- mailbag 1‘

THE FEASIBILITY OF
ENSHTU'HNG SUBSIDiZATEON OF

THE RELEASED INMATE

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
NORMAN C. COLTER

1970

.4 ‘. -m.~.--.-~~._."

  
     

  

‘ LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 
 
  

       

BINDING av ‘5

:, Ono“; & SflNS‘
aoyquma-

. TiE FEASIBILITY OF ILSTITUTIL} SUESIDIZATION

1"

OF THE RELEASED ILW

t4:

by

Norman C. Colter

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENC“
School of Criminal Justice

1970

{kl (£qu fifwfize‘i/‘fl/

Approved

 

u. A. Goldberg, In D., 330:!

Ugntm G . SW

 

Victor G. Strecher, Ih.D.

[8 0 /9’):‘»M 4:;

R.C. Trojanbwicz, ?h. D.

ABSTRACT

THE FEASIBILITY OF INSTITUTING SUBSIDIZATION
OF THE RELEASED INMATE

BY
Norman C. Colter

All inmates at one time were first offenders.
After the first offense some leave the stream of criminal
activity and never return; some leave following probation,
but others continue on to jail or reformatory. Some draw
out of the current after this first institutional experi-
ence, but others continue on their course to multiple prison
sentences before they change their pattern of life. Some
seem never to abandon the steady trek to and from prison.

The rate of recidivism among inmates is extremely
high during the first six months following their release
from prison. This release begets a host of economic and
social problems. To find his way out of a life of crime,
the released prisoner needs to attain economic self-suffi-
ciency through acquiring an adequate legitimate income. He
also needs to develop satisfying social relationships with
noncriminal persons and to sever his ties with those com-

mitted to crime. The two most pronounced deterrents to a

Norman C. Colter

successful reformation seem to be economic deprivation and
the inability to affiliate with noncriminal social groups.

Most releases subsist only through the help of
friends and relatives. The latter tend to provide room and
board, but where such assistance is lacking, emergency food
and shelter are available at welfare missions in the "skid
row" areas of large cities; this is hardly a condition con—
ducive to a self-sufficient noncriminal life. Sometimes
the homes of relatives which are returned to because of the
availability of free subsistence cause a return to neighbor-
hoods or family social relationships which only foster
further criminality.

The primary hypothesis of this study is: that
financial assistance during the first six months following
release would be a deterrent to recidivism.

The secondary hypothesis of this study is: that
this financial assistance would not be an additional burden
on the taxpayer. Rather, in the long run, it will cost less
to fund this type of program than to maintain the current
practice of incarceration.

This study includes a compilation of data received
from the various departments of corrections and inmate in-
terviews. There are sections devoted to the history of
release procedures, recidivism, and aid available to re-

leased inmates from private societies and public agencies.

Norman C. Colter

I have discussed a method of convincing the tax-
payers and legislators of the need for financial assistance
to released inmates during the immediate post-release
period.

My proposal may not be the only method of lowering
the rate of recidivism but it is apparent that the current
process of "rehabilitation" in most systems is not suc-

cessful.

THE FEASIBILITY OF INSTITUTING SUBSIDIZATION

OF THE RELEASED INMATE

 

A Thesis
Presented to
the School of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

 

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

 

by
Norman C. Colter

August 1970

COpyright by
NORMAN C. COLTER

1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest appreciation
to the contributing Departments of Corrections for making
this thesis possible. I would like to extend my thanks to
the Michigan Department of Corrections for allowing me to
interview inmates at the State Prison of Southern Michigan.

I_would also like to express my gratitude to the
members of my thesis committee, and particularly to Dr.
William A. Goldberg without whose many hours of instruction
and guidance I could not have completed the project.

I also wish to thank my wife, Betty Ann, and my
children, Gregory and Marianne, whose patience, understand-
ing and assistance have enabled me to complete this thesis

and my education.

ii,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .>. . . v
Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . .,. . . . . . 3

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Scope of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Definition of Terms Used . . . . . . . . . 9

II. FINANCIAL COST OF PRISON SYSTEMS . . . . . . 11
Administration of Corrections . . . . . . . ll
Over-All Cost of the System . . . . . . . . 14
Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hidden Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

III. BACKGROUND OF RELEASE PROCEDURES . . . . . . 24

Pardon O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 24
Par01e O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 27
Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

IV. RECIDIVISM o o o o 'o o o o o o o o o o o o o 31

IntrOdUCtion o '0 o o o o o o o 'o o o o o o 3]. ‘

iii

Chapter

Causative Factors and Rates . . . . . . .

Time Lapse from Parole to Violation . . .

V. POST-RELEASE AID . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volunteers of America . . . . . . . . . .
Salvation Army . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John Howard Society . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI. DIRECTOR QUESTIONNAIRE DATA . . . . . . . .
VII. INMATE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA . . . . . . . . .

VIII. PLANNING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PROPOSED PROGRAM 0 O O O O O _ O O O I C 0

Establishing Eligibility of Released
Inmate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Responsibility for Distribution of Funds

Convince Legislators and Taxpayers of
Need for Program . . . . . . . . . . .

IX 0 CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

BIBLIOGRAPHY o o ‘ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
APPENDIX ' l o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

APPENDIX 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

Page

32
35
38
38
39
41
43
45
47

59

66

66

68

69

73

77
80

83

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Inmate Wage Range or Level by Systems, 1970 . . 48

2. Released Inmate Aid in Terms of Grants, Loans,
and Bus Ticket Home by Systems, 1970 . . . . . 52

3. Rate of Recidivism and Yearly Cost of
Incarceration by Systems, 1970 . . . . . . . . 56

4. Length of Time Since Previous Release, Survey-
of Fifty Inmates, State Prison of Southern_
MiChigan at JaCkSOD,‘JHIY‘l, 1970 o o o o o o 59

5.‘ Percentage of Inmates Returned to Prison for
New Crime, Parole Violation, or Combination
of Both; Survey of Fifty Inmates, State
Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson,
July 1, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6. Money in Account or Available Upon Release,
Survey of Fifty Inmates, State Prison of
Southern Michigan at Jackson, July 1, 1970 . . 61

7. Inmate Survey Regarding Lack of Adequate
Living Expenses as Contributing Factor to
Return, Number of Dependents to Support,
and Estimated Time of Needed Assistance--
Fifty Inmates from State Prison of
Southern Michigan at Jackson, July 1, 1970 . . 62

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

Introduction

 

Doing time means losing time and many men feel a
driving need to make up for the wasted years. So much of
living has gone by, so much loss of earnings, so much en-
joyment, so much opportunity, that the tolerance for frus-
tration can become slight. There is an urge to acquire
such visible symbols of success as expensive watches or
rings. Another manifestation is the desire for a "good
front" seen in stylish and expensive clothes. Unless things
break right and quickly, the temptation is ever present to
revert to known habit patterns and do it the easy way.
Linked with this is often a "chip-on-the-shoulder" defens-
iveness which expects discrimination and projects it even
on the most sincere helping efforts if they do not imme-
diately produce the desired results.

It is a truism, too, that a manis real punishment
begins when he returns to society.and all of us in law en-
forcement, institutional treatment and after-care work are
actively concerned about the kind of climate.society main-

tains for the ex-convict. There are undoubtedly a number

of men who do not seem to care much about their future
return to society. But in most cases the man judges our
efforts by the answer-to his supreme question--"How-will
society accept me on release?" He has paid his debt, he
has-made his time, he wants to go straight. Will he be
given the chance?

. Eventually he confronts his community again and
immediately becomes aware of certain needs common to all
human beings.- As a biological organism he must exist and
to this end needs food, clothing and shelter. I found
there is little question that the amount of his "gate
money” is inadequate, in modern terms, to provide him with
subsistence and necessities to last him till he has found
a job and secured his first pay. In essence he is all too
often to all intents and purposes insolvent the day he is
released.

This is one area of need to which I would draw
your attention. Efforts should be made to secure better
gratuities based not on a relationship to time served,
which may be a proper one to be observed in regard to
prison earnings, but on a realistic appreciation of the
need for physical survival faced by any man leaving prison.
The material-needs of a man who has been in prison for
only three months are largely the-same as those of longer-
sentence men.~ It is not so much the length of time served

which is the important factor here; but rather, even for a

short-sentence man, the dislocation from home, job and
community relationships and the stigma of being an ex-
convict. If reasonable-provision is not made for his
needs at this point we may well be leaving him in circum-

stances conducive to his return to crime.

Statement of the Problem

 

Corrections (America's prisons, jails, juvenile
training schools, and probation and parole machinery) is
the part of the criminal justice system that the public-
sees least of and knows least about. It seldom gets into
the news unless there is a jail break, a prison riot, or a
sensational scandal involving corruption or brutality in
an institution or by an official. The institutions in
which about a third of the corrections population lives
are situated for the most part in remote rural areas, or
in the basements of police stations or courthouses. The_
other two—thirds of the corrections population are on
probation and parole, and so are widely, and on the whole
invisibly, dispersed in the community. Corrections is not
only hard to see; traditionally, society has been reluctant
to look_at it. Many of the people, juvenile and adult,
with whom corrections deals.are the most troublesome and.
troubling members of society: the misfits and the failures,
the unrespectable and the irresponsible. Society has been

well content to keep them out of sight.

The invisibility of the system belies its size,
complexity, and crucial importance to the control of
crime. Corrections consists of scores of different kinds
of institutions and programs of the utmost diversity~in
approach, facilities, and quality. On any given day it is
responsible for approximately 1.3 million offenders. In
the course of a year it handles nearly 2.5 million admis-
sions, and spends over a billion dollars doing 50.1 If it
could restore all or even most of these people to the com-
munity as responsible citizens, America's crime rate would
drop significantly. For as it is today, a substantial
percentage of offenders become recidivists; they go on to
commit more, and often more serious, crimes. Recidivism,
its causes and my suggested solution, will be the core of

this thesis.

Purpose of the Study

The immediate problem of most ex-inmates is sur—
vival. Gate money from institutions or prison earnings-
from the penitentiaries are so small that ex-inmates are
to all intents and purposes insolvent when they leave
prison.. A rough estimate used to be that a penitentiary

inmate would have on release an average of about $7.50 a

 

1The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice, Task Forge Report: Corrections
(Washington, D.C.: Govt. Printing Office, 1967}, p. 159. ‘

year for time served plus a dress—out of clothing season-
ally appropriate.2 Recently prison earnings have increased
and more money will be available to the men as they leave,
though estimates are still difficult to suggest. The
securing of food, shelter, and work clothes is an imme-
diate necessity.

There is an assumption that it is possible to
apply various measures to juvenile and adult offenders
which will result in lower rates of recidivism or rein-
volvement in criminality than can be achieved in a system
of corrections structured entirely around punitive goals.
Prevailing Opinions on this issue tend toward polar ex-
tremes. One rather common View regarding the treatment of
offenders is that once an appropriate structure is provided
for rehabilitative efforts, including larger budgets,
smaller case loads, wider use of probation, better classi-
fication programs, more trained workers in corrections,
higher salaries, and the like, dramatic reductions in
recidivism will quickly follow. This is a position of
unbridled and undue optimism, for there is little empirical
basis for such afaith.3 Improvements in correctional

structure could have little effect upon recidivism until

 

2A. M. Kirkpatrick, "The Human Problems of Prison
After-Care" (John Howard Society of Ontario), 1970, p. 9.

3Don C. Gibbons, Changing the Lawbreaker (Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., I965), p. 15.

 

improvements are also made in the practice theory of
treatment, and even then dramatic reductions in delin-
quency and criminality may be unlikely.

It should not be forgotten that many ex-inmates
have old debts or debts incurred by their families during
their imprisonment. On release their immunity from pres-
sure to pay these debts ceases, and before they have even
solved the problem of survival they are under pressure to
pay up. Often their personal belongings or family-fur-
nishings have vanished or have been used to eke out an
existence for their dependents so that they frequently
start from way_behind scratch.

It is the purpose of this thesis to show that
there is a definite need for financial assistance to in-
mates during the initial months after release from prison.
It is my contention that this type of program could have a
"greater impact on reducing the rate of recidivism than
current rehabilitative practices popular in today's insti-
tutions. I further intend to show that this type of as-
sistance will not be a greater burden on taxpayers..
Rather, in the long run, it will cost less to fund this
type of program than to maintain the current practice of

incarceration.

Scope of the Study

 

The feasibility of instituting subsidization of
the released inmate necessitated research among various
departments of corrections. A Cover letter and research
questionnaire (Appendix 1) were mailed to the director of
each of the fifty state departments of correction, plus
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Canadian Peniten-
tiary Service. This questionnaire was designed to show:

1. Present daily wage of inmates.
2. Amount received at time of parole or discharge.
3. Rate of recidivism within first six months.

4. Current yearly cost per inmate during incarcera-
tion.

5. Any assistance to inmates' families during their
incarceration.

It was mailed out on April 22-23, 1970. As of July 1,

1970 all departments had replied except the following:
Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama,
New York, Virgin Islands, and Virginia. The percentage of
return was 83.6% (46 out of 55) which I felt was excep-
tionally good. In many cases not only was the question-
naire returned but additional literature was sent pertain-
ing to the above areas. Mr. N. A. Carlson of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons and Mr. Amos E. Reed of the Oregon Cor-
rections Division have requested copies of the thesis upon

completion.

A request was submitted to and approved by Gus
Harrison, Director, Michigan State Department of Correc—
tions to personally interview 50 returnees at the State
Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson. On June 26, 1970
arrangements were made with Ex Rhodes Barham, Director of
the Reception and Diagnostic Center at Southern Michigan
Prison to interview the inmates. These interviews were
personally conducted with the assistance of Henry Risley,
Vocational Counsellor of the Center on July 1, 1970. The
inmate interview questionnaire consisted of the following
questions: (Appendix 2)

1. How long has it been since you left here?

2.. Length of time between arrest and actual return to
the system.

3. Return for parole violation or new crime.

4. Money that you had, or was available to you, when
released the last time.

5. Do you feel that lack of adequate living expenses
was a contributing factor to your return?

6. Did you have anyone other than yourself to support
when you were released?

7. How long do you feel you could have used assistance

with living expenses before you could have main-
tained them on your own?

Those inmates who participated were strictly volunteers
and their identity remains anonymous. I-used the first
fifty-one inmates who had completed their testing for this
study.* This method was used because of the complexity of

the prison system.

The scope of this study will include a compilation
of data received from the various departments of correc-
tions and the inmate interviews.

This-study will include a discussion of the yearly
cost of maintaining an inmate in prison, the obvious as
well as the hidden costs. Included also will be a discus-
sion of the cost of the prison system as a whole.

It is my feeling that this study would be incom-
plete without sections devoted to the history of release
procedures, recidivism, and aid available to released in-
mates from private societies and public agencies.

Anticipated problems and their solutions in estab-
lishing subsidization of the released inmate will be dis-

<3ussed in depth and a program established for the imple—

Inentation of such a plan.

Definition of Terms Used

Prison Systems--refers to the entire state-wide

 

system rather than to an individual prison. For example--
.111 Michigan this includes Jackson, Marquette, Ionia, M.T.U.

and their satellites .

Recidivism--habitual or chronic relapse, or ten-

 

dency to relapse, into crime or antisocial behavior pat-
terns.4 For the purposes of this study it will also in-

C311:1c'1e parole violators.

—_

4Webster's New World Dictionary of the American
flanguage INew York: The WoflfPuHishing Company, 1964) .

lO

Grants--by this I mean money given outright to the
prisoner at the time of release. (Question 2-a of Appendix
1)

ngggf-by this I mean money loaned to the prisoner
at the time of release which he must pay back.

Subsidy--for purposes of this study will mean
financial assistance given outright to eligible inmates
upon their release from prison for a specified period of
time.

Average Daily Wage--this means the wage paid
directly to the inmate by the prison system.‘

Cost Per Capita of Inmate--this is the total cost,
including everything from medical expenses to education,
of maintaining an inmate in prison for one year.

Rate of Recidivism--percentage of released inmates

 

that return to prison.

Parole--may be defined as post-institutionalization
care of the offender that is legally compulsory and usually
lasts for an extended period. It is a time of qualified
freedom for the offender, based on the assumption that, on
the one hand, he no longer needs to be incarcerated but,
on the other, is not yet prepared to assume a full role in
society without a trial period of observation and super-

. . 5
VlSlon.

 

5U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
The Reentry of the Offender into the Community (by Elliot
Studt) (Washington: 1967), p. Iii.

CHAPTER II
FINANCIAL COST OF PRISON SYSTEMS

Administration of Corrections

Corrections is fragmented administratively, with
the Federal Government, all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, most of the country's 3,047 coun-
ties, and all except the smallest cities having one or
more correctional facilities, if only a primitive jail in
which to lock up overnight those who are "drunk and dis-
orderly." Typically, each level of government acts inde-
pendently of all the others. The Federal Government has
no control over state corrections. The states usually
have responsibility-for prisons and parole programs,-but
probation is often a county or municipal function. Coun-
ties do not have jurisdiction over the jails operated by
cities and towns. This situation is in sharp contrast to
correctional systems in other urban and industrialized
countries, where correctional activity usually is the

responsibility of the central government.6 It is this

 

6The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections
(Washington, D.C.: Govt. Printing Office, 1967), p. 5.

ll

12

fragmentation and duplication that makes the construction
and maintenance of a prison system an extremely costly
project for the taxpayers.

In the vast majority-of city and county jails~and
local short-term institutions, no significant progress has
been made in the past 50 years.7

In the second decade of this century, Louis Robin-
son wrote:

From many points of view, the jail is the most
important of all our institutions of imprisonment.
The enormous number of jails is alone sufficient . . .
to make (one) realize that the jail is, after all, the
typical prison in the United States . .1. From two-
thirds to three-fourths of all convicted criminals
serve out their sentence in jails. But this is not
all. The jail is, with small exception, the almost
universal detention house for untried prisoners. The
great majority, therefore, of penitentiary and reform-
atory prisoners have been kept for a period varying
from a few days to many months within the confines of
a county or municipal jail. Then, too, there is the
class, not at all unimportant in number, of individ-
uals, who, having finally established their innocence,
have been set free after spending some time in the jail
awaiting trial. Important witnesses also are detained
in jail, and it is used at times for still other pur-
poses, even serving occasionally as a temporary asylum
for the insane . . . The part, therefore, which the
jail plays in our scheme of punishment cannot be over-
estimated. Whether for good or for evil, nearly every
criminal that has been apprehended is subjected to its
influence.

 

7"Local Adult Correction Institutions and Jails,"
Crime and Delinquency, January 1967, p. 137.

8Louis N. Robinson, Penology in the United States
(Philadelphia: John C. Winston, I921I. p. 32.

13

Now, in the seventh decade, this statement by
Robinson and his comments on filth, neglect, and malad-
ministration still accurately describe the role and status
of jails and short-term institutions in the United States.

Great strides have been made in prison administra-
tion since the early days of Sing Sing. We conceive the
modern prison to be a humanely run place with good food,
adequate housing and health facilities, a classification
system to effectively separate and process different types
of inmates, efficient prison industry, a well-trained
staff, and an educational, vocational, religious, psy-
chiatric, and general guidance program to aid the inmate
in his rehabilitation. Despite all this, we find prisons
crowded (we have had about a 5% yearly increase in the
number of inmates but considerably less expansion of
facilities) and remarkably ineffective if measured by
recidivism rates. While there is considerable variation
from one prison to another, the over-all average of in-
mates released from prison but returned under sentence for

9 (There is no assurance that all

new crimes is about 60%.
of the remaining 40% become law-abiding; it is suspected

that many violate the criminal law but are not caught.)

 

9Donald J. Newman, "Crime and Crime Prevention,"
Collier's Encyclopedia Yearbook (1961), p. 176.

l4

Over-A11 Cost of the System

Expenditures for corrections in the United States
during 1965 totaled about one billion dollars, excluding
new construction, amortization, the cost of some services
shared with other agencies and paid for out of other bud-
gets,.and many other items which an accountant would use
to arrive at the true cost picture. The National Survey
of Corrections found that the various governmental units
plan to spend over a billion dollars on capital improve-
ment during the coming 10 years. This is a conservative
estimate, since construction costs can be expected to rise
and some jurisdictions do not project capital expenditures
over a 10-year period.

By far the largest item is the $435 million spent
to operate institutions for adult offenders--more than 40
percent of all spending for operating correction in 1965.
The bulk of this $435 million was spent to feed, clothe,
and guard prisoners. Add to this sum the $148 million
spent on county and city jails, where the great bulk of
prisoners were adults, and it will be seen that well over
half the national investment in corrections went to the
management of adult criminals in institutions. About $320
Inillion was spent for all juvenile corrections, with over
two-thirds of that sum allocated for institutional programs.

Although more dollars were spent on adult correc-

tions than on juvenile programs, the average per capita

15

expenditure for the juvenile was much larger than that
provided for the adult felon or misdemeanant. The average
annual cost of institutionalizing a juvenile in 1965 was
$3,613 whereas the comparable figures for the felon and
the.misdemeanant were $1,966 and $1,046, respectively.10
It should be remembered that the juvenile offender of
today may well be the adult inmate of tomorrow.;

The fact that both the general population and the
general crime rate are increasing has caused serious over-
crowding in most prison systems. One answer to this has
been the increased use of probation and the lessening of
time served by liberalizing parole eligibility. In states-
with highly professional probation and parole agencies, as
many as 85 percent of all convicted felons may be on pro-
bation or parole.11 Despite this trend, prison populations
are increasing faster than new building and expansion_
programs.

The administration of a prison system is extremely
costly, and the construction of new correctional facilities
presents a serious tax problem. Even a minimum-security

correctional institution may cost about $20,000 per cell

10The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Adndnistration of Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections
(washington, D.C.: Govt. Printing Office, 1967), p. 5.

11Donald J. Newman, "Crime and Crime Prevention,"
Egngier's Encyclopedia Yearbook (1964), p. 198.

 

16

to build. Furthermore, the initial cost of construction
is but a minor part of the total tax bill. The more "cor-
rectional" the institution, the greater the operating cost.~
A maximum-security institution with limited training and
vocational facilities may have a budget of from $1,200 to
$800 per inmate annually. An institution with more ade-
quate psychiatric, educational, vocational, and classifi-
cation programs may cost upward of $4,000 per inmate per
year.12

To the extent that overcrowding in prison must be
met by the construction of new facilities, it is felt byv
most prison administrators that this construction will
involve the expansion of prison farm and camp programs
and the construction of small institutions with medium- or
minimum-security dormitories or cottages. There is virtu-
ally no penological support for the construction of

13 (I would

maximum-security, walled, and towered prisons.
disagree, in part, with the preceding statement. I feel
that at least 10% of the prison population need the con-
finement of concrete and steel (maximum security). A
maximum security institution may be defined as that which

contains the type of inmate who is likely to make active

efforts to escape, would not hesitate to use violence in

 

lzIbid., p. 198.

l31bid., p. 199.

17

so doing, and is likely to use violence outside, after he
has escaped.) During my field service trip with the
Canadian Penitentiary Service I visited Archambault Insti-
tution, Ste. Anne des Plaines, Quebec. This penitentiary
complex, the first to be built in Canada, was planned in
accord with the present concepts in criminology and
penology. The construction program which commenced in
1966 provided for a total expenditure of approximately
$25,000,000. A maximum security institution and the
services buildings such as stores, maintenance shops, main
kitchen and the water, heat and power plants have been
completed. The construction of a minimum security annex
is planned to accommodate the inmates to be employed in
the services maintenance. Later, a reception center and a
medical center will be constructed. When in full opera-
tion, the institution will employ approximately 250 offi-
cers whose annual salary will amount to more than
$1,750,000. When the construction of this complex is
completed, it will employ approximately 415 officers whose

annual salary will be more than $3,000,000.14

Personnel

Correctional agencies across the country face

acute shortages of qualified manpower, especially in

 

l4Data received from Warden LeCorre of Archambault
Institution, Ste. Anne des_Plaines, Quebec, Canada during
my tour of the institution on November 20, 1969.

18

positions charged with responsibility for treatment and
rehabilitation. Thousands of additional probation and
parole officers are required now to achieve minimum stand-
ards for effective treatment and control. Many more
thousands will be needed in the next decade.

Similar, though not as acute, shortages are com-
monplace in specialist positions within correctional in-
stitutions. Teachers, caseworkers, vocational instructors,
and group workers are all needed in great numbers, as are
personnel to carry out classification and screening func-
tions, within both institutional and community programs.

Guards and house parents are substantially more
numerous, but there is a major need to recruit more ade-
quately qualified persons and to develop new skills and
perspectives, so that these thousands of workers may play
a significant role in rehabilitative programs. Today the
great potential which they have for changing offenders,
rather than merely overseeing them, goes largely unreal-
ized.

At the beginning of 1962 there were approximately
42,387 employees in state and federal correctional insti-
tutions for adults, the great majority of them guards or
members of custodial staffs. This figure does not include
employees in juvenile training schools, in jails, or in

detention facilities.

19

There is a great need for professionally trained
help. A study made in 1960 showed that there were only 33
full-time and 50 part-time psychiatrists working in cor-
rectional systems throughout the United States. The study
also showed only 109 full-time psychologists, 605 full-time
social workers, and 144 full-time physicians or surgeons.
Professional schools of social work are not yet capable of
producing enough graduates with master‘s degrees in cor-
rections to staff correctional programs. In early 1963
Wisconsin, which has one of the most professional correc—
tional services, had approximately 100 vacancies for pro-
fessional social workers, with no prospects of filling
them.15

Over 121,000 peOple were employed in corrections
on an average day in 1965, 15 percent in community pro-
grams, which handled 67 percent of all offenders, the
other 85 percent in institutions, where 33 percent of all
offenders were confined.

Functionally classified 63,000, or 52 percent of
all staff, were custodial employees--guards, supervisors,
' and house parents. Another 34,000 or 28 percent, were
engaged in service or administrative functions. Thus,

only 24,000 workers, or 20 percent, were primarily engaged

 

15Donald J. Newman, "Crime and Crime Prevention,"
Collier's Encyclgpedia Yearbook (1963), p. 240.

20

in activities Specifically designated as aimed at treat-
ment.- This figure includes all the probation and parole
workers, as well as social workers, psychiatrists, psy—
chologists, and teachers.16
Many correctional manpower problems stem from con-
ditions which make the field unattractive to competent and
ambitious persons. Salaries are very low. For example,
the median starting salary for custodial employees in
adult institutions is between $4,000 and $5,000 per year.
In juvenile institutions, it is even lower--$3,000 to
$4,000. Teachers, social workers, and counselors do not
fare much better. Higher education in the United States
has displayed little interest in the special problems in-
volved in dealing with offenders under correctional treat-
ment. In addition, working conditions are difficult, and
the public image of the work--and therefore its prestige--
are generally poor.17
As a result of these conditions, administrators of
correctional programs tend to have limited backgrounds.
Too often they are promoted to their managerial posts from
within the system, without adequate training, experience,

or fitness for their task. A number are also chosen

largely on the basis of political considerations.

 

16The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections
(Washington, D.C.:. Govt. Printing Office, 1967), p. 6.

l7Ibid., p. 6.

21

Correction faces a difficult task in recruiting
the enormous numbers of additional manpower it so des-
perately needs. It must compete with other institutions
in attracting professional personnel and must enlarge and
improve its line custodial staff. Three general ways to
deal with the problem are to (1) reduce the rate of staff
turnover; (2) provide intensive in-service training and
upgrading programs; and (3) bring in new peOple. Better
salaries-and opportunities for career advancement are
vital. New sources of manpower, such as former inmates
and students, should be exploited. Finally, correction
must erase its "stigma" and stimulate community interest
and support.18

The quality of the personnel in the prison consti-
tutes the single most important influence on the day-to-
day life inside and on the eventual personal and social
adjustment of the prisoner when he is released. There is
no more urgent subject, then, for executive attention in
the administration of the prison.19

Fulfillment of the above suggested programs would

constitute an additional burden on the already over-loaded

taxpayer.

 

18Charles W. Phillips, "Developing Correctional
Manpower," Crime and Delinquency (July 1969), p. 415.

19W. T. McGrath (ed.), Crime and Its Treatment in
Canada (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1965), p. 318.

 

22

Hidden Costs

 

The cost of crime is more than the losses of vic-
tims. Taxpayer assessments such as police salaries and
equipment, courts, crime laboratories, and research pro-
grams must be added to give a more accurate total. This
final sum would be increased even further if the cost of
theft insurance, protective devices like burglar-alarm
systems, and the loss of productive labor by the men in
prison (and their guards) were included.

Much of the cost of crime is other than financial.
Certainly the major price we pay is in loss of life and
health, both physical and mental. Furthermore, every
citizen pays some emotional price for crime in terms of
insecurity and anxiety, and the ultimate cost to our
society of corruption, vice, and racketeering is immeas-
urable.

The financial cost to our society of supporting
the offender's family while he is incarcerated must also
be considered. Many of these families do support them-
selves but many others rely on welfare benefits for sup—
port. Although I was unable to find any statistics on
welfare costs of dependent families of imprisoned offend-
ers, it can be assumed that these costs run into hundreds
of thousands of dollars annually.

Currently, there is a movement afoot in several

countries to reexamine the problem of restitution or

23

compensation to the victim. Realizing that the offender
is in no position to pay indemnity for his act, criminal
lawyers and criminologists are seriously contemplating the
possibility of the state's making compensation to the vic—
tim for harm, injury, or death. Precedent is found in
workmen's compensation laws (or industrial injury acts),
which have existed in many countries for two to three
generations. The absence of state responsibility for in-
jury to the victim becomes somewhat ludicrous when one
contemplates the growing efforts in modern countries to
rehabilitate the offender as a part of probation, prison,
and parole (or after-care) administration. The state--
rightly so--is making a greater and greater investment in
attempts to treat, reeducate, and restore offenders, so
that they can lead fairly stable and useful lives in the
community. But the state, as of the present, has little,
if any, concern for the victim and his dependent. The
question is: shouldn't the state have as much, if not
more, concern for those who have been injured or who have

suffered loss at the hands of the offenders?20

 

20Walter C. Reckless, The Crime Problem (New York:
Appleton-Century Crofts, 1967), p. 144:

CHAPTER III
BACKGROUND OF RELEASE PROCEDURES

Pardon

Historically, the principal forms of mitigation of
punishment consist of pardons and commutations of sen-
tences. All civilized countries make use of some form of
the pardon power to give flexibility to the administration
of justice in criminal cases. In England this power his-
torically is vested in the Crown. But in the United States)
it is vested in the People, who can delegate the power to
whomever they please. As a matter of practice, the People
have found it most convenient to give the power to the
executive branch of the government. Thus, under the
United States Constitution the pardon power in federal
cases has been delegated to the President; and practically
all the state constitutions have delegated this power in
state criminal cases to the governor, either alone or in

conjunction with advisers.21

 

21Charles L. Newman, Sourcebook oanrobation,
Parole and Pardons (Springfield: Thomas Books, 1964f,
pp. 43-44.

24

25

Growth of population plus the complexities of mod-
ern government have routinized the administration of pardon
so that executives usually exercise the power at a dis-
tance, seldom seeing in person the recipient of their
boon. In 34 states pardon boards (or pardon—parole
boards) process all pardon requests; in eight other states
the governors are assisted by pardon attorneys, advisory
officers, or parole commissioners; the remaining governors
handle pardon directly.22

Under ancient common law a declared felon was con-
sidered civilly "dead," his property was forfeited, and
various disabilities were visited upon him as a citizen.
Under present legal provisions, forfeiture no longer takes
place, but conviction for felony usually entails other
automatic disabilities which can seriously impede one's
role as a member of society. The rights to vote, hold
public office, invoke the constitutional privilege against
self—incrimination, be a credible witness, institute law—
suits, and serve on juries are variously abrogated. Full
pardon, which may at the same time release a prisoner,
restores these rights. Prisoners released by completion
of sentence or by parole must, in most states, later peti-

tion the governor for a full pardon to obtain such

 

22D. R. Taft and R. W. England, Jr., Criminology
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 484.

 

26

restoration. Conditional pardon, used almost exclusively
as a release measure, not only does not restore civil
rights, but, as its name implies, imposes obligations upon
the pardonee, who may variously be required to report
periodically to state authorities, remain in the state,
meet financial obligations, reimburse the state for trial
cost, submit to confinement in a state asylum, or meet any
other legitimate requirement deemed in the public interest.

Full pardon can be of value in rehabilitating an
offender seeking to re-establish his role in society, al-
though sound practice would dictate the automatic resto-
ration of civil rights at some point in the correctional
process.

The correctional value of conditional pardon is
doubtful if no supervision of the released person is pro-
vided; without supervision, such pardon is tantamount to
absolute release without restoration of civil rights. In
Texas and a few other states without parole laws, super-
vised conditional release functions as parole.23

In 1961, out of 102,122 prisoners released from
state institutions, 14 were released by pardon and 32 by
conditional pardon (these accounted for less than one-

tenth of one percent of the total). This statistic points

 

23R. W. England, Jr., "Pardon, Commutation, and
Their Improvement," Prison Journal (April 1959), p. 24.

 

27

out the small number of inmates released by these methods.
This paper is mainly concerned with those inmates released
by way of parole, expiration of sentence, and discharge.

These totaled 94,469 out of 102,122 in 1961.24

Parole

For the purposes of this study, parole is defined
as the release of an adult felony offender from a penal
institution, after he has served part of his sentence,
under supervision by the state and under prescribed condi—
tions, which if violated, permit his re-imprisonment.

One of the principal reasons for the development
of the parole system has been the growing realization that
something more than the usual prison program would have to
be introduced to make any real headway toward crime con-
trol. Modern penology sets two standards for any effect-
ive method of treatment: First, that it provide adequate
protection for society, and second, that it have as its
objective the rehabilitation of the offender. Parole has
inherent possibilities for better-than-average success in
both these respects. In addition to its merits as a~pro-
tective and rehabilitative device, parole is an economical

method of treating the offender. Recidivism has come to

 

24D. R. Taft and R. W. England, Jr., Criminology
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 483.

 

28

be the most perplexing problem in crime control, and since
parole shows more promise of preventing recidivism than
any other treatment method we now have, properly adminis-
tered it can serve as one of the most effective means for
preventing and controlling crime.25

In general, parole is granted to a prisoner so
that he may return to normal living. It usually is given
partly as a reward for his good behavior in prison and
partly as a result of evidence that he would be a good
risk if he were permitted to return to his community.
Parole is usually granted by a parole board when a pri-
soner appears ready for a normal life. Its purpose is to
encourage him to find respectable employment and to regain
the place in society he has temporarily lost. Usually the
parolee is expected to report to a parole officer and to
live up to whatever special provisions govern his parole.
A violation of parole may mean his return to jail. It
should be remembered that a man on parole is still a pri-
soner, who is being allowed to complete his prison term
outside of jail. While parole may sometimes be unwisely
granted, in general, when properly administered, it is an
excellent method of restoring a criminal to society.

In Michigan the Parole Board consists of five mem-

bers, appointed by the Corrections Commission according to

 

25U. S. Attorney General, Survey on Release Pro-
cedures Vol. IV, Parole (Washington: 1939), pp. 515-16)

 

29

Civil Service regulations. In this state each person,
except a lifer, is eligible for parole when he has served
the minimum term of his sentence, less good time allow-
ances. Men serving for murder, first degree, or under the
Lifer Law, receive special instructions and explanations
while in the Reception Diagnostic Center. Each person is
automatically interviewed by the Parole Board at the expi-
ration of his minimum sentence, less earned good time al-.
lowances. He is advised in writing of his eligibility
dates shortly after he arrives at the Reception Diagnostic
Center. Three members (a majority) of the Parole Board
must agree on the decision reached in each case. No cases
are decided until a man has been interviewed. Present
policy permits parole hearings about 120 days before the
minimum eligibility date. Where parole is denied, a future
review date is set, reasons are given and advice offered.
Michigan law requires every employable person to have a
satisfactory home and job before he may be released under
parole supervision.26
Having worked for the Michigan Corrections Depart-
ment I chose to cite its rules regarding parole. The lack
of uniformity among the states is, of course, the most ob-

vious defect of parole regulations. These regulations in

 

26Michigan Department of Corrections, Corrections
Quarterly (Lansing: October, 1968), pp. 44-5.

 

30

the fifty states should be carefully reexamined-—not sepa-
rately in each state, but in a coordinated fashion. Lack
of uniformity, impracticality, and multiplicity of regula-
tions are not the only defects. Others are redundancy,

complexity, legal jargon, inconsistency, and irrelevancy.

Discharge.

 

Discharge from prison provides neither selection
nor supervision in the community as do parole and manda-
tory release. Discharge is permanent and unconditional.
It occurs when the maximum term of imprisonment has ex-
pired, when deductions for good behavior or other insti-
tutional credits require complete discharge rather than
mandatory release, or when an act of clemency commutes the
sentence "to the time served," or unconditionally pardons
the prisoner. Expiration of sentence and other discharges
accounted for 42.1% of all prisoners released from state

institutions in 1961 (43,024 out of 102,222).27

27D. R. Taft and R. W. England, Jr., Criminology
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 483.

 

CHAPTER IV

RECIDIVISM

Introduction

 

Even in the better textbooks on criminology there
is no exact definition of recidivism. The dictionary de-
fines the word as a tendency to relapse into crime. While
the term is used somewhat differently by various investi-
gators, it is generally agreed that a recidivist is a pri—
soner who has previously been in correctional custody.

The problem at once arises whether or not men who have
been on probation should, when committed to prison, be
termed recidivists since, technically, they are in correc-
tional custody and have broken a law. Similarly, should
an inmate who has been previously in a boy's school for
petty stealing be considered a recidivist? Again, should
a prisoner whose only previous record consists of a 30-day
jail sentence for drunkenness be considered a recidivist?
In the prison system the professional staff diagnoses
recidivism, not according to previous record alone, but
largely on the basis of personality make-up. Thus, a
"two-time loser" may not be designated a recidivist, and,

conversely, a man who has never been arrested before may

31

32

be diagnosed as a recidivist.28 This individualized un-
derstanding of each case by the professional staff is not
shared by the practical prison officials who generally
take the position that every man who has served time be-

fore is a recidivist.

Causative Factors and Rates

 

Parolees of any age find transition from the in-
stitution to the free community difficult, although the
older person who has been incarcerated for a long time may
experience a more severe disorientation immediately after
release than does his counterpart who has been incarcerated
only a few months. A parolee knows when he is treated
with suspicion, indignity, and rejection. All parolees
can be confused by ambiguous instructions and inconsistent
behaviors among the officials on whose decisions they have
to depend. However, it is well to keep in mind the nature
of the particular parolee population and to consider the
different kinds of operational provisions that might be
necessary to provide conditions of self-worth, adequate
resources, role clarity, opportunities for independent
decision making, and supporting fellowship for juvenile or

adult parolees.

 

28Donald Clemmer, The Prison Community (New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1958), pp. 57-8.

 

33

Unfortunately our crimes against criminals do not
cease when, having served his sentence, the offender is
released from prison. He reenters a world utterly unlike
the one he has been living in and also unlike the one he
left some years before. In the new world, aside from a
few uneasy relatives and uncertain friends, he is sur-
rounded by hostility, suspicion, distrust, and dislike.

He is a marked man--an ex-convict. Complex social and
economic situations that proved too much for him before he
went to prison have grown no simpler. The unequal tussle
with smarter, "nicer," and more successful people begins
again. Proscribed for employment by most concerns, and
usually unable to find new friends or ways of earning a
living, he tries to survive.

His chief occupation for a time will be the search
for a means of livelihood, accompanied by innumerable re-
buffs, suspicious glances, discouragements and hostile
encounters and, of course, inevitably, temptations. Aside
from his parole officer, toward whom he may not always
feel kindly, the first friendly face that such an individ-
ual is likely to see is that of some crony of the old days
who has been waiting for a little help to do a little job.

Remember, we are talking about a human being, a
handicapped one at that, one who needs all the things that
the rest of us do and a little bit more! You and I can

get along without committing crimes (most of the time);

34

but obviously the criminal cannot, or at least he did not,
and often does not. The fellow who has been in prison is
worse off; he suffers not only from whatever made him com-
mit a crime in the first place, but he now has what the
prison did to him and, in addition, what society gives to
former victims. He has a heavy burden.

The recidivism, or relapse, rate varies from one
prison to the next, but the over-all average of inmates
released from prison but returned under sentence for a new
crime is about 25 percent. In addition about 25 percent
of released inmates are returned to prison for parole
Violations. During 1961 there were 51,445 inmates paroled
from state prisons and 14,822 parole violators returned
(some of these violators had been released in earlier
years).29

The best current estimates indicate that, among
adult offenders, 35 to 45 percent of those released on
parole are subsequently returned to prison. The large
majority of this group are returned for violations of
parole regulations; only about one-third of those returned

have been convicted of new felonies.30

 

29Donald J. Newman, "Crime and Crime Prevention,"

Collier's Encyclopedia Yearbook (1962), p. 187.

30William A. Goldberg, Twentieth Century Correc-
tions (East Lansing: Gibson's Bookstore, 1970)) p. IX-63.

35

Time Lapse from Parole to Violation

 

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, the
U.S. Board of Parole issued warrants for 1,063 parolees
who violated regulations for various reasons. Of the
total, 223 (21 percent) broke parole within 2 months after
release from prison, 18 percent in 3 to 4 months, and 12.9
percent in 5 to 6 months. More than half (51.9 percent)
broke parole in 6 months or less. Within the year after
parole almost three-fourths (73.6 percent) had violated
parole regulations.31

The incidence of parole violations, in state pri-
sons, is inversely related to the time under supervision;
i.e., more violations occur in the first 6 months, with
the number decreasing thereafter. In 1964 the Pennsylvania
Board of Parole returned 786 parole violators to the var-
ious prisons in the state. In more than one-third (36.4
percent) of the cases, violations occurred in less than 6
months after parole, and 27.3 percent in 6 to 12 months.
In other words, about two-thirds (63.7 percent) violated
parole within the year and were returned to prison.‘ Less
than one-fourth (23 percent) were returned in the next

year, and 7.2 percent in the second year after parole.32

 

31Walter A. Lunden, Crime and Criminals (The Iowa
State University Press, 1967), p. 311.

32Ibid.,'pp. 312-3.

36

In 1963 the parole authority in New York State
declared 2,280 parolees delinquent either for absconding
(693) or because of other violations. A few less than
half (46.9 percent) had been on parole for less than 6
months when violations occurred. Almost three-fourths,
1,615 (70.8 percent) violated parole within less than 12
months.33

It is a disconcerting fact to those working in
corrections and law enforcement that the majority of of-
fenders fail to successfully complete parole. The conse-
quences of this excessive rate of failure, while serious
for the offender, are critical for society, for it is the
community that will suffer in the long run from the in-
ability of individual members to behave in an acceptable
fashion. In addition, the following question arises: Is
this high incidence of parole failure the fault of the
offender, the parole process, or society, or are all three
at fault to varying degrees?

The high percentage of parole violations in the
early months of parole are important for a number of
reasons. The first few months after parole are critical
for parolees; therefore, more financial help is needed

(in my opinion) in the early stages of parole. In

 

33Ibid., p. 313.

37

addition, if the parolee can make adjustments in the first
six months after parole from prison, his chances for suc-

cess are better.

CHAPTER V

POST-RELEASE AID

Introduction

 

Essentially in the after-care agency we are seeking
out the strengths which we believe to be inherent in every
human being. We help men to earn their living on their
strengths and not their weaknesses. This means that our
attitude to the ex-inmate must be accepting though not
condoning of past crimes or future criminal intention.
Moralizing is but empty preachment, and casting blame for
failure, trivial or great, adds no strength to the man's
struggle. It is essential to accommodate the agency's
service to the man's need which is the essence of individ-
ualizing service. This must be done within agency policy
and resources, but inventiveness and initiative should
draw in other resources from outside the agency.

It is essential to focus service on the prison
experience and its effect on re-establishment. After-care
agencies are not relief agencies nor are they "hand—out"
way stations for transients. They are rendering a recog-
nized social service by approved methods authorized and

supported by their communities, and in doing this have

38

39

developed policies and practices based on long experience
and observations. Not the least important factor in their
work is the rather unique knowledge they have of prisons
and of the criminal population. They are in and out of
the institutions frequently, know the staff and many of
the inmate populations, have studied the penal system and
participated in its growth and development, and have de-
veloped considerable skill in the work of parole and
after-care.

The role in which they work must be kept clear
since after-care involves working with men on full-term
release as well as on parole. The former are free men
under no obligation to ask for service nor to fulfill any
legal requirements. They can be brought into relationship
only through the effectiveness of the caseworker and the
manner in which the agency is able to meet their need.
This is also true of men on parole since relationship is a
matter of content and not of periodic reporting which may

be an empty formality.

Volunteers of America

This organization, founded in 1896 by Ballington
and Maud Booth, maintains well over 500 program centers in
posts throughout the nation. Its annual budget is in ex-
cess of $10 million. It serves, during the course of an

average year, more than two million persons.

40

For another thing, it has come to occupy a signif-
icant place in the roster of organizations that serve this
nation's needy. From the commander in chief, right down
to area and local staff people, Volunteers of America of-
ficers serve on scores of nation, regional and state bodies
whose job it is to work toward solutions of spiritual and
social problems. And the organization's services are
often used as pilot studies for projected wide-range pro-
grams of major significance.

The Correctional Services Department offers coun-
seling designed to aid prisoners to overcome personal and
family problems, gives material assistance to inmates'
families, and provides job placement service for the dis-
charged prisoners and parolees. Working closely with
prison authorities, Volunteers of America officers encour-
age inmates to maintain prison discipline and to prepare
for reentry into society.

The Adult Corrections Program offers three services
at the present time. The Parolee Program provides the
"down-and-outer" inmate with a home and job placement so
that at the time of his parole hearing he has a somewhat
specific future. Adult probation cases are referred to
them as an alternative to a prison sentence. They are
currently in the midst of defining a program with the

State of Michigan for a "pre-release" program. The

41

return rate with inmates from the Volunteers is less than

ten percent.34

Salvation Army

 

The Salvation Army was founded in 1865 by William
Booth, an English minister. It is an international re-
ligious and charitable organization whose purpose is to
undertake the spiritual, moral and physical rehabilitation
of all persons in need who come within its sphere of in-
fluence, regardless of race or creed. It is a church with
stated doctrines, precepts and teachings, and its officers
have the status and powers of ordained clergymen of other
denominations; it is recognized by the Military Services,
Internal Revenue, U.S. Courts, the Councils of Churches
and the National Correctional Chaplains Association. It
is a unique organization whose purpose is primarily spir-
itual, but in many areas its function is social service,
or a combination of both when indicated. This is the
idealism or philosophy of The Salvation Army.

As rehabilitation programs have been instituted
within the prisons and facilities to meet new concepts in
penology, so the work of The Salvation Army in this field

has been changed and developed to keep pace with new trends

 

34Personal Interview with William Clements, Cap-
tain, Volunteers of America, Jackson, Michigan; July 6,
1970.

42

and practices. As a religious, voluntary agency, it acts
in a supplementary role to that of public agencies dealing
with personal problems of the offender and his rehabilita—
tion. There is COOperation with both public and private
agencies. There is coordinated effort in working with
probation and parole authorities at the State and Federal
levels.

The following are services available, in many
sections of the country, to parolees and discharged of-
fenders.

1. Counseling.

2. Supplementary supervision of parolees under Ad-
visorship or Sponsorship program.

3. Employment information, referrals, contacts made,
letters of introduction, telephone calls.

4. Answering service for clients who have no phone or
permanent address.

5., Storage of personal property items, without charge,
until man has residence.

6. Home visits when necessary to families of inmates
and ex-inmates living in local area.

7. Assistance to parolees and discharged inmates in
these categories: board, room, clothing, shoes;
clothing secured from laundries and cleaners, hair
cuts, toilet articles, fees for drivers licenses,
fees for birth certificates, tools necessary for
employment.

8. Released inmates' families are referred to The
Salvation Army Family Service Bureau. However,
there are instances when a parole agent, in an
emergency, refers the family to this department,

43

the immediate needs are met, and proper referral
made.35

John Howard Society

 

John Howard was Britain's first penal reformer.
He Spent most of his adult life, until his death in 1790,
acquainting the public with the deplorable conditions in
British prisons and those of the Continent.

Prisoners' aid work began in Canada in 1874 when a
group of church workers began visiting prisoners in the
Toronto Jail. They soon realized that spiritual comfort
was not in itself enough and formed the Prisoners' Aid
Society which ceased operation in 1915. In 1928, within
four months of his appointment as Toronto's Chief of
Police, General D. C. Draper discovered that nothing was
being done to help released prisoners resume their place
in society, and in 1929 he established the Citizens Ser-
vice Association with headquarters in Toronto.

In 1935 the name was changed to the Prisoners'
Rehabilitation Society to interpret more prOperly to the
public the nature of the service. In 1946 the name was
again changed to the John Howard Society with a view to

standardizing the description of prison after-care

 

35Lt. Colonel Carl R. Dueill, "The Salvation Army,"
Correctional Review--California (July-August, 1966), pp.
12:13.

 

44

societies in Canada. The John Howard Society of British
Columbia in 1931 was the first in Canada to use the desig-
nation. Today there is a John Howard Society in every
province with branches in every major city in Canada.

The present-day service offered by the Society is
divided into two phases--pre-release and after-care. In
both phases social counseling, which in the latter case
may go on for years, is the Agency's chief function and
concern. Most ex-inmates need help to adjust to the prob-
lems of their new environment, solve personal and family
difficulties and overcome the stigma the community attached
to their past.

The pre-release service is performed within the
institution and bridges the gap between institutionally
dependent life and the self-supporting independence of
community living. At the same time, the man's targets and
experience are noted and forwarded as advance information
to the Society's branch in the area to which he will go.

Upon release, the ex-inmate may go to one of the
Society's Branches where his immediate financial needs,
when properly established, will be met. He may be given
nominal sums for food, lodging, work clothing, tools and
miscellaneous items. Over $47,000 is spent for these
purposes annually. This is done as part of the total re-

establishment plan and not as an unrelated handout.

45

Job placement is carried out through the close
c00peration-of the special service officers of the local
Canada Manpower Centers who have done an outstanding job
over the years. Ex-inmates are considered to be socially
handicapped persons for the first 30 days following re-
lease and thus to be eligible for the service of these
counselors.

Over 400 parolees are placed under the parole
supervision of the Society workers annually at the request

of either federal or provincial authorities.36

Conclusion

Other agencies have made a brief splash in the
field of afterecare but have not survived long enough for
a true evaluation of their efforts to be made. The socie-
ties covered in the preceding paragraphs have survived for
many years and are making valuable contributions to the
rehabilitation of ex-inmates.

Hindsight is easier than foresight, and in gener-
alizing the principles of assistance to ex-inmates the
after-care agencies have formulated clear but flexible
policies. They know that it is useless to counsel a

hungry man and so provide assistance for food, shelter,

 

36Based on personal correspondence between D. Grant
Lennie, Administrative Assistant, John Howard Society of
Ontario, Toronto, Canada, and the writer; June 16, 1970.

46

and clothing. If a man does not know where he will eat or
sleep, his anxiety is focused on survival and not on the
other positive approaches to his re-establishment. It is
true that the resources available for such material as-
sistance are minimal and barely serve to keep a man alive.
It is also true that they cannot be provided indefinitely
so that the client is constantly impressed with the in-

evitable day when he must be self-supporting.

CHAPTER VI
DIRECTOR QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

The purpose of the Director Questionnaire has been
covered on pages 7 and 8. A sample of the questionnaire
and cover letter may be found in Appendix 1.

Question No. 1 was: What is the present daily
wage range of the inmates in your system (range or level)?
Originally my intention was to determine an average daily
wage but due to the variation of answers I decided to re-
cord the answers exactly as received from the various
department of corrections. There is a discrepancy within
the systems as to what a work week is. It varies from 20
hours per week for some inmates to 70 hours per week for
others depending upon the type of work assignment. Due to
the importance of this question any attempt to alter the
answers, for the sake of conformity, would have changed

their value.

Table l, 2 and 3

Source: Data received from Research Questionnaires sent to
the director at each of the fifty state departments
of corrections, plus the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, and the Canadian Penitentiary Service
by the writer, 1970. Forty-six of the fifty-five
systems responded.

47

48

 

leoom mu0mmscwz
om.~mueo~ sameness
oomuomm muummS£UMmmm2
ammueee unassumz
x mews:
omlom madamflsoq
om.amloma mxosusmm
oomnooa memsmm
Hmloom m30H
ommloma MGMHUGH
oamlmw
mcofluflmom
Hosuo ow omalom OSMUH
mwlaw Hmlomm
mmflnumspschoz mmfluumspsH Hamsmm
ommmmm soflanmHmmq x mamuomw
x mpwuon
ooalooa mumzmaoo
eenuomm envenomseoo
oomlooa opMHoHOU
vmwlmw MflsHOMHHMU
copoomxm coapmHmHmmq x machflud
om.mmloom mxmmad
Hmwoomm manucoz mawmo hausom mcoz Emummm

 

 

onma .mfioummm an Hm>oq no mmcmm coma omecH

a magma

49

 

ammumaw

huummuom ovalov nonmcwnmmz
eoa ucosum>
x mmxme
omwloaw mmmmmscme
Hmloom muoxma nusom
Hmwnom.mm msflaonmu Busom
Hmloom psmHmH moonm
oomuomm mesm>HMmstm
mmlomm somouo

mmumumeuo

oawumw
mmflnumsosH mfiozmeo
.oe\.mee eem .xmz em cage
1. eomueo mnoxmo enuoz
mmp\am mufluonpsm
coaucamammq x mcwaoumu nuuoz
oemnomm womnmb 3oz
com
mmwnumSpsH onwcmmfimm Bmz
oom mpw>mz
ommumw mxmmnnmz
oomnooa msmucoz
omw
mmfiuumsch
mm
mmfluumspschoz ausommflz
amaommm Manucoz MHHMQ Mausom mcoz Empmmm

 

 

xemseeueoov A means

50

 

 

ommlomm Monaco
emeueea smwusm enumemm
mamlom.mw MAQESHOU mo .Umfla
on.amloma Guam onumsm
Hm mcwfiowz
mmp\oom omvlopflmudo

m>Hucmocw mmHHumDUsH ooelmUHmGH camcoomflz
oomloma waswmnfl> ummz

Hafioomm wanucoz MHHMQ Mansom ocoz Eopmmm

 

 

Apmssflucoov H manna

51

Table 1 showed that six of the responding systems
did not, at the present time, pay a wage to inmates for
work performed.. The remaining systems paid from a minimum
of 2¢ per day to a maximum of $3.00 per day. Sixteen
systems paid less than 60¢ per day. Very few people could
save anything on such wages. Canteen prices in most sys-
tems could very well consume these wages. It should be
evident from these figures that it would be extremely hard
for an inmate to save any money for expenses after he is
released. Furthermore, we have no guarantee that everyone
is working.

Question No. 2 was: Is any money given to inmates
at the time of their parole or discharge? If so, how
much? The answer to this question was subdivided into
four sections: (a) Other than what is in their accounts
(referred to in Table 2 as grants); (b) Amount of clothes;
(c) Bus Ticket home; and (d) Any amount loaned to prisoner.
Since all systems furnished at least one complete set of
clothes I did not tabulate this answer in Table 2.

Table 2 showed that thirty-one systems gave $25 or
less to released inmates with seven of these giving noth-
ing. It further revealed that fourteen systems gave less
than $100 and only one system gave over $100. In today's
fast-moving society such tokenism is totally inadequate.

Thirty-four out of the forty-six responding systems

had no authorized money available for lending to released

52

 

oz mcoz mmw mpommcsflz
emmueamummmmumeomeo
com on molmmmaonmm mcoclmmmaonmm cmmacoflz
oz mcoz omm muummssommmmz
ssocxcs msoz omm panamumz
mow mcoz omw scam:
no» team mcflpsmq mumEcH omw MGMHmHSOA
oz mcoz omm axosusmm
mow msoz omw on ma mamcmm
mm» msoz ooaw on no MBOH
mew mew on as emmumam memeeeH
oz mcoz mam ocmpH
mow mcoz mam o» m: flflmsmm
mow mcoz mmw mwmuomw
mow mcoz mmm moflnon
mm» mcoz ocoz ohmsmamn
Umofl>oum
coaumuuommcmua comm on m: omw usowuomccoo
mow msoz mmm commoaou
mow Mano mHOOB 0mm on m: MHQHOMAHMU
mow mcoz mmw msoNHHd
mm» mcoz msoz mxmmad
umx0fla mam smog ucmuw Empmhm

 

 

onma .mEmumhm an mEom pmxofla mam
one .mcmoq .musmno mo manna CH pad mumEcH ommmmamm

N OHQMB

53

xenon mummamz

 

mumECHv omamlmommumcomfla
mmwuomaoumm mow mmlmmmaoumm mmxma
mow mcoz mmw mommmssme
pmocmucmm
momam 08 0:02 omw muoxmo Spsom
mow osoz msoz msHHOHMU Busom
oz mcoz omm on ma pGMHmH moonm
mow msoz osoz macm>ammscmm
ooaw on no
omam on mblmmaaousm mommsmsomfla
Hm3msm oz mmmmamm xuoz 0mm on mDImmmHoumm commuo
mow mcoz mmw on ma mEonmaxo
mw Hm>o
umoo ma .mmw mcoz mmw OHQO
mes mcoz om.maw muoxmo enuoz
pmnmflcnsm case mumEcH
coflumusommsmua Immmmo Hmwommm ommlmam mafiaoumo nuuoz
omaw on a:
mom Imommu Hmwommm omw on a: mmmnmh 3oz
Hmoflmmo odoumm mcmoq .Em w .00mm¢
an posmwcusm pad .muchmfiHm omw ouflzmmamm 3oz
oz mcoz mmw mpm>mz
mm» mcoz omw mxmmunmz
oz mcoz mmw pseudo:
mow msoz mmw endowmflz
umMOHB mam smog nacho Empmmm

 

 

Aconcausoov N manna

54

 

 

mow mcoz maoz mpmsmu
imma-e~w .em>ee
mm» mcoz ooam on ma smmnsm Hmumpmm
mow mcoz ooawlomw MHQESHOU mo .Dmflo
mow mcoz mcoz coam ouumsm
mmw on manmmw msoz omm mcflfiowz
ucmm¢ waonmm
mow sung omm on as can camcoomflz
mow msoz mcoz MHchHH> pmmz
mmw on ma
Imnmum m0 use
mumum shimmy smog HHmEm oem .xmz coumcwsmmz
common MH mcoz comm on ma .oE\mw usoEHm>
umxoae msm smog usmnw Empmmm

 

 

Apmscflucoov N magma

55

inmates. The remaining twelve systems had small loans
available to a maximum of $200 (some of these had stringent
requirements regarding eligibilityi

Table 2 revealed that thirty-nine systems gave a
bus ticket, or furnished transportation, home to the re-
leased inmate (within the state). Many systems do not
furnish transportation beyond the state line. Transporta-
tion of any kind was not furnished by seven systems. I
wonder how many of these seven states have laws against
hitch-hiking!

The data from questions three and four will be
compiled in Table 3. Question No. 3 was: What is your
current rate of recidivism within the first six months?

If compiled over a different time period, please state.
Question No. 4 was: What is your current yearly cost per
inmate during incarceration?

Table 3 revealed that the yearly cost of incar-
ceration ranged from a low of $950.00 (Louisiana) to a
high of $6,924.05 (Alaska). In my opinion, as the rec-
ommendations of the President's Commission on Law Enforce-
ment and the Administration of Justice are instituted the
cost of incarceration has no way to go but up, especially
for poorer systems.

In nineteen of the forty-six responding systems
the recidivism rate was computed over a six-month period.

The figures revealed that there was a low of 8% (Federal

Rate of Recidivism and Yearly Cost of
Incarceration by Systems, 1970

Table 3

56

 

 

Recidivism Rate

 

Yearly Cost

 

of
Systems 6 mos. 1 year Special Incarceration
Alaska N.A.* $6,924.05
Arizona 50% $2,598.80
California 28.7% $2,000.00
Colorado 30% $3,136.00
Connecticut N.A. $5,475.00
Delaware N.A. $2,646.25
Florida N.A. $2,100.00
Georgia 25% $2,091.45
Hawaii 28.7% $5,500.00
Idaho N.A. $4,000.00
Indiana 32% $1,280.00
Iowa 55% $2,778.00
Kansas 33%-2yr. $2,867.00
Kentucky N.A. $1,865.00
Louisiana 30% $ 950.00
Maine 25% $2,900.00
Maryland Avg./ $3,450.00
Country
Massachusetts 30% $4,212.93
Michigan 28%-2yr. $2,680.00
Minnesota N.A. $5,074.00
Missouri 32% $2,273.95
Montana 53% $5,288.85
Nebraska 35% No Answer
Nevada 34% $3,100.00
New Hampshire 33% $2,633.30
New Jersey 30% $2,730.00
North Carolina 10.4% $2,470.00
North Dakota 35% $3,000.00
Ohio N.A. $2,175.40
Oklahoma 35% $1,500.00
Oregon N.A. $2,144.16
Pennsylvania 24% $3,705.00
Rhode Island 70% $4,599.10
South Carolina N.A. $1,641.00
South Dakota N.A. $2,847.00

57

Table 3 (continued)

 

 

 

 

Recidivism Rate Yearly Cost
of

Systems 6 mos. 1 year Special Incarceration
fTennessee 10.8% $1,613.30
fTexas l6%-5yr. $1,153.40
'Vermont N.A. $5,500.00
Washington 18.6% $2,795.00
‘West Virginia 6.2%** $3,524.83
Wisconsin 28.5% $3,808.40
'WYoming 35% $2,540.40
Puerto Rico N.A. $1,365.00
Dist. of Columbia 29%-3yr. $5,621.00
Federal Bureau 8% $3,398.15
Canada 48% $6,000.00

 

*Not Available
**Parole Violators Only
Bureau) and a high of 55% (Iowa). Twelve of these nineteen
systems had a recidivism rate of 30% or over.

Nine more systems computed their recidivism rate
over a one-year period. The range in these states was
from a low of 10.8% (Tennessee) to a high of 70% (Rhode
Island).

Thirteen systems had no available statistics on
'their recidivism rate.

After scanning the figures from many angles I

Ckould find no correlation between the yearly cost of in-
CJarceration and the rate of recidivism.
The rate of recidivism among the thirty-three

Systems who had compiled this data represents a large

58

Igortion of the inmate population. Any method that could
asalvage these lives, or a part of them, would be a tremen-
<ious saving to the taxpayer. It could also help to elim-
:inate the problem of overcrowding now present in many
systems .

Question No. 5 relating to assistance given in-
Inates' families during their incarceration was found to be
insignificant to this study. Welfare assistance given

these families is no different than that given to other

'unfortunate members of society.

CHAPTER VII

INMATE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

The scope and method used for the inmate interviews
have been covered on pages 8 and 9. A sample of the ques-
tionnaire may be found in Appendix 2.

Question No. l was: How long has it been since

you left prison?

Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7

Source: Data tabulated was received from Inmate Question-
naires voluntarily filled out by fifty inmates
from the State Prison of Southern Michigan at
Jackson. This survey was conducted by the writer
on July 1, 1970 with the assistance of Henry
Risley, Vocational Counselor at the Reception and
Diagnostic Center. Out of a total of fifty-one
inmates only one refused to fill out the question-
naire.

Table 4

Length of Time Since Previous Release, Survey of
Fifty Inmates, State Prison of Southern
Michigan at Jackson, July 1, 1970

‘

 

ITumber of 3 months 3-6 6-9 9-12 l-2 over
Inmates or under months months months years 2 years

‘

16%
16%
10%
8%
22%

«st-4.5010000

28%

FJH

59

60

Table 4 revealed that 32% of the fifty inmates
interviewed returned to prison within the first six months
following their previous release. This lends support to
my contention that the first six months is a crucial period
for the released inmate. I feel it is of interest to note
that 72% returned within the first two years.

Question No. 2 referring to the length of time
between arrest and actual return to the system received a
variety of answers. They varied anywhere from six days to
nine months. This brings to light one very costly phase
of the criminal justice system which is not tabulated in

the over-all cost of the prison system.

Table 5

Percentage of Inmates Returned to Prison for New Crime,
Parole Violation, or Combination of Both; Survey
of Fifty Inmates, State Prison of Southern
Michigan at Jackson, July 1, 1970

 

 

 

Number of
Inmates N.C.* P.V.** N.C. & P.V.
17 34%
19 38%
14 28%

 

*New Crime
**Parole Violation

Table 5 reveals that between new crimes and the

combination of new crimes and parole violations we have

61

62% that would possibly have to go through the costly
court system. Again, I would like to emphasize that any
method that would help to prevent the return of an inmate

to prison would be a tremendous savings to the taxpayer.

Table 6

Money in Account or Available Upon Release, Survey
of Fifty Inmates, State Prison of Southern
Michigan at Jackson, July 1, 1970

 

 

Number of Under $50- $100- $150- Over
Inmates $50 $100 $150 $200 $200

 

28 56%
7 14%
4 8%
1 2%

10 20%

 

Table 6 revealed that the majority of inmates--
twenty-eight (56%)--had less than fifty dollars when re-
leased from prison. There were an additional seven (14%)
who had less than one-hundred dollars. The combination
(70%) of these two sections shows a definite need for
financial assistance during the crucial weeks following
release.

Because of the relationship between Questions
Five, Six, and Seven I decided to tabulate the results in

Table 7. Question No. 5 was: Do you feel that lack of

62

 

 

 

meGB N x x ON
mama om N x x ma
m£DCOE N x x NH
meme cm x x he
msoz m x x ma
mBDGOE N x x ma
menace N\H-H N x x ea
meme em x x me
menace N e x x NH
menace N m x x Ha
mxoms N x x oH
mapsoa N N x x m
mcucOE m x x m
mausofi m x x 5
Space Humxmms m x x m
menace N\HIHImxmm3 m x x m
mxmmz mum x x v
Space H e x x m
menace N x x N
mapsoa m n x x H
museumwmmd pmpmoz mnonuo mamm oz wow Hmnasz
mo mafia pmumfiflumm 3mH>HmusH
mucmpcmmmo mmmcmmxm mafl>flq mumEGH
mo Hmnfisz mumsvood mo xomq

 

 

came .H sage .HOmxome he sameness cumeusom
mo acmflnm cumum Scum mmumEGH humamulmocmumwmmd Umoomz
mo mEHB Umpmfiflumm can .uuommsm cu mucmpsmmma mo Hmnfisz .susumm 0p
Houomm mafipsnflmpsoo mm mwmcmmxm NCH>HA mumsvmpd mo xomq mswpummmm >o>nsm mumEsH

a magma

63

 

 

 

menace m x x we
mausofi N x x me
ocoz x x Nv
mcoz x x He
meme em x x S.
menace N x x mm
mausoE m OH x x mm
mcoz x x mm
ocoz x x mm
meme om x x mm
ocoz m x x em
msucoe m x x mm
mnpsofi m N x x Nm
mcucoe m m x x Hm
space H x x om
menace m m x x mN
mcoz x x mN
mcoz x x SN
mcoz N x x oN
menace N\HIN m x x mN
mcoz x x «N
mxmm3 mIN x x MN
mausoe m x x NN
menace v x x HN
mocmumHmmd pmpomz muosuo HHom oz mow umnfisz
mo mEHB ommeHpmm 3mH>HmucH
mucmpcwmma mmmsmmxm mGH>HH mumEGH
mo Hmnfisz onmsvmom mo Homq

 

 

ApmscHucoov h mHQms

64

 

 

 

 

mxmmB e x x om
sucofi H x x me
mnucoE m x x we
onusoe NIH x x be
space H x x we
mmmp om x x me
mosmumHmmd copwmz muozpo HHmm oz mow Hmnfisz
mo mEHB omumEHnmm 3cH>Hmch
mucmpcmmon momsmmxm msH>HH mumEGH
mo Hmnadz onesvmofi mo HOMH

 

 

AmecHucoov h GHQMB

65

adequate living expenses was a contributing factor to your
return? If answer is yes, why? Question No. 6 was: Did
you have anyone other than yourself to support when you
were released? Question No. 7 was: How long do you feel
you could have used assistance with living expenses before
you could have maintained them on your own?

Table 7 revealed that twenty-two out of fifty
(44%) inmates felt that lack of adequate living expenses
was a contributing factor in their return to prison. Out
of this number there were ten (45.4%) family men who had a
total of forty-one dependents requiring support. Twenty-
eight inmates stated that the lack of adequate living ex-
penses was not a contributory factor in their return. It
is interesting to note that nineteen of these twenty-eight
stated they could have used assistance after release rang-
ing from a period of two weeks to six months. On an over-
all basis forty out of fifty (80%) inmates stated they
could have used assistance ranging up to six months, fol-
lowing release.

If we let the figures do the talking it should be
evident to those in the correctional field that a program
of financial assistance is needed if the rate of recidivism

is to be reduced.

CHAPTER VIII

PLANNING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

PROPOSED PROGRAM

Establishing Eligibility of
Released Inmate

 

 

In my opinion the already established Parole Board
should be quite capable of determining the eligibility of
the released inmates (meaning parolees and dischargees).
Formation of another costly department should not be nec-
essary. Furthermore, I would not set up such stringent
guidelines as to make a costly investigation necessary.

My research revealed that the majority of inmates
leave prison with fifty dollars or less (see Table 6). I
feel this is not enough for bare existence or survival
when you look at the cost of the following: transporta-
tion, food, lodging, clothing and support of dependents.
There are few inmates who leave prison debt-free. Many
have bills accumulated by themselves and their families
during their incarceration. In many cases even when the
inmate has a job to go to it may be three or four weeks
before he receives a full paycheck.

Since I consider the first six months after release

a critical period for an inmate I would suggest financial

66

67

assistance during this time to the amount of two hundred
dollars a month, if need can be established. This would
not be enough to make him totally dependent on the program
but would show him that people care enough to help him
through this critical period. It should be made clear to
the inmate that this money is an outright gift and not a
loan requiring repayment.

The inmate would be required to submit an affidavit
sixty days before release testifying to his need for as-
sistance. The inmate should be made aware that this as-
sistance would be a one-time opportunity. If he should
return again to the system it would not be available to
him, under any circumstances. I feel that this is neces-
sary because there has been too much paternalism in gov-
ernment assistance programs in the past.

I found that during the inmate interviews question
number five of the questionnaire relating to lack of ade-
quate living expenses as a contributory factor to return
elicited some rather interesting answers. I propose now
to quote some of them verbatim. I am doing this because
it is hard for those of us who have never served time to
fathom the true feeling of an inmate.

Inmate Interview No. l--"because I was behind
whole lot--thing like I did had the money at time--I was

merely frustrate over everything I just couldn't see my-
self under those conditions."

68

Inmate Interview No. 2--"when I was released job
was very hard to find, and they are still hard to find.
And one other thing no one likes to hire an ex-con."

Inmate Interview No. l3--"could not find work
right away."

Inmate Interview No. 20—-"layed off work--no com-
pensation, three twenty-eight dollar checks from welfare
in eight weeks--food allowance."

Inmate Interview No. 22--"they don't give you
nothing to live on that is why we have to take what we
want."

Inmate Interview No. 32--"I wasn't making expenses
on the job I had and left for California eight days before
my parole became final--therefore violated my parole."

Inmate Interview No. 44--"education, clothes,
transportation, rent and food funds."

From my own experience working (State Prison of
Southern Michigan) in a correctional system at the grass
roots level I feel this is an accurate sampling of inmate
feeling. Many times I have heard inmates make this state-
ment--"if only I could have gotten away with that job it
would have been enough to put me over the hump." By "hump"
they were referring to the crucial period immediately fol—

lowing release.

Responsibility for Distribution
of Funds

The responsibility for distribution of funds would
rest with the State Parole Board. Since this Board al—
ready has the addresses of the parolees it would be very

little trouble to include the addresses of the dischargees.

69

A special pay voucher could be made out monthly and sent
to the state treasury office who in turn would issue and

send out checks to eligible released inmates.

Convince Legislators and Taxpayers
‘of Need for Program

 

 

Complaints about appalling and neanderthal condi-
tions in the prisons of this nation are not new.‘ They
have been periodically making the headlines in various
states for a long time.

Now, finally, there seems to be a genuine, growing
concern in Congress and other official areas to launch
long-needed reforms. The biggest problem, perhaps, is
sufficiently motivating those persons who can help
start things moving.

A significant step may have been accomplished re-
cently when 23 judges, as a part of a seminar, spent a
night in Nevada State Prison, locked up with the in-
mates. The judges were quite shaken after only one
day of imprisonment, and some said the system is
putting 18, 19, and 20 year olds in jail and making
hardened criminals out of them.

Prisons, of course, were never intended to be re-
sorts for criminal offenders. But neither should they
be merely cages where inmates have utterly no hope for
the future.

This is in no way a criticism of Nevada prisons,
nor those of any other state. But it has been obvious
for a long time that major reforms are needed.

Reforms, however, take money, and many wardens and
correction officials of states are quick to note that
their efforts in the past to upgrade have gained little
support where it is needed.

Perhaps if more judges and members of the legal
profession took time to closely study their own pri-
sons, they might be able to pinpoint the real need
areas and obtain the necessary support of lawmakers
and other essential officials.

Many prisons, for example, simply lack facilities
to sufficiently house the growing number of persons
being committed, and little is being done about it.

There is a crying need in many areas for better
rehabilitation programs; segregation of hard—core,
repeat offenders from first offenders and the acquisi-
tion of more highly trained professional personnel.

70

Rehabilitation not punishment, should be the pri—
mary goal of any prison. Many correctional institu-
tions are not accomplishing that goal, and they will
not until they are provided with the facilities and
personnel to do so.

Not many taxpayers are afforded the opportunity of the
judges cited above. They must depend on accurate report-
ing by the news media for many facts and figures. The
news media, in many cases, must rely on experts in the
field who have thoroughly documented their data. Before

a salesman can sell his product he must know it thoroughly,
so too, must the initiator of a new idea. It is a well
known fact that the press is a very influential factor in
the American way of life. If a program of this nature is
to gain any support it would need their backing. This
would assure the-maximum amount of exposure to the maximum
number of people. It should not be forgotten that these
members of the press are also taxpayers. If they can be
convinced of the need for such a program on a dollars and
cents basis then they could do an excellent selling job to
the man on the street. A State Senator from Michigan re-
cently discussed with the writer ways of selling this pro-
gram to the public and to the legislators. He agreed with

me that the only way to convince taxpayers of the need for

such a program was in dollars and cents. Senator Fleming

 

37Editorial, State Journal, Lansing, Michigan,
July 20, 1970, p. A-8.

 

71

stated that the legislator is influenced to support a
program not only through personal contact with the tax-
payer but through telephone calls, telegrams, and letters
from him.38
It is my belief that this program does not need a
ream of paper to emphasize its necessity. A piece of
chalk, a blackboard, and a few documented figures (made
public) are all that would be necessary. With the help of
the press the following points would be the ones to empha-
size: (1) the cost and maintenance of.a prison system as
described earlier in the report, along with the cost of
updating many of our archaic systems would be an added
burden on the taxpayer. (2) The high rate of recidivism
during the first six months following release and how
costly this return can be, or is.~ For example, it is as-
tounding that the arrest, trial and imprisonment of a
single repeating offender costs the taxpayer approximately
$50,000. This includes the cost of over $6600 per year to
maintain him in prison but does not cover the $3000 per
year it might well take to look after his family on wel-

fare while he is imprisoned.39 While these figures

 

38State Senator James Fleming--Michigan, Personal
Interview, July 6, 1970.

39Based on personal correspondence between D.
Grant Lennie, Administrative Assistant, John Howard
Society of Ontario, Toronto, Canada, and the writer;
June 16, 1970.

72

pertain to Canada I have no reason to believe that the
statistics for the United States systems, over-all, would
differ greatly when projected construction has been com-
pleted. In the United States even a minimum-security cell
built for this individual costs about $20,000. It is only
slightly less expensive, in many cases to confine an indi-
vidual in a county jail system. This fact was brought to
light when construction figures were revealed for the new
Oakland County Law Enforcement Complex. This facility is
being constructed to replace the overcrowded, 40-year old
jail in Pontiac, Michigan. The new $8 million facility
will house 470 inmates. Cost-wise this would amount to

approximately $17,021 per inmate.40

(3) To project the
problems facing released inmates and attempt to show how
frustrated they become in trying to solve them. (4) To
show how little $1200 (as proposed in this program) is
compared to the cost of re-entry into the system. It
should not be forgotten that the $1200 to keep released

inmates on the street is smaller than the price of six

months' incarceration in many ways.

 

40Detroit Free Press (Michigan), July 22, 1970,
Sec. C, p. 10, 0013. 5-6.

CHAPTER IX

CONCLUSIONS

It has been the purpose of this paper to emphasize
the need of a financial assistance program for released
inmates. In 1969 prison systems in the United States and
Canada spent from $950 (Louisiana) to $6,924.05 (Alaska)--
see Table 3--to keep a man confined. After having spent
this amount, sometimes for several years, it appears to be
extremely poor economics to deny him a few hundred dollars
in postrelease aid if this could be a major factor in pre—
venting his return to prison. Indeed, the cost of the
apprehension and return-to-prison procedure might exceed
that of the aid which would prevent the releasee's return.
Of course, financial assistance is not the only solution
to the prevention of reimprisonment in every case, and is
not even required for many cases. Provision of assistance
where the need is greatest would be prudent from an eco-
nomic as well as from a rehabilitative interest.

Current expenditures for corrections in the United
States and Canada are discussed in Chapter II. It is my
feeling that the average taxpayer is unaware of these ex-

penses. He sees only the outward face of the institution

73

74

and gives little thought, in most instances, to the money
needed to maintain those incarcerated therein.

A short background of release procedures is cov-
ered in Chapter III. Since pardon, parole and discharge
are the main avenues of release only these three areas are
discussed.

In Chapter IV I discussed recidivism and its con-
tributory factors. .Much evidence was found to support my
contention that the first six months following release is
a crucial period for releasees. In some instances the
rate was as high as 50%.

There are only a few agencies who occupy a signif-
icant place in the field of post-release aid. They are
the Volunteers of America, The Salvation Army and the John
Howard Society of Canada. A short history of these or-
ganizations is contained in Chapter V.

In order to acquire sufficient data to support my
hypothesis I sent out a research questionnaire to various
prison systems in the United States and Canada designed to
ascertain daily wage of inmates, amount of financial as-
sistance at time of release, current rate of recidivism,
and yearly cost of incarceration. The results of these
data are discussed in Chapter VI. One outstanding fact
was brought to light. The responding systems paid inmates
a daily wage ranging from nothing (prevalent in six states)

to $3.00 (Oregon). It should be evident from these

75

figures that it would be extremely hard for most inmates
to save any money for expenses after they are released.

I found no evidence that every able—bodied inmate had a

paying job.

Thirty-three of the forty-six responding systems
had compiled data regarding the rate of recidivism. This
represented a large portion of the inmate population. In
seeking a method to reduce this rate we would not only be
solving the problem of overcrowding present in most systems
but we would also be releasing into society a large group
of potentially productive peOple.

It is hard for the average citizen to imagine the
problems confronting the releasee upon his return to soci-
ety.* A personal view of this was deemed necessary to my
study. This was accomplished by interviewing fifty re—
turnees to the State Prison of Southern Michigan at
Jackson. The results of these interviews are covered in
Chapter VII. Table 7 in this chapter revealed that
twenty-two out of fifty inmates felt that lack of adequate
living expenses was a contributing factor in their return
to prison. On an over-all basis forty out of fifty stated
they could have used assistance ranging up to six months
following release. If we let the figures do the talking
it should be evident to those in the correctional field
that a program of financial assistance is needed if the

rate of recidivism is to be reduced.

76

The planning for the implementation of financial
assistance to the released inmate is covered in Chapter
VIII. I have suggested a method of "selling" the proposed
program to the press, the legislators and the general
public. I feel this can be done strictly on a "dollars-
and-cents" basis.

We should work for nothing less than an adequate
minimum gratuity payable to all releasees and, in addition,
a realistic rehabilitation grant budgeted to make up the
difference between the man's available resources including
prison earnings and the needs of his individual rehabili-
tation plan. It is rehabilitation that is the goal, and a
slightly higher economic cost at this point may well save
untold future institutional and community costs. I feel
that we are spending millions for institutional care and

pitiful thousands for after-care.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Bennett, James V. I Chose Prison. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1970.

 

Blumberg, Abraham S. Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quad-
rangle Books, 1967.

 

Clemmer, Donald. The Prison Community. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1940.

Gibbons, Don C. Changing the Lawbreaker. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., I965.

 

Glasser, Daniel. The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole
System. New York: The Bost-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1969.

Goldberg, William A., Ph.D. 20th Century Corrections.
East Lansing: Gibson‘s Bookstore, 1970.

Leinwand, Gerald (ed.). Crime and Juvenile Delin uenc .
New York: Washington Square Press, Inc., I968.

Lunden, Walter A. Crime and Criminals. The Iowa State
University Press, 1967.

 

McGrath, W. T. (ed.). Crime and Its Treatment in Canada.
Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1965.

Menninger, Karl, M.D. The Crime of Punishment. New York:
The Viking Press, 1968.

 

Newman, Charles L. Sourcebook on Probation, Parole and
Pardons. Springerld: Charles C. Thomas, 1964.

 

 

Reckless, Walter C. The Crime Problem. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.

 

Robinson, Louis N. Penglogy_in the United States.
Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1921.

77

78

Salisbury, Harrison E. The Shookfigp Generation. Green-
wich: Fawcett Publication, Inc., 1968.

 

Taft, Donald R., and Ralph W. England, Jr. Criminology.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964.

 

The American Correctional Association. Manual of Correc-
tional Standards. New York: The American Cor-
rectionaI Association, 1966.

 

 

Tunley, Roul. Kids, Crime and Chaos. New York: Dell
Publishing Co., Inc., 1962.

 

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language.
New York: The World Publishing Company, 1966.

 

B. MULTIVOLUME WORKS AND SERIES

Newman, Donald J. "Crime and Crime Prevention," Collier's
Encyclopedia Yearbook (Covering 1961).

 

 

Newman, Donald J. "Crime and Crime Prevention," Collier's
Encyclopedia Yearbook (Covering 1962).

 

 

Newman, Donald J. "Crime and Crime Prevention," Collier's
Encyclopedia Yearbook (Covering 1963).

 

 

Newman, Donald J. "Crime and Crime Prevention," Collier's
Encyclopedia Yearbook (Covering 1964).

 

 

C. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra-
tion of Justice. Task Force Report: Corrections.
Washington, D.C.: United States Government Print—
ing Office, 1967.

 

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra-
tion of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free
Society. Washington, D.C.: United States Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1967.

 

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra-
tion of Justice. Task Force Report: Crime_and
Its Impact—-AnjAssessment. Washington, D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office, 1967.

 

 

79

U.S. Attorney General. Survey on Release Procedures--Vol.
IV, Parole. Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1939.

 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The
Reentry of the Offender into the Community. ———
Washington, D.C.: United States Government
Printing Office, 1967.

 

D. PERIODICALS

Kirkpatrick, A. M. "The Human Problems of Prison After-
Care," John Howard Societygof Ontario, 1970, p. 9.

 

"Local Adult Correctional Institutions and Jails," Crime
and Delinquency, January 1967, p. 137.

 

Phillips, Charles W. "Developing Correctional Manpower,"
Crime and Delinquency, July 1969, p. 415.

 

Dueill, Carl R., Lt. Col. "The Salvation Army," The Cor-

rectional Review (California), July-August 1966,
pp. I2-13.

 

Thurston, Don, Ph.D. "Parole Board," Corrections Quarterly
(Michigan), October 1968, pp. 44-45.

England, R. W., Jr. "Pardon, Commutation, and Their Im-
provement," Prison Journal, April 1959, p. 24.

 

Detroit Free Press, July 22, 1970.

 

E. UNPUBLISHED WORKS

Clements, William, Captain. Volunteers of America,
Jackson, Michigan. Personal Interview. July 6,
1970.

LeCorre, Warden. Archambault Institution, Ste. Anne des
Plaines, Quebec, Canada. Personal Interview.
November 20, 1969.

John Howard Society of Ontario. Personal correspondence
between D. Grant Lennie, Administrative Assistant,
and the writer. June 16, 1970.

Fleming, James, State Senator--Michigan. Personal Inter-
view. July 6, 1970.

APPENDIX 1

5812 Richwood Street
Apt. 9

Lansing, Michigan 48910
April 20, 1970

Dear Sir,

For the past sixteen years I have been actively engaged

in the field of law enforcement and corrections. During
this time I was employed by the Aroostook County Sheriff's
Department, Aroostook County, Maine; the Jackson Police
Department, Jackson, Michigan; and the State Prison of
Southern Michigan at Jackson.

Approximately six years ago I decided to enter college

and have since obtained a 3.5. in Police Administration
and Public Safety from Michigan State University. At

this time I am a Master's Candidate in the School of
Criminal Justice at Michigan State, engaged in acquiring
research data for a thesis which has received the sanction
of my advisor, Dr. W. A. Goldberg, Associate Professor in
Corrections.

Your assistance will give me information I can obtain in
no other way. Will you help by giving brief answers to
the five questions enclosed?

Sincerely yours,

Norman C. Colter

Self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed.

80

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

DATE: STATE:
DEPARTMENT TITLE:

QUESTION NO. 1: What is the present daily wage range of
the inmates in your system? (Range or
level)

QUESTION NO. 2: Is any money given to inmates at the time
of their parole or discharge? If so, how
much?

(a) Other than what is in their accounts

 

(b) Amount of clothes

 

 

(0) Bus Ticket home

 

(d) Any amount loaned to prisoner

 

QUESTION NO. 3: What is your current rate of recidivism
within the first six months? If compiled
over a different time period, please state.

81

QUESTION NO. 4: What is your current yearly cost per in-
mate during incarceration?

QUESTION NO. 5: Does your state provide any type of as-
sistance to inmates' families during
their incarceration? If so, approxi-
mately how much?

(a) Welfare only

 

(b) Prisoner's wages

 

(d) Work release (% of wages sent home,

if any)

 

PLEASE RETURN TO:
Norman C. Colter

5812 Richwood St., Apt. 9
Lansing, Michigan 48910

82

APPENDIX 2

DATE:

LOCATION:

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

STATE:

ADMINISTERED BY:

INMATE INTERVIEW NO.:

QUESTION NO.

QUESTION NO.

QUESTION NO.

QUESTION NO.

QUESTION NO.

1:

5:

How long has it been since you left here?

How long was it between the time of your
arrest and actual return to the system?

Were you brought back for a parole viola-
tion or a new crime?

Could you, or would, you, tell me the
exact amount of money that you had (or
was available to you) when you were re-
leased the last time?

a. Exact Amount

 

b. Under $50.00

 

c. $ 50.00-$100.00

 

d. $100.00-$150.00

 

e. $150.00-$200.00

 

f. Over $200.00

 

Do you feel that lack of adequate living
expenses was a contributing factor to
your return?

a. Yes b. No

 

If answer is yes, why?

83

QUESTION NO. 6:

QUESTION NO.

7:

Did you have anyone other than yourself
to support when you were released?

How long do you feel you could have used
assistance with living expenses before
you could have maintained them on your
own?

84