o wal- c .. .. m7. .4 c c lli-lll win-cm 73.2.-
l-o. o o o o o mz 2 m7. z m. x ---.l 1.1!: ,mm: -23.:

- 1-1 111 Lowest: . l-l. ...... -

- in m: o o mz o x x v.2 x c c .:._
-. -o m2 m2 mz 6.2 o y. z m... c o1 o 333:1
m. r. m. o mz x o m: o . o o o ill-l--- -- . -- .44...-

A x y. y. .4 y. 2,. m. y. A- 1A-..-lllAl-l--l -- new.
iHmm- o: 83$ 23 3 man So cm 2: cc .Amawl-l .3---- .l- I--- -- 1mm 3.2....”

s? c: 23: cm .5323: $22 . an l 2: .1 .11 E:- -l---l-- - .
50—4261 EC-cfmx flm..Uum: fire-_oufiz $03036: nthCOU 5053a:— UQSUUGZ ‘C..Uu@2 9:02 0:57. 5:15.31 :32... 7...: .
one. - l--. .- 2.. -
men. men. sam_ see. ace. see. Ace. ne_ccca mes_ new. mes.
modzsu 0:0am ado: oxcmm 3oLmoz Lo_>mu :oucsm cmucoz __mzxcoum ozmcsuou comma; :3m::cn s__n_xc_c<z/:.
xc_>oa

mou>msma mamomu mama:— uo mouumqmmuumumfw ejacumoau: 2....Jmum2m7n n A
acnuacacmam as: u m:

:zocxsz Lo mum:.u:_ as: u c

APPENDIX B

DATA CO) I NC FORM

Variable Index

 

l

1’»)

£\

(Sources of

Escape Study Coding Manual

Variable and Instructions

Subject;s 1.0.

(The letter at the beginning
of the ID number is the term

in prison A-l, B-Z. C=3. 0-4.

E-S. etc.)

Subject's status
1 - escapes
2 - non-escapes

R

1. White
2. Black
3. Chicano
4 Other

Age (at time of escape)
1 17 to 21
2. 22 to 26
3. 27 to 31
4. 32 to 36

5 37 or older

Birthplace

1 - In State

2 - Out of state
3 - Foreign '

Marital Status
1 - Single. never married
2 - Married
3 - Divorced

Separated

Widowed
4 - Remarried
Number of dependents
(Note 0 is a valid code)
0 to 8

Deck Column

 

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2.
(16)
3.
(1'77.
4.
5.
6.
(207
7.
m
3.
7m

Variables 1 to 8 Basic Information Sheet)

132

Variable

Index

 

o

10

11

14

15

16

17

Variable

and Instructions

 

Religion

U‘li-‘LJIJr—

Known

l
2 -
3

Known

1
2
3

Known
l -
2 -
3 -

(Source of 9 to
PSI or R A CC reoort)

(Source 15 to

- Protestant
- Catholic

- Muslim
Other

- Other

History of Mental Illness
yes

no

no information

Alcohol Abuse
yes
no
no information

Drug Abuse
yes
no
no information
(PSI)
11 Presentence Report/Basic

Correctional History)

Commitments to Juvenile
Facilities

Commitments to Adult Facilities

Total

Commitments

Add 13 and 14

Offense Committed
1. Violence and Assaultive
2. Non-assaultive

Juvenile Probation

1-

'7 -

Au 1t

and Arrest
yes

1'10

Probation

one

'u

1. none

7

3. more than one

133

Deck Column

 

9.

(5.25
10.

(2'47
11.

(2'57
12.

(265
Information.
13.

127) (285
14.

(297 (307
15.

(31) (325
16.
17.

1345
18.

135)

Variable Index

 

19

Variable and Instructions Deck Column

 

Did Subject Escape Alone 19.

l - alone (365
2 - with another inmate(s)

3 - never escaped

Prior Escapes 20.

l - no prior escape (377
2 - one prior escape

3 - more than one prior escape

a never escaped

Source Staff Assessment - Classification Review

21

[Q
[Q

23

Ability to Handle Assignments 21.

1 - lack ability 2335
2 - has ability. lacks interests

3 - Average

4 - above average

Ix)
IQ

Current Work/Study Habits .
l - poor . 1395
2 - fair

3 - good

a - excellent

Adjustment with Staff 23.

l - no adjusting ZZUS
2 - marginal

3 - average

a above average

Adjustment with Inmates 3A.

- not adjusting 7317
- marginal

- average '

- above average

Donor-

Custodial Record 23.

l - major problem 3525
2 - marginal problem

3 - average

a - above average. no problem

Family Contact/Correspondence 36.

l - none 133;
2 - limited

3 - regular

13“

Variable Index

 

27

28

30

31

33

34

Variable and Instructions

Overall Adjustment as Rated 27.
by Counselor

- not adjusting

- unsettled or marginal

- average

- above average

fiqu-

Security Level Recommended 28.
by R 8 CC

- minimum

- medium

- close

- maximum

éwN—

Escape From 29.
l - Camp

- Farm

- Furlough

- Cell Block (Minimum)

Cell Block (Medium)

- Cell Block (Maximum)

- Never Escaped

- Other (Hospital)

mummbuN
I

Minimum Sentence in Years 30.

Size of community/city in which 31.
subject last resided prior to
current term of incarceration.
less than 10.000
10,001 to 50.000
50.001 to 100,000
100,001 to 250.000
- 250.001 to 500,000

6 - 500,001 or more
(If you are not sure. write the
name on the line)

U'Iwav—
I

 

Maximum Sentence in Years 33.
Parole Violations 34.
l - None

2 - One

3 - More than one

I

4 - No information

135

Deck Column

A
§
0‘

v

A
b
\J
V
A
fi
m
V

A

3‘
\O
V

A
U1
3
V
A
U‘
y—o
v

Variable Index Variable and instructions Deck Column

 

 

35 Subject raised by: 35.
l - both parents (53)

- mother only

- father only

- other

- no information

VIwa

36 Birth Order 36.
l - first child (54)

- second child

- third child

- fourth child

fifth child

- sixth child

- seventh child

NO‘U‘“WN
l

37 Present Status of Inmate 37.

- None (55)
- To - 1 year

- 1-3 years

3-5 years

- 5-10 years

- Over 10 years

O‘mt‘wlve-
I

38 The ? Scale 38.
(If raw score - 30 disregard
total test)

A
m
0"
v
A
Ln
\5
v

39 The L Scale
(15 items and a raw score 39.
is suggestive of rigidity)

-\
U1
x
v
A
U‘
VD
V

40 The F Scale (64 items) 40.

A
0“
O
V
A
0‘
g—o
V

61 The K Scale (30 items) . 41.

l
l

p‘
0‘
N

v

A
0‘
w
V

42 Scale 1 (H5) (33 items) 52.

A
0‘
b

V

A
0‘
U1

V

53 Scale 2 (D) (60 items) Q3.

54 Scale 3 (Hy) (60 items) 56.

45 Scale 4 (Pd) (50 items) 55.

46 Scale 5 (Mf) (60 items) 46.

136

Variable Index

 

SO

51

52

S3

54

SS

56

57

$8

59

60

61

62

Subject 1 D

Variable and Instructions

 

Scale 6 (Pa) (40 items)

Scale 7 (Pt) (48 items)

Scale 8 (78 items)

Paragraph Meaning from SAT

Math Computation

Math Application

A.C.R. (Average Grade Rating)

Intelligence (WAIS)

Month of first arrival at SPSM

Year of first arrival at SPSM

Month of Escape

Year of Escape

Month inmate was transferred to

Camp or Minimum/Medium Security

Year inmate was transferred to
Camp or Minimum/Medium Security

Time served in reduced Custody
before escape

Present status of inmate
l - Discharged
2 - On parole

3 - In SPSM

4 - In another Institution
5 - At large

6 - Deceased

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deck Column
47.

(74) (75)
48.

(76) (77)
49. .________.

(78) (79)
Card #2
50.

(16) (17) (18)
51.

(19) (20) (21)
52.

(22) (23) (24)
S3.

(25) (26) (27)
34. _________ ____

(28) (29) (30)
SS.

(31) (32) (33)
$6.

(34) (35) (36)
S7.

(37) (38) (39)
58.

(40) (41) (42)
S9.

(43) (44) (45)
60.

(46) (47) (47)
61.

(48) (49) (50)
62. _____ ____ ____

(SI) (52) (S3)

APPENDIX C

PROFILE AND CASE SUMMARY OF ESCAPE
AND NON-ESCAPE GROUPS FOR THE MMPI

.23 2:35.20 3:56:33 Hana—5:3 34030:

99.3 a. 20:51:: can r Ova-3.0% 3n§=7<

«none... .133... 111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32:. can Once 9555:

PHI-:- .1 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cancun—:0: 1-1:. Us... 42:2. - 1
- I H O O . fl . C C ‘4 il .1." o
401.. . _. w R 2.. v8 n4 I. «d. a! r: we 7 ._n ”5.x In. 3.. m. - . ,3. a .0.
1.81 11-----Uus .11 -5 M93030: .. .1--11 >00 -1.
:1 .
. . . a." . o
5.. g —.m . :1 .. - _. 30:3. 99.:- 51223 cm
. a . . . .. ,7
. 31 f... 31
:ol . 1.3
l a- a- 238
.4. I 31 . ‘1 I .3
7| . .61 .
.2.1 81 ”pl 1 J.
a- 3..
21 1
er a :1 31 31 u .0»
8|
«.1. . .l 3 13.5... s..-
.51 81 . a . . L
I. . I . .. 1 . I I _. L L
2. . .51 .. II 3. 2| ..1 a, ... 2 ~ .
I I . p 1 no .0 . n
a. _. _ .
r _. .._
s : L ,
= s a. .
2 a ._ ,
- ._ a Q
.. .. g .—
_
v. .4 . .
.o .u a .
_o I o a
.. . . s
.o 0 o c
. mmnmom 95.5 .10
“a n o _
Z . . ..
. .. . . . zoanmwnmom 33c: .1.
. . n . . ~
4 .’l w! . u ..
o n. 1 “ . r1 '1 1.0 .
5| .
a a .1 r1 1 .n s . ~
I an :1 .ul 2 1 u 3 . s . _
I . . _ a
a.- 1 01' I l I l.I|I-5 a a a _
. .ol ,1. . . .
(I q... 31
u. I I mm
as s . . .
)1 I . ~ ~ _
I . In. . s a
a _ . n
1 _ ~ _ n
1111131 - -.: 1 to 1.1m p.3
- . q p 2. : r1. .: I .3. s. I. 7.... T..." .. . .N... m .2?
- I d o D 9 4 I O 6
30803311 1 11 111 11 11 1 1 11
so! moo; 1:: I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
f \ 04.13:. 3; 7< .31. ”3:307:13. 1.27.134:
): .37...." 3.2.2.1.. in a. :3. z. :1. :. :50. a... 1.: g
1 :3 v3 winnio. iv: .. 31:. A; 13. 3.: 2.2,... 2. .1} z .. :. _ - meSD.C-Q 00.0

P5...“— 5 C m >

0V9.“

138

APPENDIX D

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION SCORES
FOR DEMOGRAPHIC AND MMPI VARIABLES

Mean Difference of Psychological Factor

 

 

 

 

Group Means Standard Deviations
Scale Escapees Non-escapees Escapees Non-escapees
(N2200) (N2100) (N=200) (N-lOO)
Hs Scale (1) 13.61 10.96 4.96 8.71
D Scale (2) 21.50 21.63 5.20 4.55
HY Scale (3) 20.82 21.27 4.93 7.06
PdScale (4) 28.30 25.87 5.02 8.33
MP Scale (5). 24.79 23.83 5.28 5.10
Pa Scale (6) 11.88 12.32 4.52 6.31
Pt Scale (7) 27.66 21.00 7.28 9.18
Sc Scale (8) 29.57 21.11 9.40 9.18
Ma Scale (9) 23.46 21.66 4.52 4.99
Si Scale (0) 25.47 27.69 8.65 7.93
Intelligence Quotion
Beta 1 Q 99.21 99.60 14.25 12.33
Average Grade Rating
A G R 7.31 7.41 2.31 2.69
Age 30.01 30.19 6.84 8.95

 

139

Mean Differences of Criminal Factors

 

 

 

 

Group Means Standard Deviations
Variable
Escapees Non-escapees Escapees Non-escapees
(200) (100) (200) '100)

Adult Commitments 3.58 2.69 2.29 2.16
Juvenile Commitments .55 .29 1.10 .59
Total Commitments 4.00 2.97 2.39 2.25
Juvenile Probation 1.42 1.61 .50 .51
Adult Probation 1.73 1.67 .75 .80
Minimum Sentence 5.22 5.68 8.13 12.55
Maximum Sentence 11.44 12.01 9.22 13.40
Time Served 3.17 2.93 1.33 1.32
Prison Terms 2.18 1.52 1.11 .99

 

1110

APPENDIX E

CORRELATION MATRIXES FOR
DEMOGRAPHIC AND MMPI VARIABLES

ransom

an.mo: émqa

7.0.5.“

._:,.m::m
rCEE_n3m:n

i/»_._— n

hoes—namzn

‘25” 2..

:qamsmm

2.3.5:;

maznwznm

2.1.

:_<. cw mot.
r__=;.w_. rs.
:n:«1;n:~u
vu:»_»..::.nmnn
>L:_n fincczn_::
_.:.

Zia—5:5 meannznm
._:<m=:m
vacuum—o:

Anew >mm
>ehcmnaosn manna
wgbzmnamnn
_samnmm
hemmed—mp xenon;
nozazznnw m_~m
1m5~_%

ya“:

mm<m«.nw on nnpem
amam mmwcma a:
vnpmo:

z.m. m_:m_m

z.m. zone—ma
mmnmcm mona
mmnmcm asap
1ms_~< nosnmnn
203m

moan—w nonnmnn
F.5—nma

munmcm

_ . .s..».
.woo»
.cwm

.u_bs

.Owo
1.Cw~
1.005

1._w~
.Ouw
1.__o

1.oom

.0.—
.OGN
1.00m
.osu

.oom
1.0oo

.c»»
1.>-

._o_»

.NNV»

mnpmo:
#mn:

_.:::
1.2;:

1.Oc~
.omm
.33»
....c
1.O¢m

1._w~s
.~\o»
.__o

.ccw
1.__o
.0.—
.om~
.Oau
.opw

.cow
.amo
.ous
.bwws
._o_s

-.~sss

.-us

xmnm

_.030

1.00»

._o_

._bo»

1._©u

.~_m»

.Omc
1._b_u
.cme
.wau

1._oo

1.omo
1.ou~
.ouu

.o_m
.o_:
1.bu~»
1.0mo
.uwo»
.omo

1.O_w

1.u_o»
.coo
._u_s
.Omu

._bu»

1._mu»

;:<m:._m

fi033_n§m:n

_.Doo

.D_~

.379

I
o
3
G
A
‘1

11
3o.—
swvo
mo

._9_»

.__m
1._-
1.o-

._om»

._um»

1._oo

ya:— n 72.0 0..
ficaapnsman Sammzmm
7333
1._w_» _.333
1.3uu .~.:»
.__1 1.3?u
.coo .:_o
1...: ._uos
.ucc; 1.6a.
.o~_ . 1.oo~
1.Cuw .w_~»
1.:c~ 1.3om
.wO. .oew
1.33» 1.ouu
1.3.x .:x~
1.339 1.3:.
1..@us .ucu»
.Dwm 1._=o
.cwu 1.:uu
._mus 1.mn©»
.b_c» 1.3?—
1._~w» .3~_
.33- .3m.
1.3oo 1.wnw»
._u~s .cum
1.3.» 1._:m
1.00w ._a~s

Z.:.3:§
moanmanm

.33:

...~a

._:m
._~_
.3“—
.3“—
.wcos

.ccw
.Dmo
.:Ju

.3u.
..mw»
._wsn
.awb
.o_u
. mam...

.osu
.:~o
.3.”
._m~s
.osN

._Ow

._-»

z.m.
:_<0qnm;

_.333

._o_»
.am;
.30w
.2)“
.::u

11
’33
u—
ON

I
o
\O
—
A
a
u -.
a.

.oou

2:37am 0‘
:momsamanm

_.:::
.:rr
.21:

1.27.
.230

._wus

.uso»
1.2“»

.cc:
1.cw.
1.3x;

1 .3w..
-.,w.i
.pnwa

1.:w7
.:u_

1.3:»

\
.3.....

1111

mantra

Tunes: _mqs

xmnn

L:<m:»_m
pxzazmnem:n

.xL..—n

Fx22=_nam:p

~«tn on

:mnmsmm

:~:.E:§

meznnzem

z.m.

:m4. an mot.
2:?7nn ca
:mtmaamsnm
«man—w noanpnn
yes—n maoamnpo:
..z.

mehaes mmsnmsnm
_ccmap—m
vnocmnpo:

ancm ymm
>abzmnam=n manna
>ebzmnamsn
_samnmm
czmnoa_m— xenon;
fioaacannz m—wm
1u2_~w

max.

macaw—n4 cu fin—am
_asm mmq<me »:
anamc:

z.m. m_:m_m

z.m. :mnn_me
mmnmsm wens
mmnmom neat
moan—z nosnmnn
253m

mus—_w moznmnn
_»E—nma

mu~.__.— _ /.
hasnmen

..coc
.o_u
1._ov»
...u

.ooo
1.3.“.~
..mo»

._mcx
..9m;
.2w.
...wr
..aw w
.A.co

.c::
._:c
.3m»
1._2s
1.a:.w

.~_.w»

.cuas

>a:_n
mascunnc: .:
..ooo
1.cum ..oco
1.ooo 1.ouo
1.0mm 1..30
.Omw . ._Ow
..uos .Owo
. _~:mh 1...u~
..mc» .3:9
.33» 1._o:s
..c»» 1.3».
1.:3w .awOw
..mrs .aww
.33: . .33
1.3:” 1.:~c
1.3.m .owm
._ _u ...m»
1.39m .aw:
..o»» ..s:»
.:~e 1._ocs

29x.§:a
wasnosno

..330

1.0a@
.aum
.oum

.3»;
..Nw»
.SSL
.2pm
.:_N
1.o~.s

1.33»

.o_:
1.3mw
1._oo
1.33m

1.300

...w

;:<m3._m qqzm
mucosa—o: yum
_.oc:
.Dwm ..333
._0us .3wp
..uu .:up
..w: stp
1..:.u ...—3
1.2V. .3.»
1.3V. 1.:wa
1.39m 1._wm
1.”:cs ..mws
1.39. .wmms
.:oc ..mms
.:m~ .wams
1.3». 1.2.»
1...VM ...$~
.3w. 1._3m

pa.:mnam:n
mamas

_.333

. “7‘2...

.qus
1.2:»
1.2:»

.:a~
1..dw.u

1...mu
1.3»:
..fuo
.33?
1.3mm

1._~b»

wad:mnem:n
_samnom

_.:::
.mma»
.am:

1.:®;
.321

1 ....»

1.:up
1.:V_
...?N
.::~
1.:um

I.—ww1....

.39...

1112

n:mnoa.c. ncaac:.n<
zanoqg m_~m

~11... Lin

an.mo: #mqa

xuna

.zdmap_m

hoaapnsmzn

fizz—n

noaapnzmsn

awvm on

3nmmsmm

2._.—==.a

mmznmznm

2.3.

3.4, Ca was.

2:33wn cm

:mcngmnnm

mm?..% cannons

33:.» anocmnno:

..3.

:mz.§:a mmanmzcm

3.20:— —m

vaccmn_o=

aqcm 33m

33.:mnaman mama.

wg3cmnam=n

.samnmm

summon—m. zma0n3 ..333

305.313. m»; 1.333 ..333
amen—z .333 .333
>33 1.3»3 1..u~»
mn<mn.nz on 3n.sm 1..33 1...u
..?m mmncmg .:

wq.mc: 1.333 1.3.3
2.3. m»:m.m 1..3~ ..33»
2.3. Zunn.m; .3uw .333
mmnmtm man; .33“ 1.333
mmcmum nmac 1.3m3 1.333
mms_.< 303nmnn

20.5 1. N33... 1.333
«map—z noznmnn

fins—n03 .~3_n .33w

393—.4

..333
1.333
....

..333
1.3.3
1.33.

.3w3
1.3.3

.3.»

1.3-

>33

..333
.3N3

.333
.3w3
1.3.3
1.353
.333

.333

1.333

n«.am

..333

.333
.333
1.33~
..3~
.333

.333

1._33

..am mmn<m3
.3 1«.m::

..333
1.333
1.3-
1.33.

.333

.3~3

1.333

3.3.
m.:m.~

..333
1.333»
.333

1.333

.3.3

1.33~

2.3.
zmqq.ma

..333
1.333
.333
.33»

.353

1113

mmomsm mmnmcm.

mane nae?

"Whmtm

vqmmo: émna

zmnm

3:<m:..m

noaannsmsn

>3:—n

coaa.nam:n

qwsm 0m

cnmmzmm

2.3»Esa

3mznmann

2.3.

:.<. 0n 3mc.

”:560n on

:mtmzamznm

«map—w CGSHmnn

>L:_n weocmnhc:

..3.

:mxuaca 303n~3cm

3:<m=~—m

anocmnuos

anew wwm

3;.cmnaman manna
>33cmnam=n

_:Smnmm

ncmnoa»m_ xmnona
noaezsunz 33~m

MLB_—%

33:

3m<mnunw ca 3n.3m

3.3m 3mn<ma —:

3n.mo=

2.3. 3.33.0

2.3. 2mnn.ma

mmnmzm none ..333
mmnmvm nmac 1.3.3» ..333
mm3»—< Gasman»

20:0 .333 .3b3
mm3._z noanmnn

F.E.nmg 1.333 1.3~3

mush—n
moanmnn
203m

..333

.333»

use—.4
hosnmnn
3.3.nm;

..333

1’44