‘ :v...... .' ..v nun... (any. a ..». : 'n.onc"tl‘1\- u 9-! Illu‘IyHlu... ...LI gévu. “7..., . .... 7r: ...». a... s an...» J lllllllllllllll"Ill“!llll'lllWillllllllllllllllllll THESIS 301420 1598 (lfiiéb This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF "HATE REASONS FOR ATTEIDIIC EDUCATIONAL 0R VOCATIONAL PRISM PROGRAMS presented by ABIGAIL A. CALLEJAS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MASTER OF SCIENCE degree in CRIMINAL JUSTICE (JO Major p ofessor I, Date September 29, 1995 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution w__—_.~_F_ __._ LIBRARY 5 Michigan State! University i PLACE II RETURN BOX to romovo this checkout from your rooord. TO AVOID FINES rotum on or Moro dot. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE "fi‘i’ 01 ZCCFK /_ MSU loAn Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity lnotituion A STUDY OF INMATE REASONS TO ATTEND EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL PRISON PROGRAMS BY Abigafl A. Callejas A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Criminal Justice 1995 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF INMATE REASONS TO ATTEND EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL PRISON PROGRAMS BY Abigail A. Callejas The purpose of this study is to explore and describe inmates reason(s) for attending educational or vocational prison programs. More specifically, this study will identify the reason(s) why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs, and compare the differences and similarities between these two groups. These group differences and similarities will be examined as follows: 1. By their reason(s) for attending educational or vocational prison programs. 2. By the characteristics between the groups. A survey design method will be used on those inmates attending educational or vocational prison programs at Jackson minimum prison facility. A questionnaire will be used to collect the data. The expected results of this study are to assist in improving the educational or vocational prison programs and their effectiveness and efficiency. Copyright by ABIGAIL A. CALLEJAS 1995 To My best friends Kevin Jack & Daniel iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Although completion of this thesis was long over due, there are several people with their encouragement and support made this possible. The first person I would like to extend appreciation with aplomb for his support and guidance goes to Professor Vincient Hoffman, chairman of my thesis committee. Next, I would like to extend my deepest thanks to Professor John Schweitzer for his guidance and knowledge in statistical analysis. Because without his assistance my statistical chapter would still be in the development process. Finally, I would like to extend my thanks to Professor Homer Hawkins for his support in the final stages of the completion of my thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE PAGE ............................................ viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH .......... 1 Problem Statement .................................... 1 Purpose of the Study .................................. 3 Need for the Study .................................... 4 Research Questions ................................... 5 Definition of Terms ................................... 6 Overview of the Study ...................................... 6 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ....................... 8 Theoretical Framework ................................ 8 Previous Research Efforts .............................. 12 Limitations of Previous Research ............................. 21 Summary ................................................ 22 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................. 24 Purpose of Study ..................................... 24 Research Design ...................................... 24 Study Setting ........................................ 25 Population and Sample ................................ 2 5 Sampling Method ..................................... 25 Hypothesis .......................................... 26 Variables ............................................ 27 Independent Variable ............................. 2 7 Dependent Variable .............................. 28 Operational Definitions ................................ 28 Measurement Instrument ............................... 30 Construction of Questionnaire ..................... 30 Pretest ........................................ 30 Questionnaire Reliability .......................... 30 Anonymity and Confidentiality ..................... 3 1 Data Collection Procedure .............................. 32 Data Analysis Procedures .............................. 32 CHAPTER IV RESULTS ................................. 33 Hypothesis #1 ....................................... 33 Hypothesis #2, 3, 5, 7 ................................. 37 Hypothesis #2, 3, S, 7 ................................. 40 Hypothesis #4, 6 ..................................... 42 Hypothesis #4, 6 ..................................... 44 Summary ................................................ 46 Vi CHAPTER V DISCUSSION .............................. 48 Purpose of the Study .................................. 48 Similarities/Differences of Inmates' Reasons ............... 49 Demographic Characteristics ............................ 51 Conclusions .............................................. 55 Limitations of the Study .................................... 56 Recommendations for Future Research ......................... 57 Appendices .............................................. 59 Appendix A Consent Form and Questionnaire ......... 59 Appendix B Self-actualization Interests & Personal Gain Interests ............................. 63 Bibliography ............................................. 64 TABLE 1 TABLE 1.1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE PAGE Inmates Reasons for Attending Educational or Vocational Programs by Type of Group ........... 33 Spearman's Rank Order Correlation by the Reason for Attending between Educational and Vocational Group ......................................... 35 Analysis of Variance Results for the Difference in the Self-Actualization Interests by Respondents Demographic Characteristic .................................... 39 Analysis of Variance Results for the Difference in the Personal Gain Interest by Respondents Demographic Characteristics ................................... 41 Pearson Correlations Analysis between Self- Actualization and Personal Gain Interests with Age and Duration of Sentence ( vocational and educational combined ) ..................................... 43 Pearsons Correlations Analysis between Educational and Vocational Groups with Self - Actualization and Personal Gain Interests ( divided by age and duration of sentence ) .................................... 45 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH Problem Statement Historically, the purpose of incarceration was based on the philosophy of punishment for social vengeance and retaliation. Punishment was "any lawfully imposed pain, suffering or loss of available rights confronted by an actor as a consequence of his or her culpable criminal action or inaction" to avenge the wrong inflicted on the community (Thomas, 1987:35). As the correctional system evolved the punishment philosophy developed other rationales for its continued existence. These rationales under the punishment philosophy were and still are retribution, deterrence or incapacitation. In the late 19th century the purpose of incarceration was re- evaluated. A resulting influence of this reevaluation was the introduction of the rehabilitation philosophy as an integrated part of the correctional philosophy and purpose. Advocates of the rehabilitation ideal held that the purpose of rehabilitation philosophy "is to effect change in the characters, attitudes and behavior of convicted offenders so as to strengthen the social defense against unwanted behavior" (Culled, 1982:34). 2 This rehabilitation philosophy ushered in an important concept of the "right to treatment" in the correctional system. This concept the "right to treatment" was originally embraced in the mental health arena and was advocated by Morton Birnbaum. Birnbaum held "that individuals who are deprived of their liberty because of mental illness serious enough to require involuntary commitment are entitled to treatment to correct that condition" (Siegal, 1985: 502). Although this concept originated in the mental health arena it was broadened to embrace the criminal justice system. Through many court cases the "right to treatment" became applicable to all inmates involuntarily confined. This included both the juvenile justice system and adult justice system It was contended that through treatment the involuntary confined inmates could be "cured". In other words, the inmates could be rehabilitated. This contention encouraged the development of various rehabilitation programs all aimed at treating the inmate (i.e., educational and vocational programs). For the past century, the treatment for inmates was based on the rehabilitation philosophy has been under attack for its alleged failures. In fact, many critics have concluded that rehabilitation does not work (Glazer, 1989; Martinson, 1974; White, 1989). However, despite this contention the rehabilitation ideal survives within the correctional system. 3 Regardless of the answer to the above contention the correctional system continues to develop educational and vocational prison programs based on the rehabilitation ideal The problem arises when these programs are developed under the guise of rehabilitation, and then are eliminated when the inmates recidivate. But, before the correctional system can accurately say the inmates are rehabilitated or not by a particular program one needs to identify the reason(s) why the inmates chose to attend educational or vocational programs. Some studies (Furtado & Johnson, 1980; Kiser, 1987; Pellegrine 8: Meyers, 1992; Stephens, 1992) have suggested that inmates attend these programs not for the perceived rehabilitative power, but for some self-serving reason(s). What are these self-serving reason(s)? Do these reasons include the concept of rehabilitation or not. The answers to these questions are not quiet clear. Therefore, identifying the inmates' reason(s) to attend educational or vocational programs may provide the means in ‘ how to create and develop programs that would encourage rehabilitation Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to explore and describe inmates reason(s) for attending educational or vocational prison programs. More specifically, this study will identify the reason(s) why inmates attend 4 educational or vocational prison programs, and compare the differences and similarities between these two groups. These group's differences and similarities will be examined as follows by: 1. Their reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. Reasons are divided into personal gain and self- actualization interests (see appendix B). 2. The characteristics between the groups, individual age and duration of sentence, not an exhaustive list (see page 27 for comprehensive list). Need for the Study Currently, society has become sensitive to the rehabilitative nature of educational and vocational prison programs. Several reasons for this is the amount of money it costs to operate such programs, and critics' contend that these programs do not rehabilitate. Society's reaction to this is to demand the elimination of programs that do not work thereby cutting back on spending. By identifying the reason(s) why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs can be beneficial to society's concerns. First of all, this information can assist in determining whether educational or vocational are rehabilitative to the inmates. It would provide a basis of distinguishing which inmates and their reason(s) lean towards rehabilitation, and those inmates and their reason(s) who do not. A second benefit is on an Administration leveL The ability to distinguish which inmates attend educational or vocational programs for 5 so called rehabilitate reasons could be useful in making these programs more effective and efficient. For example, spending more money on programs inmates attend for rehabilitative reason(s). Thus, identifying inmates reason(s) to attend educational or vocational prison program can provide a beginning for developing and providing a more solid information being from which to evaluate the rehabilitation hypothesis. Research Questions The author's research questions will focus on inmates' reason(s) to attend educational or vocational prison programs. The research questions are: 1. Do inmates' reason(s) affect whether they attend educational or vocational prison programs? 2. Does an inmates' reason(s) determine whether they will attend a 2 year or a 4 year educational program? 3. Does inmates' race affect their reason(s) for attending educational or vocational programs? 4. Does the inmates' age affect their reason(s) for attending educational or vocational programs? 5. Does the type of crime committed by the inmates affect inmates' reason(s) to attend educational or vocational programs? 6. Does the duration of sentence affect inmates' reason(s) to attend educational or vocational programs? 7. Does the martial status of the inmates affect their reason(s) to ' attend educational or vocational programs? Definition of Terms The following is a list of definitions used for the selection of respondents and for data analysis. 1. Reason(s) - refers to the reason(s) why the inmate attend the prison's educational programs or vocational programs (ie., to escape the routine of prison life, etc). 2. Attendance - refers to inmates who currently attend prison educational or vocational programs. 3. Inmates - are inmates residing in Jackson minimum prison facility. 4. Types of crimes - refer to the type of crime for Which the inmate was convicted and sentenced to prison, like burglary, robbery, and so forth 5. Educational programs - refer to educational programs offered in the prison that are either a two year degree program or a four year degree program. 6. Vocational programs - refer to vocational programs offered in the prison that provides the inmate with some form of license or certification. 7. Duration of sentence - refers to the maximum prison sentence time and the minimum prison sentence time. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Chapter II is an overview of the theoretical framework for this study followed by a review of previous research literature on inmates reason(s)to attend educational or vocational prison programs. Chapter III describes the research and statistical analysis procedures used in this 7 study. Chapter IV produces data analysis and presentation of findings. Finally, chapter V contains summaries and conclusions of this study. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Theoretical Frameon "Organized religion has provided the necessary philosophical foundation for educational and vocational programs in prison" (Pellagrin & Meyers, 1992: 43). Rehabilitation as an objective of criminal incarceration is directly traceable to the traditional religious concepts of charitable tolerance, education and the conversion of sinners (Pellagrin & Meyers, 1992). Espousal of these principles by the clergy in colonial times were instrumental in promoting public acceptance of education as a means of rehabilitating criminals in the United States (Forsythe, 1987). Moreover, as the "social position of theologians strengthened their support of skill - learning, knowledge - acquisition, hard work, and moral conduct as the avenue to salvation, this provided a basis for establishing educational and vocational programs in the correctional system" (Curti, 1943). It was believed that given the rehabilitative opportunities through education, for example, inmates would become rehabilitated. Therefore, educational, and vocational programs became the primary elements under the rehabilitation philosophy. Presently, the correctional system functions under a duality of 9 philosophies which incorporates both the punishment and rehabilitation philosophies. Even with these co-existing phflosophies, the punishment philosophy still continues to be the driving force behind the correctional system. Many studies support the contention that punishment should be the primary or sole goal of the correctional system because rehabilitation does not work (Bailey, 1966; Glazer, 1989; Martinson, 1974; White, 1989). Given that the effectiveness of rehabilitation is perceived as questionable, why then do inmates continue to attend educational or vocational programs? This study purports that other self-serving reason(s) are key factors for inmates' attending educational or vocational programs. These reason(s) begin with the thesis that inmates attending educational or vocational programs is related to the inmates' perceived benefit(s) or cost(s) to attend such programs. More specifically, Bentham provided an explanation, other than rehabilitation for the reason why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs this theory is called felicific calculus (Mack, 1969). Bentham's involvement in the reform movement led him to develop the theory of felicific calculus to explain human behavior, and crime and punishment. Bentham's theory of felicific calculus (Mack, 1969) was grounded in the principles of utilitarianism. Bentham maintained that a person will act in such a way as to receive the greatest happiness over the least amount of pain in his or her actions. Bentham 10 used this utilitarian principle to derive assumptions of human nature, conduct and for explaining why individuals commit criminal actions. The general premise is that people are inherently rational, calculative and intelligent beings who voluntarily and freely choose the course of action that satisfies his or her rational self-interest. Therefore, a person commits a criminal offense because the pleasure (benefit) outweighs the pain (cost). Bentham integrated the above assumptions to develop the theory "Felicific Calculus". Felicific calculus holds that a person will behave in a way to gain the most benefit, and to minimize some or all cost. When the perceived attainment of some benefit or the security of avoiding pain the individual will act for the attainment of such benefit. Therefore, intra - personal balance occurs if the benefit is attainable, and outweighs the cost (Mack, 1969). Even though Felicific Calculus (Mack, 1969) was developed to explain human behavior, and criminal participation it can be used to explain other forms of behaviors. In this study felicific calculus provides an understanding of inmate's reason(s) for attending educational or vocational prison programs. The two elements necessary for the application of felicific calculus are the maximizing of the benefit(s), while minimizing of the cost(s). First, in terms of cost, the inmate soon discovers the pains of imprisonment. These pains of imprisonment arise l 1 from the physical condition of prison, and the psychological deprivation caused by imprisonment. According to Sykes (1958) some of these psychological deprivations encountered by the inmate are: 1. loss of liberty, 2. deprivation of goods and services, 3. loss of sexual relationships, 4. autonomy and, 5. security. It is these pains of imprisonment that represent the cost to the inmate, and provide the incentive to seek a way of obtaining some benefit(s) while incarcerated. The second element, benefit is the pleasure received from offsetting the cost. For the inmate prison environment provides limited options in which to release pent up frustration In searching for pleasure of relief the inmate may reason that attending educational or vocational prison programs will provide such benefit or as an incentive to get out of the cell for awhile. Therefore, the inmate weighs the cost and benefit for attending educational or vocational programs. If the inmates' reasons that a benefit will be received by attending educational or vocational programs the inmate will do so (Mack,l969). The benefit of attending educational or vocational prison programs can be divided into categories as either immediate or delayed For example, the inmate who is trying to escape the monotonous everyday prison routine will view attending educational or vocational programs as an immediate benefit. On the other hand, the inmate who views studying, regular attendance, and homework as costs but still attend 12 educational or vocational programs for benefit of receiving a degree or certification at the completion of the program. Thus, regardless of the reason(s) for attending educational or vocational programs the inmate is constantly weighing the benefit and cost while determining his final decision to act in a certain way. Previous Research Efforts In searching for previous research efforts on why inmates attend educational or vocational programs there existed a limited amount of studies. But, before these studies (discussed later in the chapter) are examined the issue of whether educational or vocational programs rehabilitates or not must be addressed. There is a tremendous amount of research literature in this area, so only the most significant studies were selected. The first set of research studies examined dealt with the belief that rehabilitation does not work The second set (see below) of research studies examined dealt with the belief that rehabilitation does work. Finally, the studies (see below) that dealt with who and why inmates attend educational or vocational programs. To begin with, the most famous and significant study was conducted by Robert Martinson (1974) on whether inmates are rehabilitated by prison reform In other words, do the programs enacted by prison reform rehabilitate inmates. The importance of this study is 13 that it is used as a bases for many other studies, either to support the notion that rehabilitation does not work or to point out Martinson's misinterpretation of data or, to demonstrate that rehabilitation does work (in a later study Martinson states that rehabilitation does work) (Barone, 1977; Glazer, 1989; McCollum, 1977; Nelson, 1975; Wilson, 1985). In Martinson's study there is a section in which he examined the rehabilitation efforts of educational and vocational programs on inmates. Twelve educational and vocational programs were selected (Martinson, 1974:25) In these studies rehabilitation was measured by the recidivism rate was used. These studies indicated that regardless if it was either an educational or vocational program the end result was similar, that there was no significant differences in the recidivism rate for any of the programs. Moreover, Martinson pointed out that he does not know why these programs were unsuccessful. Martinson suggested several reasons for the failure of these programs. For example, the programs may have been flawed in themselves, or the programs may have been unable to overcome the effects of prison life. Or perhaps the type of educational or vocational programs do not meet the needs of the inmate upon release from prison. Regardless, of the reason for the programs failures Martinson clearly stated in his findings that " to date education and skill 14 development have not reduced recidivism by rehabilitating criminals" (Martinson, 1974: 28). In another study conducted by Alfred C. Schnur (1948), he examined the educational treatment of prisoners and recidivism. Schnur evaluated a Wisconsin State Prison full - time day school program. Schnur wanted to discover if there was a connection between inmates attending educational treatment and a reduction of the recidivism rate. The hypothesis was tested by comparing the proportions of non - recidivists in both the control group and in the experimental group under adjusted conditions. The control group consisted of 1082 inmates who did not participate in educational treatment. The experimental group consisted of 680 inmates who were enrolled in at least one day- school class. This group was eventually divided into subgroups according to length of time they had attended the prison school ( i.e., inmates who attended two months or more). The finding of this study indicated that there was a slight but non- significant differences between the experimental group and the control group with regards to the reduction of the recidivism rate. Moreover, the slight differences discovered between the two groups could not be determined if it was by chance or not. In order, to correct this situation a simultaneous multiple matching was used. Although the results of this test did support the early finding that there was a slight difference 15 between the two groups, the difference was not significant. However, what the researcher did surprisingly discover was that the length an inmate stayed in the educational program, six months or more, had an effect on the recidivism rate - a reduction. Schnur (1948), suggested that if it is true that inmates who stay in the educational program six months or more results in the reduction of the recidivism rate, then inmates who have shorter sentences should not be permitted in the educational programs. Therefore, Schnur concluded that education can not be expected to reduce the recidivism rate unless the inmate can be expected to attend the educational program for the length of time indicated. On the other hand, there are many studies that suggest that rehabilitation does work and that the previous research studies were using the wrong research methods to measure whether a programs is rehabilitative (Bindman, 1973; Enocksson, 1980;1rwin,l974; O'Neil, 1990; Wilson, 1985). In a study conducted by Enocksson (1980), he examined the issue why programs appear to fail. Enocksson claimed that measuring a programs' effectiveness (rehabilitation nature) solely by the reduction of its recidivism rate is unrealistic (Enocksson, 1980: 7). He found that using the recidivism rate to measure a programs effectiveness can be misleading. For instance, it can be manipulated for public relations, or 16 to eliminate a program Enocksson concluded that a programs' rehabilitative effect should be determined not solely by its recidivism rate but rather in combination with other factors, such as, the programs' participation rate and the quality of instruction provided. Other studies re-enforced and suggested other explanations why educational or vocational programs appear to fail (Gottfredson, 1979; Irwin, 1974; O'Neil, 1990). Several of these explanations are: 1. The goals of corrections (custody & control) conflicts with the goals of education or vocational goals ( growth & self- actualization). 2. The program is expected to fit all inmates. 3. The measuring method to evaluate the program may be inappropriate or contaminated. 4 The program was based on an incorrect theory. Essentially, these studies claimed that education and vocational training programs rehabilitate but that past studies were not properly evaluated or interpreted them Other studies claimed that the there is a positive relationship between correctional education or vocational programs and rehabilitation (O'NeiL 1990; Thorpe, 1984; Petersilla, 1979). Furthermore, there are studies showing that certain types of inmates can be rehabilitated more than others. A study conducted by Stephen and Dugiud (1982), 17 demonstrated that rehabilitation can occur through the use of education They examined, evaluated and developed a program based on this program - University of Victoria program in British Columbia. In the evaluation of this program they concluded it was effective. The findings indicated a change in most inmates involved in this program and the recidivism rate was reduced - 14% of participants as opposed to 15% of the non - participants. Subsequently, the authors took the core elements of this program and created another such program In another study by Beckerman and Fontana (1989), they examined a pre - professional social work educational program This program was developed to determine if inmates can be helped by the program, and if the inmates' attitude can be changed to hold the essential profession‘s values, skills, and knowledge. Data was collected from students over a two year period. A questionnaire was given twice to the students. Once at the beginning of the program and at the end of the program The questionnaire was divided into two sections which were: 1. value orientation, and 2. occupational commitment. The findings indicated those who participated in the program resulted in sharing many of the values and occupational orientations espoused in the social work profession - a success. Thus, the authors concluded that this program can be effect if the right types of inmates participate. Finally, in another study by Thorpe, Jr. (1984), he summarized 18 research collected by the New York Department of correctional services on the recidivism rate of inmates who earned college credits or certificate (vocational) while incarcerated. Secondary data came from various prison facilities. A cross - section analysis and a survey was used on the data. The expected return rate was 20% of the 54 subjects. The finding indicated that the return rate of those successfully earned a certificate or degree was lower - 14% return rate (Thorpe, 1984: 87). In conclusion, these are just a few of the studies that demonstrates educational and vocational programs can be successful. And that how research is evaluated or examined may effect if a program is view as rehabilitative or not. As was shown there is sufficient research support for both sides of the argument that educational or vocational programs may or may not rehabilitative. However, the question still remains, why do inmates continue to participate in these programs, if the rehabilitative element of these programs remains questionable. Some studies have suggested that inmates are not concern with the rehabilitative effects of these programs, but for other reasons (Enez, 1987; Petersilla, 1979). In other words, do the characteristics or reasons why determine an inmates participates in educational or vocational programs. There was a limited amount of studies that dealt with who and why inmates participate in educational or vocational programs. To 19 begin, what types of inmates participate in prison programs. In 1989 Armor, Head, Blackburn and Slone conducted a study to determine who participates in prison programs. The authors attempted to determine if certain types of inmates were more amenable to treatment than others. Secondary data was compiled using various prison records. The results indicated it was possible to distinguish amenable inmates from non- amenable inmates. The characteristics of the amenable inmates were as follows: higher intelligence, older, first offense, higher education level and most likely white. Other studies indicated similar characteristics and provided additional characteristics of inmates who are amenable to treatment (Glover and Lotze, 1989; Knepper, 1990; Petersilla, 1989). These studies also, occurred in a prison setting. The finding indicated that inmates who attend educational or vocational programs tend to be unmarried, childless, and serving longer sentences such as five years or more. Although the previous studies provided some insight as to the characteristics of inmates who attend educational or vocational programs they fail to address the question why inmates attend. Several studies have been conducted in attempt to answer this question Kisser conducted a study in 1987, that examined the reasons inmates attend educational programs. The population was selected from Pontiac Correctional Center. The author was an instructor in this prison 20 facility and used his class for subjects. The author's finding indicated seven reasons why inmates attend educational programs which are as follows: 1. Interested in the college course. 2. To make their transition back into society easier. 3. To reduce the boredom of prison life. 4. To get away from the danger inside of prison 5. To get away from violent offenders. 6. To obtain prestige or status. 7. To obtains legal knowledge. (Kisser, 1987;103) Stephens (1992), conducted a study that provided some insight into why inmates attend educational or vocational programs. The data was collected from New York State's Sing Sing Maximum Security Correctional Facility. A survey was used that incorporated three sections of questions. These sections consisted of demographic, perceptions and reasons for attending educational or vocational program questions. The findings indicated that inmates attend these prison programs because of the following reasons: 1. To better ones - self. 2. To get a better job. 21 3. To impress the parole board. (Stephens, 1992: 6 ). In an earlier study conducted by Wesley (1982), he found similar findings for reasons why inmates attend educational programs. A questionnaire was given to the inmates. The questionnaire consisted of seven questions geared toward the importance of education The findings indicated that inmates viewed education important. Fmthermore, their reasons for attending were as follows: 1. To impress the parole board. 2. To fend off boredom 3. To elude the less desirable work assignments. 4. To learn 5. To be in an environment with less security. ( Wesley, 1982; 6 ) LIMITATIONS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH The foremost problem with the cited studies is that they are dated. With the exceptions of some of the last studies (Armir, 1989; Glover, 1989; Kisser, 1987; Knepper, 1990; Stephen, 1992; Wesley, 1982) nearly fifteen to twenty years has passed since other studies have been done on why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs. What might have been true fifteen to twenty years ago may not be true DOW. 22 Another problem with the research is its fragmentation Each study either focused on the educational reasons why inmates attend or on the vocational reasons why inmate attend (Kisser, 1987; McIntosh, 1986; Stephen, 1992). In some studies the reasons why inmates attend these programs was an accidental finding (Pollock, 1979). None of the studies compared inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs. Previous research also failed to provide solutions for successful and unsuccessful programs. Or what to do with the knowledge of knowing the characteristics of inmates for attending educational or vocational programs and their reasons for attending these programs. For the above listed reasons, it is the intent of this researcher to clarify the reasons why inmates attend educational and vocational prison programs, and to identify characteristics that influences the inmates' reasons for attending these prison programs. Finally, this researcher will attempt to provide recommendations for the use of this study. SUMMARY Historical writings indicated that the continuous conflict of the purpose of incarceration still persists. Even though a century has passed the purpose of incarceration still has two views, which are 23 punishment or rehabilitation Although there is enough literature presented to support either View, both views seem to have something in common The commonality within both positions is that under certain conditions some programs can work and that certain inmates may be more amenable than others. The conflict in trying to identify the purpose of incarceration fails to recognize why inmates attend educational or vocational programs. Studies have recognized that inmates attend these prison programs not for rehabilitation effect but for some other reasons. None of the reasons listed, mentioned that inmates attended these prison programs because they wanted to be rehabilitated. None of the studies provided any recommendations or demonstrated as what to do with finding on why inmates attend these prison program Finally, none of the research efforts were inclusive of the reasons of inmates who attended either educational or vocational prison programs. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to explore, and describe inmates' reason(s) for attending educational or vocational prison programs. More specifically, this study identified the reason (3) why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs, and to compare the differences and similarities between these two groups. The group differences, and similarities were examined as follows by: 1.Their reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. Reasons are divided into personal gain and self- actualization (see appendix B). 2. The characteristics between the groups, individual age and duration of sentence, not an exhaustive list (see page 27 for comprehensive list). Research Design A survey design was used in this study. According, to Hagan (1989), this survey design is most appropriate for primary data gathering, and data in which one desires to collect expressed attitude or claimed behavior. This study posed to explore and describe the 24 reason(s) why inmates' attend educational or vocational programs. Also, to identify the differences and similarities between the two groups. Study Setting This study was conducted at a minimum security prison facility in Jackson, Michigan This prison confines inmates who have a minimum sentence of one year. Population and Sample The population of the study consisted of inmates attending educational or vocational prison programs. The sampling frame was from a selected time within the regularly scheduled educational and vocational prison programs. The sample size included all inmates within this selected time period. The sample size consist of 136 inmates with 72 educational and 64 vocational. am ' Method During regular scheduled educational and vocational class time all inmates were selected to complete the questionnaire. 25 26 Hypothesis This study is based on the following hypotheses: 1. HO: There is no difference in the relationship between the reasons of inmates attending educational programs, or inmates attending vocational programs. H A: There is a statistically significant relationship between the reasons of inmates attending educational programs, or inmates' attending vocational programs. 2. Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between the reasons of inmates' attending educational programs seeking a two year degree, and a four year degree. HA: There is a statistically significant relationship between the motives of inmates' attending educational programs seeking a two year degree, and a four year degree. 3. H0: There is no statistically significant difference in the relationship between inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and inmates' race. HA: There is a relationship between inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and the inmates' race. 4. HO: There is no difference in the relationship between the inmates reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and the inmates's age. H A: There is a relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and the inmates' age. 5. HO: There is no relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and the type of crime committed by the inmate. H A: There is a relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and the type of crime committed by the inmate. Variables Race Age 27 H0: There is no relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and the duration of their sentence . HA: There is a relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and the duration of their sentence. HO: There is no relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and their marital status. HA: There is a relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and their marital status. The following variables were used in this study. Independent Variables Attributes African American (black), European American (white), and other includes: Native American, Hispanic, Mexican American, unidentified Represented in number of years Educational programs A list of prison educational programs offered that provides the inmates with a 2 year degree or 4 year degree. Variables Vocational programs Duration of sentence Time served Attendance Marital status Reason(s) Operational Definitions Race Age 28 Continued Attributes A list of prison vocational programs that provided the inmates with a license or certification Refer to the inmates actual sentence issued by the court. A period of incarceration time served to date. Includes inmates currently attending educational or vocational prison programs. Refers to the inmates marital status: Married, single, divorced, separated, and widower. Dependent Variable Reason(s) for inmates' attending educational or vocational prison programs. Categorized into three race groups African American, European American and Other. Refers to the age of the subject. 29 Type of crime Categorized into crime against property, person and other includes: dry related offenses, drunk driving, counterfeit, carry concealed weapon Educational Background Refers to the last grade level completed by the subject. Educational level means I-S grade school, 6-8 junior high, 9-12 high school, 13—14 undergraduate, 15-16 upper graduate, and other degree. Vocational Background Refers to the completion of other vocational prison programs not presently attending. Educational programs Refers to classes offered: Associates degree in Data Processing, Para- legal, Bachelor of Arts, and Business management. Vocational programs Refers to voc-tech courses offered: Horticulture, Janitorial, Auto mechanic, and Slaughter House. Duration of Sentence Refer to the number of years the inmate was sentenced by the court. Time Served Refer to the amount of time the inmate has served to date. Reason(s) A list of possible Reason(s) inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs. Marital Status Refers to the inmates marital status: Married, single, divorced, separated, and widower. Number of Children The number of children the inmates have. 30 Measurement Instrument - Construction of Questionnaire A survey questionnaire was developed for this study. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section contained demographic questions. The second section contained education and vocational background questions. The final section contained questions targeted at inmates reason(s) for attending educational or vocational prison programs (see Appendix A). - MES; A pretest of the questionnaire was conducted on a small group of inmates in order to identify any ambiguous words or phrases. The pretest highlighted problems regarding the variables used in the questionnaire. The pretest sub - sample comprised of S inmates who are presently attending educational or vocational prison programs. Based on the inmates' comments, and suggestion revisions were made. Questionnaire reliability Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was used to estimate the internal consistency measure of the reliability of the questionnaire regarding the inmates reason for attending educational and vocational programs. Before this test was applied the inmates' reasons were 31 divided into two categories: 1. personal gain interests - reasons the inmate receives some type of benefit (ie. early parole), 2. self- actualization interests - reasons the receives some type of self - improvement benefit (ie. to learn). The following alpha coefficients were obtained; Personal gain interests (16 items) 0.916 Self - Actualization interests (8 items) 0.741 Overall interests (24 items) 0.893 In this study the alpha coefficients for the personal gain interests 0.916 and the self-actualization interests 0.741 were very high Also, the overall alpha coefficient for both interests 0.893 of the 24 items was high Thus, the alpha levels supports a high level of reliability for this questionnaire. -Anonm'm and Confidentialig To insure inmates anonymity and confidentiality the questionnaire required no identification that would link it to a particular inmate. N 0 names were required. Once the questionnaire were returned there was no way to determine which subject completed which questionnaire. The questionnaire will be destroyed after the data is analyzed. 32 Data Collection Procedure The researcher, and researcher assistant collected the data in January, 1994 at Jackson minimum prison facility. This questionnaire was given on a one - shot basis. There was no need for added security because the questionnaires was directly handed to the inmates during regular scheduled class time and training time. The following procedures was used in the collection of data. First the researcher distributed the consent form for the subjects to read. At this point the subjects may have refused to participate. Finally, the subjects were given the questionnaire to complete. The questionnaire took approximately 1 5 minutes to complete. Data Analysis Procedures In this study descriptive statistics, and correlation co-efficient analysis were used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to analysis the demographic questions and inmates' reasons. Also, these same statistics were used to analysis the educational and vocational background questions. Correlation analysis were used to test the null hypothesis. The variables used in this analysis are race, length of sentence, and inmates' reason(s). Alpha level .05 was used for all statistical analysis. The statistical package SPSS was used to analysis the collected data. CHAPTERIV RESULTS In this chapter, the results will be presented by the differences, and similarities between the educational and vocational groups. Each hypothesis will be explain through the use of tables. Each table will identify the specific hypothesis or hypotheses addressed. HYPOTHESIS #1: H0: There is no difference in the relationship between the reasons of inmates attending educational programs, or inmates attending vocational programs. The inmates' rankings and means of the reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs is presented in table 1. TABLE 1 Inmates Reasons for Attending Educational or Vocational Programs by Type of group EDUCATIONAL VOCATIONAL Reason Mean Rank Mean Rank R1 8.71 1 8.44 2 R2 7.74 8 7.75 8 R3 8.48 3 8.1 5 5 33 I: 34 Continued Table l VOCATIONAL ll EDUCATIONAL . Reasons Mean Rank Mean Rank R4 7.76 7 8.45 1 R5 2.35 23 3.30 23 R6 7.95 5 8.34 3 R7 3.50 17 4.19 19 R8 2.56 Q 3.97 22 R9 2.79 21 3.28 24 R10 6.22 9 6.62 10 R11 4.10 15 5.38 15 R12 3.75 16 6.34 12 R13 5.48 H 6.47 11 R14 3.17 20 4.67 17 R15 2.06 24 4.00 21 R16 5.41 12 5.90 14 R17 5.24 13 5.94 13 R18 4.34 14 4.94 16 R19 3.34 19 4.06 20 rR20 8.37 g 8.20 4 R21 3.45 18 4.67 17 R22 7.89 6 7.99 R23 8.69 2 7.89 R24 5.94 10 7.06 ‘ underline in icates similar rank 35 This table indicates the similarities between educational inmates' and vocational inmates' ranking of the reasons, why they attend the above mentioned prison programs. Also, the data indicates a similarity between the two groups' means for the reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. The analysis indicates there may be a correlation between the two groups' reasons for attending these prison programs. To determine if a correlation exists between educational and vocational reasons for attending a spearmans rank order was conducted and present in table 1.1 TABLE 1.1 Spearman's Rank Order Correlation by the Reason for Attending between Educational and Vocational Groups Educational Vocational Reasons Mean Rank Mean Rank 1. To learn new ideas and 8.71 1 8.44 2 knowledge 23. To stimulate the 8.69 2 7.89 7 mind 3. A desire to obtain a 8.48 3 8.15 5 degree or certification 36 Educational Vocational Reasons Mean Rank Mean Rank 20. To feel a sense of 8.37 4 8.20 4 achievement 6. To get a better job 7.94 5 8.34 3 when released 22. To build self-esteem 7.89 7.98 6 4. To learn a skill 7.76 8.45 2. Interested in the 7.74 7.75 8 course offered 10. To be treated as a 6.22 9 6.62 10 person and not a number 24. To add a positive 5.94 10 7.06 9 activity in your prison life 13. As a way to make 5.48 11 6.47 11 time sentenced to go faster 16. As a way to reduce 5.41 12 5.89 14 boredom 17. To change the daily 4.24 13 5.94 13 routine of confinement 18. To interact with non- 4.34 14 4.94 16 prison staff 11. to have more time 4.10 15 5.37 15 out of ones prison cell 12. As a way to earn 3.75 16 6.34 12 money 7. To impress the parole 3.51 17 4.19 19 board 21. To gain privileges 3.45 18 4.67 17 37 Educational Vocational Reasons Mean Rank Mean Rank 19. To gain temporary 3.34 19 4.06 20 relief from prison rules and regulations 14. To get away from 3.17 20 4.67 17 Correctional Officers 9. To socialize with other 2.79 21 3.28 24 prisoners ll 8. To gain acceptance 2.56 22 3.97 22 from peers 5. To be around females 2.35 23 3.30 23 who are non-correctional fl officers 1 15.To get away from 2.06 24 4.00 21 : dangerous inmates Spearman Rho = 0.945, P - Value = 0.000* 1| rcance at 0.0 level Table 1.1 shows that there is a statistical association between the educational and vocational inmates reasons for attending these prison programs (p = .00). The relationship indicated a very strong relationship ( Rho = 0.945). The analysis indicates that reasons ranked high by the educational inmates were also ranked high by the vocational inmates. HYPOTHESIS #2, 3, 5, 7: H0: There is no statistically significant difference between the reasons of inmates' attending educational programs seeking a two 38 year degree, and a four year degree. H0: There is no statistically significant difference in the relationship between inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and inmates' race. HO: There is no relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and the type of crime committed by the inmate. HO: There is no relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and their marital status. The variance of the difference between self- actualization interests (See appendix B) by respondents demographic characteristics is presented in table 2. Respondents refers to both the educational and vocational inmates. Analysis of Variance Results for the Difference in the TABLE 2 39 Self-Actualization interests by Respondents Demographic Characteristics ' Demo - I Levels Mean SD F - Value P - Value 1 1 Graphics _ ___” __ __ __ ________ __ _j 1 Education 1 2 years 8.36 .72 i _A -1 4 years 8.18 0.88 '629 '430 1 White 7.95 1.14 Race 1 Black 8.47 0.72 350 033* I Other 8.22 0.77 Property 8.14 0.97 Offense Type M Offense 8 18 1 00 Crime against a .384 .682 1 Person __ 8.39 0.57 8.19 0.82 Mam“ Married 8.39 0.59 Status 101, 1 Widowed .314 .815 1 Separated 8.16 0.86 Divorced 8.1 5 1.20 . [I rcance at M Iev 40 In table 2 inmates who attended the 2 year or the 4 year educational program did not demonstrate a statistical significant difference in their self-actualization interest, (F-value of .629 and a P- value of .430). However, the data does indicate a statistical significant difference between respondents' race and self- actualization interests. The relationship indicates a F—value of 3.50 and a P-value of .033. The analysis indicates that race had an effect on the inmates self- actualization interests. African Americans (8.47) tended to rank self - actualization interests higher than Europeans (7.95) and Others (8.22). The third demographic characteristic type of crime indicates that there was no statistical significance between the educational and vocational inmates' self- actualization interests. The F-value .384 and P-value .682 indicates a slight correlation Finally, the demographic characteristic marital status did not indicate a statistical significance. The F—value (0.314) and the P—value (0.815) indicates a slight relationship. HYPOTHESIS #2, 3, 5, 7: See above for null hypothesis The analysis of variance for the difference between the personal gain interests (see Appendix B) by educational and vocational demographic characteristics is presented in table 3. 41 TABLE 3 Analysis of Variance Results for the Difference in the Personal Gain Interest by Respondents Demographic Characteristics Demo - 1 Levels Mean SD F - Value P - Value Graphics __ _*______ __ __ Education 2 years 4.26 1.28 ' 4 years 3.71 1.64 1'52 0221 White 3.73 1.68 Race 1 Black 4.59 0.66 623 (1003.. 1 Other 5.07 2.07 11 ' Property 3.79 1.59 Type of Offense Crime ' 355$: .75 1.98 2-75 0-069 Person 1 Other 4.56 1.58 11' 1 1 Never 4.33 1.93 $213521 1 Married 1 $111 dowe d 4-87 1-84 1.09 0.357 Separated 4.84 2.12 Divorced 4.1 1 1.75 ‘Eignificance at 0.155 Ieve The first demographic characteristic education, 2 years and 4 years, shows no statistical significance with personal gain interests. The F—value (1.52) and the P—value (0.221) indicates a weak relationship. The second demographic characteristic race indicates a statistical 42 significance. The relationship is a strong one. The analysis indicates that Other ranked their personal gain interests (5.07) higher than European Americans (3.73) and African Americans (4.59) personal gain interests. The remaining two demographics shows no statistical significance with the inmates' (educational and vocational) personal gain interests (see table ). HYPOTHESIS #4, 6: HO: There is no difference in the relationship between the inmates reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and the inmates's age HO: There is no relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and the duration of their sentence . - Pearson correlations was used to analysis self- actualization and personal gain interests with demographic characteristics, age and duration of sentence, the results are presented in table 4. 43 TABLE 4 Pearson Correlations Analysis Between Self - Actualization and Personal Gain Interests with Age and Duration of Sentence ( vocational and educational combined ) Self - Actualization Personal Gain Demographic n r P - n r P - Characteristics Value Value Age 135 -0.154 0.074** 135 0.016 0.850 Duration of Sentence min 124 -0.057 0.532 124 -0.168 0.061** max 128 -0.207 0.019* 128 -0.156 0.858 length@ 128 -0.170 0.055 128 -0.071 0.428 ' icance at .101ev . T * Significance at 0.05 level @ Length = 1/2( max + min) This table shows that age has a statistical significant effect on self- actualization and personal gain interests. However, the significance level of the variable age varied between the two interests (refer to table). Next, duration of sentence shows that there is a statistical significant correlation between self- actualization with maximum and personal gain with minimum. The correlation between self-actualization with maximum showed an inverse relationship. The analysis indicates that 44 the inmates with the lowest maximum sentence selected more self- actualized reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. Moreover, the correlation between personal gain with minimum sentence also expresses an inverse relationship. The analysis indicates that inmates with the lowest minimum sentence selected more personal gain reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. HYPOTHESIS #4, 6: H0: There is no difference in the relationship between the inmates reasons for attending educational or vocational programs and the inmates's age HO: There is no relationship between the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational programs, and the duration of their sentence . To determine if a correlation existed between educational and vocational groups with self-actualization and personal gain interests pearsons correlations was used. The results are presented in table 5. Pearsons Correlations Analysis Between Educational and 45 TABLE 5 Vocational Groups with Self - Actualization and Personal Gain Interests ( divided by age and duration of sentence ) Educational Vocational Interest Demographic n r P - n r P Value Characteristic Value Self - Age 72 0.043 0.722 63 -0.270 0032* Act. . Duration min 65 -0.012 0.923 59 -0.129 0.328 max 68 -0.130 0.290 60 -0.261 0044* length 68 -0.083 0.499 60 -0.248 0.056“ Personal Age 72 0.029 0.808 63 -0.037 0.775 Gain . Duration min 65 0175 0.164 59 -0.139 0.294 max 68 -0.038 0.757 60 -0.024 0.854 length 68 -0.081 0.510 60 -0.063 0.630 Slgm cance m level ** significance at 0.10 level This table shows a statistical significance correlation between vocational with age, and vocational with duration of sentence. The significance level is different for each variable ( see table). The table indicates that there is an inverse relationship between vocational (self- actualization) and their age. In other words, the younger the inmate the more likely the inmate would select self-actualization reasons for attending the vocational program 46 Next, the table indicates an inverse relationship between vocational with maximum and length of sentence. The analysis indicates the shorter the maximum sentence, and the overall length of sentence the more likely vocational inmates would select self-actualization reasons for attending the vocational program SUMMARY The major finding of the analysis are listed below. 11. The data indicates similarities between educational and vocational inmates' ranking of their reasons for attending the educational or vocational prison programs. 2. The data indicates a correlation existed between inmates' reason for attending educational or vocational prison programs. Reasons ranked high by the educational inmates were also ranked high by the vocational inmates. 3. African American inmates ranked self-actualization interests higher than European Americans and Others. 4. Other inmates ranked personal gain interests higher than African Americans and European Americans. 5. The inmates' age indicates a correlation on how they ranked the self- 47 actualization interests and personal gain interests. 6. The lower the inmates' maximum sentence the higher the self- actualization interests were ranked. 7. The lower the inmates' minimum sentence the higher the personal gain interests were ranked. 8. The younger the inmates the more likely the inmates selected and ranked higher the self-actualization interests. 9. The lower the maximum sentence and the overall length of sentence the more likely vocational inmates selected and ranked higher the self- actualization interests. NOTES: The scale presented below is used when referring to the strength of a given association in Chapter IV: .8 - 1.00 = strong relationship .6 - .79 = moderate relationship .4 - .59 = fair relationship .2 - .39 = slight relationship .0 - .19 = weak relationship CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This chapter will be comprised of six sections. These sections are as follows: restatement of the purpose, identification of the similarities and differences of reasons why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs, demographic characteristics, conclusions, limitation of the study and recommendations. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to explore and describe inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. More specifically, this study identifies the reasons why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs, and to compare the differences and similarities between these two groups. The differences and similarities are examined as follows by: 1. the characteristics between the two groups 2. the groups reason (8) for attending educational or vocational prison programs. 48 49 SimilaritiesZDifferences of Inmates' Reasons This study found that the two groups ranked similar reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. The analysis indicated these two groups ranked their top five reasons based on self- actualization interests. These interests are as follows: TOP FIVE REASONS Education Vocational 1. To learn new ideas 4. To learn a skill. and knowledge. 1. To learn new idea 23. To stimulate the and knowledge. mind. 6. To get a better job 3. A desire to obtain when released. a degree or certification 20. To feel a sense of achievement.* E. To feel a sense of achievement.* 3. Desire to obtain a degree or f; To get a better job certification when released. *ranked the same (_)Also selected by the vocational group Both groups only ranked one reason the same (see above). The remaining reasons are ranked according to the groups specific perspective, in terms of pursuing an educational direction or pursuing a vocational direction (see above, reasons 23, 4). Essentially, one reason differentiated between the two groups, reason 1 and 4 (see above). But, on closer examination the differentiated difference of reasons between the groups are based on he reasons corresponded to each of their specific interest - educational or vocational Another similarity between the groups are their lowest ranked reasons are based on personal gain interests. These interests consisted as follows: LOWEST FIVE REASONS Educational Q. To get away from dangerous inmates 5. To be around females who are non- correctional officers.* 8. To gain acceptance from peers.* 9. To socialize with other prisoners. 14. To get away from correctional officers. (_) Also selected by the vocational group *ranked the same Vocational 9. To socialize with other prisoners. 5. To be around females who are non- correctional officers. 8. To gain acceptance from peers. 15. To get away from dangerous inmates. 19. To gain temporary relief from prison rules and regulations. These groups ranked two reasons the same (see above). Once again there is only one reason that differentiates the two groups- reasons 14,19. A. Possible explanation for these similar ranking of reasons 51 between the educational and vocational inmates are their awareness of the deprivations associated with confinement, thereby electing the opportunity to obtain some form of benefit. The benefit perceived as acquiring knowledge or skill. This study also shows that the overall differences in the ranking of reason between these two groups is not significant. The differences indicated in this study are slight and focused according to each groups' perspective. Previous research in this area is limited to examining vocational or educational inmates separately. Nor did the previous research specifically examine if a correlation existed between educational and vocational inmates' reasons for attending these prison programs, therefore, no standard is available for comparison (refer to chapter 11). However, prior research studies (Jones, 1982; Kiser, 1987; Stephens, 1992) did show that educational and vocational inmates selected some of the reasons indicated in these studies. For example, desire to learn, to better ones self, and to get a better job. Thus, these prior findings only adds strength to the argument that inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs to obtain some type of benefit. Demographic Characteristics This study examined various demographic characteristic to identify whether a correlation existed between the two groups regarding _5_2_ their choice of reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. To begin with, the difference in educational level, two year or four year, did not show any statistical significance. A possible explanation could be that their perspective are too closely similar. Or the difference in educational degrees does not influence whether they selected self-actualization or personal gain interests. Prior research studies do not exist that examine if there is a correlation of the reasons why inmates attend educational prison programs. Therefore, prior studies can not substantiate these findings. The second demographic characteristic examined is whether race impacted the inmates' reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. The findings indicated that race did influence the reasons selected (refer to Table 2 and Table 3). Inmates categorized as African Americans selected reasons for attending based on self- actualization interests rather than personal gain interests. On the other hand, inmates categorized as Others selected reasons based on personal gain interests rather than self-actualization interests (refer to Table 3). It is interesting to noted that in either cases these groups' (African Americans and Others) selections and rankings differentiate slightly (refer to Table 2 and Table 3). However, unlike the European American group, a larger differential gap existed with their selection and ranking of reasons in relation to the other two groups (refer Table 2 & Table 3). 53 A possible explanation for the above findings could be that African Americans and Others, due to their ethnicity may in general view education and vocational skills similar therefore, it is reflected in their selection and ranking of reasons for attending prison programs. Another possible explanation for the differences between the two other groups and the European American group could be that less of the latter group participated in the study, that their true reasons may not have been adequately reflected. The next two demographics characteristics examined are type of crime and marital status. This study found that neither of these characteristics affected the two groups' reasons (self-actualization, personal gain) for attending educational or vocational prison programs (refer to Table 2 and Table 3). Thus, in deciding to attend prison programs these characteristics are irrelevant. A prior similar research study indicated that the type of offense did not affect inmates decision to attend educational or vocational prison programs (Petersilla, 1979). However, this study did not indicate whether marital status affected their decision to attend educational or vocational prison programs. It should be noted that this study only examined who attend prison programs not why inmates attend these prison programs. Although limited this study provides some support for this study's findings. _5_4_ The fifth demographic characteristic examined is age. This study examined whether age affected the inmates reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. As indicated earlier the inmates' reasons are affected by the inmates' age for attending prison programs (refer to Table 4 & Table 5). This study found that younger inmates selected self-actualization interests well older inmates selected personal gain interests. A possible explanation younger inmates select self-actualization interests could be their perception of the benefits from these programs when released from prison As opposed to the older inmates in which the perception of benefits received in prison, personal gain interests, overwhelms their self-actualization interests. The younger inmates probably visualize the future benefits unlike the older inmates. The final demographic characteristic examined is duration of sentence. This study found that inmates with the shorter maximum sentence selected self-actualization interests while inmates with shorter minimum sentence selected personal gain interests. Thus, the inmates' reason for attending educational or vocational prison programs is affected by their length of sentence. A possible explanation for this finding could be inmates with shorter maximum and minimum sentences visualize the future possibilities of utilizing the benefits of a degree or certificate. Well _S_S_ those with longer sentences may visualize their sentence in terms of how prison life can be made more comfortable (refer to personal gain interests). In conclusion, the last two demographic characteristics shows that younger inmates with shorter sentences attend educational or vocational prison programs for self - actualization reasons. Thus, this study's premise is strengthen that inmates attend prison programs for reason other than personal gain reasons. CONCLUSIONS In a time which prison programs are being re—evaluated as to whether the programs rehabilitates or not, the cost of such programs, this study provides some important insights. This study identifies demographic characteristics which may result in positive affects for those inmates' who attend educational or vocational prison programs for self-actualization reasons. The characteristics identified are that younger African Americans with shorter maximum sentences attend such programs for self-actualization reasons (interests). These findings may be utilized to develop prison programs that are geared toward those demographic that encourage attendance to prison programs for self- actualization interests (refer to Appendix B), which are interests aimed towards self-improvement and preparation for the return to society. 5_6_ The second insight this study provides is that it identifies why inmates attend prison programs. Thus, these findings add to the existing research studies ( Knepper, 1985; Grover, 1989; Armor, 1989; Peterseilla, 1979) that identifies who attends prison programs. As a result the combining of this data with past research may be utilized as a foundation to develop and implement future prison programs. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY There were several limitations in this study. The first limitation was the limited ability to generalize to other prison populations due to the sample size. Hence, using subjects solely from one prison facility limits the overall knowledge of inmates' reason(s) for attending educational or vocational prison programs. The second limitation was the inability to verify the truthfulness of the subjects' responses on the questionnaire. Because of the fear that the subjects' responses may be used against them at a later time , the subjects may have given inaccurate responses. Finally, this study did not examine the reason(s) of inmates who do not attend educational or vocational prison programs as to what would encourage them to attend educational or vocational prison programs. This information though informative will have to be left up to future research to enlighten us on the finding in this area. Thus, this fl introductory study will provide further researchers the opportunity to expand and build upon this introductory study. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This study of inmates' attending educational or vocational prison programs has sheds more light in the area of why they attend such programs. However, this is just a chip at the tremendous amount of research that could enhance this study as well as to the overall research dealing with inmates. Although this study provided some insight to inmates' reasons for attending prison programs, an area of research that would enhance this study would be to examine whether there is a difference in the recidivism rate between those who attend prison programs for of self- actualization interests or personal gain interests. The information obtained from this study can be utilized to determine whether prison programs should be developed and designed on the premises of encouraging self-actualization interests or personal gain interests. In order to gain more precise knowledge, future research should examine whether those who participate in educational vs. vocational have a better success rate of completing the program Success referring to obtaining and maintaining employment. And of those that completed the program did their reasons focus in self-actualization or personal gain interests. Finally, to improve upon this study future research should examine why all inmates in prison do not attend these prison programs. As indicated through this study, inmates attend these prison programs because they receive some form of benefit ( refer to Appendix B). A similar study such as this could be conducted to reveal the inmates' reasons for not attending. And based on this knowledge programs may be developed that may best meet theses inmates' needs in order to effect a positive change upon the inmates reintegration into society. Thus, there is wide a variety of potential research that could expand the knowledge in this area. Also, with society's concern whether these prison program work and the cost vs. the effectiveness of these program, research conducted on this topic will be relied upon and utilized to eliminate, design, develop and implement programs in the future for our correctional system APPENDICES Appendix A Consent Form and Questionnaire CONSENT FORM This study is for the completion of a Masters Degree at Michigan university to be received by Ms. Abigail Callejas. The purpose of this questionnaire is to explore why inmates attend educational or vocational prison programs. If you decide to participate in completing this questionnaire your responses will remain anonymous. NO NAME or any coding technique will be used to link this questionnaire to you. So, do not write your name on this questionnaire. At any time you may chose not to participate in completing this questionnairewithout penalty. In other words, you may choose not to participate at all, may refuse to answer certain questions or may discontinue completing the questionnaire at any time. However, you do indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. The approximate time for completing this questionnaire is 10 minutes. Q Your responses in this questionnaire will be kept anonymous. DO NOT write your name on this questionnaire. Only those directly working with this study will have access to this questionnaire. When this study is finished this questionnaire will be destroyed. Thank you for participating voluntarily in this questionnaire. Directions: Please read the questions carefully and answer to the best of your ability. Please circle your responses. 1. What is your cultural background? 1. African American 2. Mexican American 3. Native American 4. European 5. Hispanic 6. Asian American 7. Other _________ 2. What is your age ? 3. What is your marital status? 1. Never married 2. Married 3. Separated 4. Divorced 5. Widow er 4. Number of children you have in each age group? 1. None____ 2. Under four ______ 3. Four to Seven years _____ 4. Eight to ten years _______ 5. Eleven to thirteen years---- 6. Fourteen to sixteen years____ 7. Seventeen to nineteen years ..... 5. Have you been in prison before? 1. yes 2. no If yes, how many times (not including this prison sentence). 6. Imprisoned for what type of offense? 7. Length of prison sentence? Maidmum Minimum“--- 8. How much of your prison sentence have you served? 9. How many times have you been up for parole? 1. Once 2. Twice 3. Three times 4 More than Three times 5. Not yet 10. How many years of school did you complete? (Please Circle one) (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16) (lDiploma) (College Degree) (Advanced Degree) 11. Do you have a GED? 1. Yes 2. No 12. Are you currently attending the prison educational program? 1. Yes 2. No IF no skip to question 16 6_1_ 13. What educational program are you attending? 1. Associates Degree in Data processing 2. Para-legal 3. Bachelor of Arts 4. Business Management (four year degree) 14. How long have you been attending this educational program? 1. less than one year 2. One year 3. Two years 4. Three years 5. Four years or more 15. What is your goal for attending this educational program? 1. Two year degree 2. Four year degree 16. Are you currently attending the prison vocational program? 1. Yes 2. No 17. What vocational program are you attending? 1. Horticulture 2. Janitorial 3. Auto Mechanic 4. Slaughter House 18. How long have you been attending this vocational program? 1. Less than one year 2. One year 3. Two years 4. Three years Directions Residents in this prison facility are given the opportunity of deciding whether to attend educational or vocational prison programs. Below is a list of reasons for attending educational or vocational prison programs. For each of the reasons listed circle the degree of importance from very important, somewhat importance or not important, for your decision to attend the educational or vocational prison program Very Somewhat Not Important lrnportant Important 1. To learn new ideas and knowledge 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2. Interested in the courses offered. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 3. A desire to obtain a degree or certification. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 4. To learn a skill. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 5. To be around females who are 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 non Correctional Officers. 6. To get a better job when released. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 7. To impress the parole board. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 8. To gain acceptance from peers. 9. To socialize with other prisoners. 10. To be treated as a person and not a number. 11. To have more time out of ones prison cell. 12. As a way to earn money. 13. As a way to make time sentenced go faster. 14. To get away from Correctional Officers. 1 5. To get away from dangerous inmates. 16. As a way to reduce boredom 1 7. To change the daily routine of confinement. 18. To interact with non-prison staff. 19. To gain a temporary relief from prison rules and regulations. 20. To feel a sense of achievement. 21. To gain privileges. 22. To build self-esteem. 23. To stimulate the mind. 24. To add a positive activity in your prison file 25. Other reason. Please Specify. Very Important IDLOLDQDQDIDLDEOLDCDLDCD ©©©©©© m oooooooc oooooooo Somewhat Important 0305030303 0303030303030) 050303050505 5 5 ububb-bububuhubuh J}. A A 43:34}- Not Important APPENDIX B SELF-ACTUALIZATION INTERESTS & PERSONAL GAIN INTERESTS 6_3, SELF- ACTUALIZATTON INTERESTS AND PERSONAL GAIN INTERESTS Self-actualization interests Personal gain interests 1. To learn new ideas and knowledge. 5. To be around females who are non - correctional officers. 2. Interested in the course offered. 7. To impress the parole board. 3. A desire to obtain a degree or certification. 8. To gain acceptance form peers. 4. To learn a skill. 9. To socialize with other prisoners. 6. To get a better job when released. 10. To be treated as a person and not a number. 20. To feel a sense of achievement 11. To have more time out of ones 22. To build self-esteem prison cell. 23. To stimulate the mind. 12. As a way to earn money. 13. As a way to make time sentenced to go faster 14. To get away form correctional officers. 15. To get away from dangerous inmates. 16. As a way to reduce boredom 17. To change the daily routine of confinement. 18. To interact with non-prison staff. 19. To gain temporary relief from prison rules and regulations. 21. To gain privileges. 24. To add an activity in prison life. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrams, Allan I, and Siegel, Larry M. (1978). The Transcendental Meditation Program and Rehabilitation at Folsom State Prison Criminal lustice and Behavior. 5(1), 3 - 20. Allen, Ray A. (1974). Inmates Go To College. Personnel and Guidance lournal _5_3(2), 146 -149. Anderson, Dennis. (1981). The Relationship Between Correctional Education and Parole Success. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation. 5(3/4), 13 - 25. Armor, Jerry C., Head, David, Blackburn, Vernon and Slone, Carol D. (1989). Amenability to Rehabilitation Among Prison Inmates. Journal of Offender Counflng, Services & Rehabilitation. L412), 137 - 142. Aultman, MG. (1978). Application for a Theory of Corrections. International lournal of Criminology and Penology, 6, 81 - 92. Barnes, Harry, E., and Teeters, Negley, K., (1952). New Horizons in Criminology. (2ed.). New York: Prentice - Hall, Inc. Beckerman, Adela and Fontana, Leonard. (1989). Professional Education in a Maximum Security Prison A comparative study. lournal of Correctional Education. 40(4), 174 - 180. Bindman, Aaron (1973). Why Does Rehabilitation Fail? Internatiomal lournal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. HG), 309-324. Brown, Barry. (1971). The Training Program as a Correctional Change Agent. Crime and Delinquengz, 17(3), 302-309. Coogan, William H., and Woshinsky, Oliver H., (1982). The Science of Politics: An Introduction to Hypothesis Formation and Testing. Washington, DC: University Press of America Inc. Cullen, Francis, T. and Gilbert, Karen, E. (1982). Reaffirm'mg Rehabilitation Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co. 64 65 Dufour, M. M. (1989). Retention Rate for Inmates in Higher Education Programs. Journal of Correctional Education. 46(1), 28 - 33. Duguid, Stephen (1982). Rehabilitation Through Education: A Canadian Model. flurnal of Offender CounseLng. Services & Rehabilitation. 6, 53 - 67. Duguid, Stephen (1981). Prison Education and Criminal Choice: The Context of Decision - Making. Canadian Journal of Criminology, _2_3, 421 - 437. Erez, Edna. (1987). Rehabilitation in Justice: The prisoner's perspective. Journal of Offender Coming; Services & Rtmabilitation MO), 5- 19. Enockson, Karin (1980). Correctional programs: A review of the value of education and training in penal institutions. Journal of Offender Counsflpg' , Services 6Rehabilitation 6(1), 5 -17. Fattab, E. A. (1980). Towards a Better Penal System The Howard lournal, 19, 27 - 41. Friedman, Thomas W. and Bice, Garry R. (1992). Cognitive Learning Growth in Occupational Achievement. Journal of Correctional Education, 46(2), 66 - 72. Furtado, Andre and J ohnson, Don. (1990). Education and Rehabilitation in a Prison Journal of Offender Counseh_ng' , Services & Rehabilitation. 4(3), 247 - 273. Forsythe, William J. (1987). The Reform of Prisoners 1830-1900. London: Crown Helm. Glazer, Sarah (1989). Can Prisons Rehabilitate Criminals? CongLessional Quarterly, 4, 430-443. Glover, J.W., and Lotze, E.W. (1989). Prison schooling: Who gets educated? Journal of Correctional Education 4_0(3), 108-114. Gottfredson, Michael. (1979). Treatment Destruction Techniques. lournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16(1), 39-53. Hagan, Frank, E. (1989). Research Methods in Criminal lustice and Criminology (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. 66 Homant, Robert J. (1977). Motivation, need and therapy effectiveness in a correctional institution Offender Rehabilitation. 8(1), 53 - 64. Hussey, Fredrick A, and Briggs, Joseph P. (1980). Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System Journal of Offender CounseImg' , Services & Rehabilitation. 6(2), 47-59. Irwin, John (1974). The Trouble with Rehabilitation Criminal lustice and Behavior. 1(2), 139 - 149. Janus Michael. (1985). Selective Incapacitation: Have We tired it? Does it Work? lournal of Criminal lustice, 18, 117-129. Jones, Wesley A. (1982). Attitudes of Corrections Educators and Residents Toward Post - Secondary Programming for the Incarcerated. Journal of Correctional Education, 3_3_(4), 4 - 6. Kiser, George C. (1987). Teaching College Courses To Inmates. lournal of Correctional Education 88(3), 102 - 106. Knepper, Paul. (1990). Selective Participation, Effectiveness, and Prison College Programs. Journal of Offender CoungangpServices & Rehabilitation 14(2), 109 - 135. Kratcoski, Peter C., and Scheuerman, Kirk. (1974). Incarcerated Male and Female Offenders' Perceptions of Their Experiences in the Criminal Justice System lournal of Criminal lustice, 8, 73-78. Linden, Rick and Perry, Linda. (1982). The Effectiveness of Prison Education Programs. Journal of Offender CounaeLng. Services & Rehabilitation. 6(4), 43 - 57. Lipton Douglas; Martinson, Robert & Wilks, Judith (1975). Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment. New Yorlc Praeger Publishers. Mack, Mary P. (1969). A Bentham Reader. (pp. 78-121). New York: Pegasus. Marsh, John (1973). Let's Put the Dean Behind Prison Bars. NASPA Journal, 11(2), 19 - 24. Mrad, David F. and Kransnoff, Alan G. (1977). Use of MMPI and Demographic Variables in Predicting Dropouts from a Correctional Therapeutic Community. Offender Rehabilitation 1(2), 193 - 201. 67 Martinson Robert. (1974). What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform The Public Interest 86, 22 - 51. Michalek, William (1988). Correctional Education: Skill acquisition and moral enterprise. Journal of CorrectionAEducation. 39(1). Middlebrook, Patricia, N. (1974). Social Psychology and Modern Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. McCollum, Sylvia G. (1977). What Works!. Federal Probation 41(2), 32 - 35. McIntosh, Mathew. (1986). The Attitudes of Minority Inmates Towards Recreation Programs as a Rehabilitative Tool. murnal of Offender Counseli_ng' . Services & Rehabilitation 16(4), 79 - 85. O'Neil, Marian (1990). Correctional Higher Education: Reduced recidivism?. lournal of Correctional Education 41(1), 28 - 31. Orsagh, Thomas and Marsden Mary, E. (1985). What Works When: Rational - Choice theory and offender rehabilitation lournal of Criminal lustice, 18(3), 269 - 277. Osberg, Timothy M. (1986). Teaching Psychology in a Prison Teacm g of Psychology, 18(1), 15 - 19. Parker, Edward, A. (1990). The Social - psychological Impact of a College Education on the prison inmate. Journal of Correctional Education QB), 140 -146. Peak, Ken. (1984). Post - secondary Correctional Education: contemporary Program Nature and Delivery Systems in the US. Journal of Correctiong Education £9), 58 - 62. Pellegrini, Robert, T., and Meyers, Susan J. (1992). Psychology For Correctional Education Illinois: Thomas Publisher. Petersilia, Joan (1979). Which inmates participate in prison treatment programs. lournal of Offender Counseli_r_rg' . Services & Rehabilitation. 4(2), 121 - 135. Phfllipson Coleman (1970). Three Criminal Law Reformers. New Jersey: Patterson Smith 68 Pollack, Ricki. (1979). The ABC's of Prison Education Corrections Magazine, 6(3), 61 - 66. Reagen Michael V., and Stoughton Douglas, M. (1976). School Behind Bars: A descriptive Overview of Correctional Education in the American Prison System (ed). NJ: Scarecrow Press, Inc. Robinson James and Smith, Gerald. (1971). The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs. Crime and Delinquency, January, 67 - 80. Roby, Patricia C. and Dwyer, Helene. (1991). Through the Looking Glass Darkly: Teaching for thinking. Journal of Correctional Education. £9), 74 - 78. Ross, Robert, Fabiano, Elizabeth and Ross, Roslynn (1988). (Re)Habilitation Through Education: A cognitive model for corrections. Journal of Correctional Education 3(2), 44 - 47. Saden SJ. (1962). Correctional Research Journal of Correctiong Education 14, 22 - 25. Schnur, Alfred C. (1943). The Educational Treatment of Prisoners and Recidivism The American Journal of Sociology, 5_9, 142 - 147. Shihadeh, ES & Nedd, Albert N. (1974). The perceptions of penitentiary inmates and staff. .Ioumal of Social Psychology, 98, 217 - 224. Siegel, Larrt J., & Senna, Joseph J. (1985). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice. & Law. (2nd ed.) (pp500—503) New York: West Publishing Co. Siegel, Larry J., & Senna, Joseph J. (1988). Juvenile Delingueng: Theom, Practice & Law. (3rd ed.) (pp50-60) New York: West Publishing Co. Scholfied, Philip. (1989). First Principles Preparatory to Constitutiona1 Code. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stephens, Robert T. (1992). To What Extent and Why Do Inmates Attend School In Prison Journal of Correctional Education. i4_3(1), 52 - 56. Sudman Seymour & Bradburn Norman M. (1982). Asking Question; (pp232-233) Washington: Jossey - Bass Publishers. Sykes, Gresham (1958). The Society of Captives: A study of a 69 maximum securig prison New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Thomas, Charles, W. (1987). Corrections in America: Problems of the past and the present. Newbury Parlc Sage Publications. Thorpe, Thomas, MacDonald, Donald and Bala Gerald. (1984). Follow - up study of offenders who earn college degrees while incarcerated in New York State. Journal of Correctional Education £8), 86 - 88. Trojanowicz, Robert C., and Morash, Merry. (1987). (4th ed.) luvenile Delinquency. Concepts and Control Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Vold, George, B. (1979). Theoretical Criminology. (2nd ed.) (pp. 235 - 245). New York: Oxford University Press. Volpe, Richard, Waksman Mary, and Kearney, Colleen (1985). Cognitive Education in Four Canadian Prisons. Journal of Correctionfl Education ER), 66 - 74. Vukcevich, Samuel. (1970). The General Progress of Correctional Education Journal of Correctionfl Education. 21. 16 - 20. Werner, David. (1990). Correctional Educaiton: Theory and practice. Danvill, Illinois: Interstate Publishers. White, T.W. (1989). Corrections: Out of Balance. Federal Probation. 63(4), 31-35. Wilson James, Q. (1985). "What Works?" Revisited: New findings on criminal rehabilitation The Public Interest. 61(14), 3 - 17. Wolford, Bruce, I., and Littlefield, John (1985). Correctional Post - Secondary Education: The Expanding Role of Community Colleges. Communigllunior College Quarterly, 6, 257 - 272. Zumpetta, Anthony W. (1988). Full - Time Vocational Training in Corrections: Measuring effectiveness vs. appearance. lournal of Correctional Education _3_9(3), 130 - 13. ..111111111111111111111111111.