i ii 1' Iii 111i ”i" ’ '2'iii-iiiFisii'iiii'iii'i'iliimi"Vilniusii \ H1 iiii \ .1 1‘31““ s1 “'1'” s" 111‘ ii'miII1Ii. 1 11 II ’IIIII iifiili‘iii. IIIssssIIIIiiiIIIi iiIIIIIIIlIl‘IiIIIInfiII‘IIIIi ifil .‘I I I II, J” 1 I , ’i1,'.1i‘i" sslssis ' 11-II .‘s.s.1 .IIII'IFsIII 11,1 IiiI'liii . 1!,1‘ Ii 1 1 III 1. i I'I s " s: s..ss"~i, s. 1 IsIIsIss! " " "'"i """’ "i's‘iii’i". "iiissi iiiiiiis i i III-.ulliII lsllEb'WI,.,,_.i}"III£1}?c r‘iiiiiirii‘“lliiluiif§ . film 1“ Mafia. viz?"- iflifig‘flli iiiisl i357 I I').i - ssIm‘ sin i ' ”If” iiiii iiIsIII i. i Fifi?» siii‘i“ 'Iisii i11 ‘1' l1 . . 11.1 .11.: 1‘ 11‘s 1 s s 1 i ‘ v. i '. I‘ ".(i‘ssli isi iiiii’i-isi' iiiW if" iii” 1‘ II 'iIiI-II‘ iii'nisV‘ii‘Giiii I III Illi Iis iliiiii ”i I iii'Iisl iii i I! i 'ii’Ii f’rhIi-{iii’ si ii ‘s'iil Hi! i'i'iii'i’ “1’31 ’( i""'iii~i11;II'ii ‘,'.II ui'iiii, i1‘11111i,si‘11si, ‘ W i i i 11iisiii i“ 'ii'" |iiii iiiiisi ’iii iiiii iiiii'iiiiI 'i'iiiiii‘sii iii i. i' i 3:03? iii i'iiiiiii i i‘i iiisssisi'sssissiiissii siiis‘ iIJIi isiw isiiiii s 'iiii ii/iil/ .isi'iiiii iiiii iiii‘isiiiiii ii “if .' a. iii“ 4% «Wig ”W's ”if iin‘sss 113s ili'iIJ “1,1,, Ii’I'iss iii/iiiiii’iiiiiii i sii's iii sii sf “Ii: i" I.IIIs Ii 1'1 i'i' i'I'i I" , fi‘ 'iI i ”J'” iiIiiiijl [iiiiiiiiiiiri‘ iiii' iiiiiiiiIiiiiii)”/iiiiiiiIii£Ii ii II Iiil/i N .1 Ii!) I iiqui‘sWi 1:, EII .111 III III ii 1" i ' "'1-:-""..iss.i iiisisid-s ' iii'isis's'sis iiiiiisis i‘isiiiiiii'iliiii iiiiiii'isiitisi i ii’iiiiiiiiiiiiiii‘i'i'ii'i'"”i+fiiiisifs'sisisiifi‘ié i i iii-‘iisisssss ssissssiiisiis'iiiii.'s'ii‘issii' '=' siis, iiiiii :1 si 7‘ " 1 1 iiis‘s1111111111ssssssiiiii - +« sisiisii is sssgs sI' i “ii, -I iiii‘iiii'ii‘iii'iiiI iii‘iii‘iiiini‘iiIii‘II i i i- 'i i i s I1 s ”Lei i 1’ i6: i ' iis iii1’i1iii‘i’iiiiiiiiiiiiii s‘s‘iniiir‘i s . ~ , i iii. isisss sisi issisi'i'il-igiii I1 is 111. "IIii‘isI '1Is f . I. . .I I‘isjs'ses . issiiii‘s‘iisiiii 'iii1111'ini1s'ii1 iii siiis's‘iifi' iii" ‘ s % iiiiiiii/i iiil isi{iiiiiii‘iii‘Iiiiiisiiii,iiii,fi? iiiii'i ”if” . ' :in ii is '1i1 iiiiiiiiii'iisiii Ii’iiiiiiirisi iii in;,1 s‘ ‘s.- :s sss.is1s1ssss1 11:1 iiis 11: 1111 issssi s s v s III iiiiIiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiriiiisiiiiii siiiiiiiii} i'iiiiiiiiigi r >1 I I .I . sssssss s s Is ' i 'issisii‘isi-sss 1' i - .II , ii iii! iIiIif'ii i iiil IIiIIiIi.j iiiii} iii7 iIIIiiiIiIii iiiiiiIiiiiIiiI'iIi‘iUiIiIIiIiIijiII I III.I" . .-I illiiIiiii' ,1” "ii ssIHiII iii‘ 'Jiiii i111 is iii, II, I 1' ' Ii_ s' IIIIII‘I' I: II 52::- Mt; _' -a. ‘hiw a“. ‘ ~— ”iiii‘i is - s s 1 ii.1;ii-i 1 1: -' ,. II;:‘s‘i‘:;.‘.‘.‘.sI-s's.:1:.::'sFiis‘s’s’i s’.1111,s1ss:si111‘ ‘s's‘s11"1ss~i ' s s ~sI I ‘ -I IIII i‘ inI‘ssins'Is'i ss:"1" IiIII'IiII'I i iIil iii iii 1i iisi iiiiiqm iIIi siiIi 1 'i’Iiiiliiisiiisii IiiiIi i1 iIi-iI'rI iiiriniJIflIIIIiIi’I’ IiIIfiII IIiI‘IIss ”it’d”; IiIIiIIsi iiii siiii. 1"1si' :i. ”iii'tirs” ‘1i" l1ri‘Iii‘ii i'ipiiiiiiii “tilipmi (iii iii {Ii iiii iii! ”iii“ iiIiiI'ii i—I1II iiiiii I IIIIIIII isii‘i IIiI’IiI" Ibimili i1'i #3 ) II ii 1i. 1 ‘ii IIIIIII I IisiiIii‘iIiii siii I , i ii MIR ii'iii ijiilhiji I III ' . . ‘I'ii .- ii I z . 1‘ iii: iiuiiiiififiil‘giii ibii iiiii i’iiii‘ (sliI iiii IiIiI iii i4§~i$i ”grim“ Iiiiiii “Hi: i iii ’mlia I!” IIIIII lsssii i i {If i 21;: . ' 1 1' .111 i”’ " y I, i 111 i1 I 1 slsiiirhss iii” iiiriiii iinsi iiiii1 iiii W“ iiiiis'siil i . IiilItIt IiiiIiiiiiii "iiiiii1'|':'iiiiii_“ hlll'lmii £6131” A‘rJJ sI‘I .i I -\—.' kw. _“‘-.‘..'?__ 91““?— “‘7: .fi —._-‘v—~— w _ ,— Ill Ill/ll l III! III Ill/ll I!!! III! I! fill / II! (I! .1 ll Ill/l This is to certify that the thesis entitled REINTEGRATION~- -NEED ASSESSMENT OF FEMALE OFFENDERS BEING RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION presented by WINNIE RUTH GRIFFIETH ‘ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for mitt tr Ml Date 02//L722//lfa “a “$4 REINTEGRATION--NEED ASSESSMENT OF FEMALE OFFENDERS BEING RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION By Winnie Ruth Griffieth A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1980 ABSTRACT REINTEGRATION--NEED ASSESSMENT OF FEMALE OFFENDERS BEING RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION By Winnie Ruth Griffieth This study explored the needs of incarcerated female offen- ders in terms of community integration. In addition, this study investigated the relationship between needs of the incarcerated female in terms of her demographic characteristics. The research was conducted at the only correctional facility for women in a midwestern state. Approximately 20% of the women incarcerated at this facility were interviewed; in addition, criminal history data located in criminal files were collected on each female offender. In terms of the analysis of the data, two types of analyses were used: (1) descriptive analysis and (2) a predictor analysis- discriminant function. The major finding was that the incarcerated females had reintegration needs and that resources to meet these needs were either unavailable or unknown to the female offender. The use of the predictive analysis distinguished only two needs, of the total ten, that discriminate between those having a need and those not having a need significantly (p < .05). DEDICATION To All Incarcerated Women ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express deep appreciation for the guid- ance, criticism and encouragement given by my committee chairperson, Dr. William Davidson. Thanks also to my additional committee members, Dr. Ralph Levine, Dr. Elaine Donelson, and Dr. David Kalinich. Much appreciation also to William Kime, Deputy Director, Programming and Planning, Michigan Department of Corrections for his continued support and interests. A final special acknowledgments and love to my mother, Ms. Olevia H. Griffieth--if it were not for her, none of this would be. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF APPENDICES INTRODUCTION Female Criminology Lombroso Thomas . Glueck . Pollak . Sociological Race Class Sex . . Crime Statistics Major Crimes . Other Crimes . . Female Offenders and Parole Parole System Research Rationale METHOD Subjects . Design . . Instrument Construction . Age . . . Ethnicity . Education . Living Situation . . Marital Status/History. Children . . Employment History. Offense History. Narcotics History Family Background iv Page vi vii Procedures . Selection and Training of Coders Data Collection Interview . Criminal Files RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Demographics . Employment History Needs . . Job. . . Education . Housing 0.J.T. . Welfare Family . Child Care . . Mental/Physical . Legal . Parole . . Parole Concerns . Acceptance Relationships Programs Factor Analysis . Discriminant Analysis DISCUSSION Female Offender Characteristics Needs . Prediction of Needs . Implications of Needs Assessments Correctional System Future Research Limitations of Present Research Implications for Future Research . APPENDICES REFERENCES Table \IO‘U'l-hOON £00) 10. ll. LIST OF TABLES Criminal Offenses and Statutory Sentence Lengths Demographic Categories Job Categories Job Needs Education Need . Housing Needs On-the-Job-Training Needs (O.J.T.) Eigen Values and Percent of Variance for l6 Factors Factor Names and the Accompanying Variables and Factor Loadings . . . . . Predicted Group Membership of Needs . Correlation Between Needs Areas vi Page 34 41 44 49 SI 53 55 64 65 68 74 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Explanation of Research Research Participation Form 0 Data Frequencies F9 Supplement to Data Frequencies . vii Page 84 86 91 ll7 INTRODUCTION Until recently the topic of female criminality had been com- pletely overlooked. As one author states quite succintly: It is not surprising that criminology textbook writers have been able to cover the available knowledge about female criminality in one chapter or less. Our knowledge of the character and causes of female criminality and other dimen- sions of female criminality is at the same stage of develop- ment that characterized our knowledge of male criminality some 30 or more years ago (Ward, Johnson, & Ward, 1968). The largest impact made in the area of female offenders has focused upon the social relations of women in prison (e.g., Giallombardo, 1966; Burkhart, 1973; Chandler, 1973). Other emphasis has been placed on case histories of female offenders (e.g., Parker, 1965; Sparrow, 1970). Over the past few years there has been an increase in arrest rates of women in overall crimes. In 1953 women comprised 10.8% of those arrested for crimes in the United States and 15.7% of the total arrested for crimes in 1976 (Uniform Crime Reports). The justice system, from arresting officer to judge, as well as adminis- trators in correctional facilities, are having to respond and react to this increase. One important response these institutions will have to make is that of the problem of reentry for the female offender from the prison into her community. The research focuses on two facets of corrections--the female offender and reintegration. This research is exploratory in that it assesses the needs and concerns of female offenders in terms of their adjustments or "successful" adjust- ments into their community following an incarceration. Female Criminology It is imperative in understanding the purpose of the research to delineate the foundation or theoretical work done on female crim- inology. Discussing the nature of female criminality can be divided into three broad categories--physiological/psychological, sociologi- cal, and economical. Traditionally, most writers on the subject of women and crime have traced female criminality to biological and/or psychological sources with little emphasis being placed on such social-structure considerations as "the state of the economy, occu- pational and educational opportunities, division of labor based on sex roles and differential association." It seems as if the major theories of crime, usually referring to male criminology, has moved away from this primitive analysis of criminology (see Sutherland, 1970). In spite of more general theories moving away from discussing criminality in terms of psychological or physiological etiology, etiological theories in female criminality have continued to rest on psychological/physiological characteristics of the female offender. Freudian theory has carried considerable weight on the etiology of female criminality. Freudian theory basically claims that "women who are not passive, who are not content with their roles as mothers and wives are maladjusted." The sources of their maladjustment is penis envy (Freud, 1938). Women who refused to -accept their feminine role, whether it be a desire for a career, a lack of interest in marriage and/or motherhood, or participation in criminal acts means the presence in such women of a Fmasculinity complex." According to Freud, all women experience penis envy to some extent. However, what differentiates the "maladjusted" woman from the "adjusted" woman is that the adjusted woman seeks to com- pensate for the lack of a penis through the sex act and through motherhood. Female criminality is seen as a deviant way of compen- sating for the lack of a penis. Lombroso Lombroso was one of the earliest criminologists to theorize about female criminality. The works of Lombroso are an example of the biological explanation of crime. He described female criminal- ity as an "inherent tendency produced in individuals that could be regarded as a 'biological atavism'--survival of primitive traits in individuals, particularly those of the female and the nonwhite races" (Lombroso, 1903). He theorizes that individuals develop differentially within sexual and racial limitations which differ hierarchically from the most highly developed (the white man) to the least developed (the nonwhite woman). Within the framework of biological limits of women's nature, Lombroso characterizes the "female offender as masculine and the noncriminal woman as feminine." Lombroso deals with crime as an antavism--the survival of primitive traits in individuals. These primitive traits, according to Lombroso, exist primarily in the female and nonwhite races. In terms of female criminality, Lombroso felt that women were restrained from criminal activity because of their overall "lack of intelli- gence." In his study on the skulls of female criminals, he detected certain anomalies. The "physiognomy and brain capacity of female criminals more closely approximated that of the male skull (criminal or noncriminal), than that of the noncriminal female skull" (Lombroso, 1903). A criticism of Lombroso's data was that he did not test for significant differences between skull weights of criminal and noncriminal females and males. Also his index of physiognomy are crudely defined thereby making interpretations impossible. In addition, the data reported was only in raw data format. Another criticism which lead to his results being unreliable was that the control group used was not matched on such variables as age, ethnic group, and geographical region. Physiognomy and brain capacity no doubt vary on these variables. 32915. The works of L. 1. Thomas are critical in that they mark a transition from purely physiological explanation, such as Lombroso's, to a more sophisticated theory that encompasses physiological, psy- chological, as well as social-structured factors; although the basic foundation to Thomas' theory is physiological. His underlying assumption in his explanation is the inferior status of women to men are physiological ones. In his book, Sex and Society (1970), Thomas begins to address the issue of morality which he closely links to legality from a standpoint of maintaining social order. Whereas Lombroso barely observed women's lack of participation in the institution of private property, Thomas' perception is more profound. He points out that: Women are the property of men, that their conduct is subject to different codes because they occupy a marginal position in the productive sphere of exchange commodities outside the home. They, in turn, occupy a marginal position in regard to "contractual" law which regulates relations of property and production. The argument of differential treatment of men and women by the law is developed in later works by Pollak and others who attribute it to "chivalry" of the system which is lenient to women committing offenses. Thomas believed that women in a capitalistic system are not a serious threat to property and are thusly treated more leniently because of this. Thomas is not stating that women commit fewer crimes than men. He feels that certain women can become threats by transcending, or being denied, their "traditional" roles--particular1y many Third World women and political rebels; they are not afforded chivalrous treatment (Klein, 1973). Queens In 1934 two authors, Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck,did research on 500 delinquent women. Their basic conclusion was that female offenders "are themselves on the whole a sorry lot" (Glueck, 1934). The main problem of the female offender is their lack of control of their sexual impulses-~illicit practices are extremely common among [the female offender]; beginning with sexual activity very early and carrying with it brain diseases and illigitimacy. The Glueck'Sfindings were that 80% of the sampled group (in one reformatory) committed sexual or immoral acts; 24% committed anti- social illegal acts that did not involve sex; 68% had VD before 21 years of age and illigitimate pregnancies. Some major criticisms of the Glueck's study was that there was no control group. Also, most of their data was gathered by the use of parole records which, as a whole, are unreliable. The other part of the data gathering was done through an interview. There was no mention of how the interviewers coded the information or if interrater reliability had been done with the interviewer. The defi- nition of the factors used to categorize the data were very broad and general, leaving room for much interpretation of the coders. No analysis was done to indicate whether the results that were obtained were significant; only raw data was reported. Pollak Otto Pollak's book, The Criminality of Women (1950), was important to the development of theories having a socio-cultural/ economical basis. His theory "challenged the basic assumptions con- cerning the extent and quality of women is involvement in criminal behavior" (Simon, 1975). Pollak stated that women have been rewarded and praised for their underrepresentation in criminal activities. According to Pollak, female participation in crime has not been significantly lower than men, but the following has had some inpact: (1) The types of crimes women commit are less likely to be detected, (2) even when detected, they are less likely to be reported-—for example, shoplifting, domestic theft and theft by prostitution, and (3) even when crimes are reported, women still have a much better chance than do men of avoiding arrest or conviction because of the double standard employed by law enforcement officials which is favorable to women (Pollak, 1950). None of Pollak's data fully supports his three assumptions. Pollack discusses other reasons for the apparent hidden crime of women. He postulates that the roles played by women furnishes them with opportunities as domestics--nurses, teachers, housewives-- to commit undetectable crimes. "The kinds of crimes women commit reflect their nature: false accusation, for example, is an outgrowth of women's treachery; spite or fear is a sign of neurosis; shop- lifting can be traced in many cases to a special mental disease" (Pollak, 1950). Pollak felt that economic factors play a minor role in the explanation of female criminality and that sexual-psychological factors account for female criminality. However, this is basically not true, since a large part of his discussion on female criminality focuses on socio-cultural factors which are inevitably traced to an economic explanation. Pollak defines crimes with economic motives as being masculine and those crimes of sexual activity as feminine. The above writers see criminality basically as the result of individual characteristics that are only peripherally affected by economic, social, and political forces. These characteristics are of a physiological and/or psychological nature and are based on implicit or explicit assumptions about the inherent nature of women. These writers also assume that individuals have a choice between criminal or noncriminal activity. When a sociological perspective is taken on the nature of female criminality, crimes committed by women are the outcome of five major factors: (1) differential role expectation for men and women, (2) sex differences in socialization patterns and application of social control, (3) structurally determined differences in opportu- nities to commit particular offenses, (4) differential access or pressures toward criminality oriented subcultures, (5) careers and sex differences built into the crime category itself (Hoffman-Eusta- mante, 1973). The following discussion about female criminality in terms of race, class, and arrest statistics will expand on these five categories. Sociological Segregated tozaworld of poverty at the fringe of white pros- perity, acculturated to a life style which favored physical aggression and saddled with familial responsibilities ordinar- ily assumed by white males, her propensities and opportunities would naturally lead, when criminologic influences are preva- lent, to crimes against persons and property (Adler, 1975). Race Economic circumstances and legitimate opportunity and out- lets make it less likely that a white woman will commit a criminal act. However, if she does, she will not be limited to the blue- collar crime of vice, assault, or robbery. Rather, the access she has to the preserves of power either in her own light as an executive For in an affiliative capacity, such as executive secretary, will enable her to engage in the more sophisticated remunerative and least prosecuted type of illegitimate activity--white-collar crime. In her criminal behavior, the black female is statistically ahead of her white counterpart. The reasons for this are unclear to most authors; however, some reasons have been hypothesized. "It may be that the racial imbalance in arrests accurately reflects a racial imbalance in crimes, but there is a possibility that it is a distorted result of prejudicial arrest" (Adler, 1975). If this is the case, the author has notices that this difference between that of white and black males is not as great as that between black and white females (Uniform Crime Reports). Another reason for this apparent discrepancy between black and white female criminal behavior is that "the black woman is viewed differently and responded to differently by everyone from the arresting officer to the probation (or parole officer)“ (Adler, 1975). In understanding the picture better, one can look at the educational and occupational background of the black and white female. The average black female ends her education in junior high school. Being that there is a correlation between the amount of education a woman receives and the amount of income she will earn, black women who head families are likely to earn statistically less than their white counterparts (Department of Labor Statistics). The median income of the nation's white women who did head households and lO worked a full-time, year-round job was $ 8,672, 1976; while in this same year black women averaged $ 8,097. Therefore, because of many factors--lack of education, racial discrimination, and other barriers related to ethnic background--all black women, in general, tend to earn substantially less than white working women. Because the black woman is burdened with the problems adher- ent to the head of a household, because she must meet the financial obligations under unfavorable conditions, and because she lives in a timeframe of impulsive immediacy--postponement of gratification, she, as a black women is more likely than a white woman to turn to the "lucrative" forms of deviant behavior. Once she has become involved in the justice system, the criminality scale of the black female becomes even more unbalanced (Adler, 1975). If she has had previous contact with the justice system--whether it is a product of a willful crime, an unfortunate consequence to environmental pressures, or simply the result of intensive police patrols in ghetto areas--a black female acquires an additional stigma. As a woman who previously was handicapped in the job market by her race and sex, she is at a further disadvantage, as is her white counterpart, by an offense record and often additionally by confinement in a correctional insti- tution. This cycle of recidivism, as with any institutionalized individual, accelerates with each escapade and confinement because it compounds a socially lethal mixture of increased bitterness and increased contact with criminal elements. In the past century, black women have, as a group, freed themselves from the "fetters" of male domination while, economically, ll white women are still fighting to loosen the socio-economic chains that have kept them in psychological bondage to their husbands (Adler, 1975). In contrast, white women have generally spent their time sequestered in the kitchen or bedroom, unmotivated and untempted toward criminal activity because she could count on a relatively pro- tected environment. Outside of a sporadic bit of shiplifting or secretly selling sexual favors (Uniform Crime Reports-Trend), she has few needs or opportunities to involve herself in criminal behavior (Adler, 1975). Therefore, her more secure financial position, her domestic confinement, her cultural proscriptions, and her institutional supports have shielded her from involvement in the more aggressive and lucrative forms of criminality. All of this is changing because many white women no longer want to be protected and supported if the price is submission. Just as the white woman is moving toward the blurring of sex-role distinctions which have already occurred for black women, so also is she moving in the direction of her higher criminality rates (Adler, l975)(UCR). This new trend underscores the fact that the criminality of the black woman had little, if any, connection to biological make-up, but was rather related to her role in society. It is not that the black woman has always outtopped the white woman as a criminal, but rather that cultural conditions forced her to "run earlier, faster, and further before white women entered the race" (Adler, 1975). Also, in addition to this, it may be that white 12 women were not in the race because she was never apprehended and adjudicated for her crimes. But, the parallel is not exact or will it ever be exact because the differences in their socio-economic positions will result in crimes which are perceived, executed, prose- cuted, and corrected differently. This leads one to posit other variables which are involved in the nature of female criminality. That virtue is its own reward or that crime does not pay are not idealistic homilies, but self-evident socio- economic truths because they are pragmatic dictums express- ing the operational codes of every society (Hoffman- Bustamante, 1973). (1635. Ignoring ethical rationalization and philosophical preten- tions, a crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit. Therefore, when the definitions of crime are extended beyond the deviances practiced by the lower class to include activities pre- viously approved by the upper class, one is witnessing not a dis- covery of new crimes, but the rise of newly strengthened social segments. In discussing the conception of the class as a variable of female criminality, one is naturally examining the concepts of lower class crime (blue-collar crime) and upper classes of crimes (white- collar crime). The concept of white-collar crime has had many diverse meanings. Its original definition contains five components: (1) it is a crime, (2) often in violation of trust, (3) perpetuated by a respectable member of the community who enjoys it, (4) high l3 socio-economic status, (5) and is in some way realted to his/her occupation (Sutherland, 1940). White-collar crime may be understood to be that anti-social deviance which is native to upper class modes of behavior in that some way blatant robbery and physical assaults are an extension of lower class modes. From this perpsective, the two are only sepa- rated by means not ends or goals. Each group functions within its own range, generally limited in its deviancy as in its normalcy to the confines of its modus operandi (Adler, 1975). For women, legal, social, and economic barriers are falling; women are slowly climbing up the business ladder (see Department of Labor Statistics). But, just as social liberation increased the options in the traditional crime structure, corresponding vocational liberation opened opportunities for white-collar criminality--a heretofore "for men only" expression of deviance. As more and more women achieve competence or are accepted into the job market, they ascend to occupations which carry the burdens and opportunities of trust along with the chance to violate it. ng_ When the relative percentages of men and women committing each type of crime are compared, it becomes evident that at least two categories are by definition sex-linked. Arrests for forcible rape are exclusively male, while those for prostitution and commer- cialized vice are nearly all female. 14 For the year 1976, women averaged 15.7% of all arrents. The most obvious question is why women's arrest rate averages only 15.7% of arrests for all crimes. Since women comprise 51% of the total population, one would expect that they would commit at least 50% of the crimes and make up 50% of those arrested. In evaluating this discrepancy, it would be helpful to look at women and their involve- ment in major crimes. Crime Statistics Major Crimes The slight increase in the percentage of women arrested for manslaughter by negligence between 1958 and 1970 (1.2%) may possibly be the result of changing female roles. However, there was 20.4% decrease from 1972-76. At the same time, the percentage of women arrested for murder/manslaughter has dropped by 8.8% between 1972 and 1976. If one examines the ways in which women are involved in willful homicide, one may be able to begin to account for this decrease. Both Wolfgang's study of homicide (1958) and Ward, Jackson Ward's (1969) study support the hypothesis that the role of women in murders and their choice of victims is closely tied to the female sex role. According to the Wolfgang data, 51.9% of the women's victims had a familial relationship to the woman; whereas for male offenders, the rate was only 16.4%. The Ward data showed that women involved in murders were the sole perpetrators in 77% of the cases. And that in over half of the 15 cases a family member or lover was the victim. Nearly half (47%) of the homicides took place in the common residence of the victim and offender--with an additional 13% occurring in the offender's (woman's) home. Only 21% of these crimes were premeditated (Ward, 1969). Another conclusion of the Ward data was that physical strength was not used in committing the crime in 51% of the cases. More than one- third of the weapons were knives or other household items and another one-third of the weapons were guns. However, Wolfgang's data showed a greater use of knives and household implements (62.4%) and less use of guns (20.4%). These differences,found in both the Wolfgang and Ward, et a1., data in weapons used in connecting homicide, support the originally proposed hypothesis--women more often use household objects, a deductive that they most often commit homicide in their own homes against their own relatives or loved ones. Another important feature of female offenders is the degree to which their victims were unable to defend themselves. In Ward's sample, 42% of the victims were either ill, drunk, off-guard or asleep; another 19% were children. In Wolfgang's sample. 67% of the women committed nonviolent homicide, whereas for men the rate of nonviolent homicide was 45.5%. The categorization used to determine nonviolent versus violent was as follows: for violent crimes, the inflection of two or more stab wounds, gunshot wounds, or beating up the victim. A nonviolent homicide would involve only a single stab wound, blow, or gunshot wound. Categories used are seen as being fairly incomplete, but do establish a broad difference between 16 the two. The reasoning for the discrepancy between men and women in terms of violent versus nonviolent homicides are due mainly to the fact that "women in the course of growing up are less likely to have the opportunity to learn the skills of fighting to the same degree as man" (Hoffman-Bustamante, 1973). Other Crimes Larceny.--The FBI defines larceny as “the unlawful taking of property or articles of value without the use of force, violence, or fraud." The category encompasses such crimes as shoplifting, pick- pocketing, purse snatching, thefts from autos, thefts of auto parts and accessories, bicycle thefts, etc. The stolen property must be worth at least $50 for the FBI to consider it as larceny. In 1970 women constituted 31.2% of arrests due to larceny. Burglary.--Burglary, another property crime, is defined as "thé unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft even though no force was used to gain entrance." These distinctions are closely linked to sex-role difference. The concentration of women in the arrest figures in this area is closely tied to her patterns of everyday life. Most depart- ment and grocery store shopping is done by women. When women are caught for shoplifting, the average value of the merchandise they have taken is considerably lower for women than men, $16.40 and $28.36, respectively (Cameron, 1964). In comparing the categories of burglary and larceny, one notices sex differences relative to each of these categories--sex 17 differences closely linked to sex roles. Burglaries usually involve forcible entry, 77% in 1970 (50% during the night) (Hoffman- Bustamante, 1973). Men are much more likely to be out at night than are women. Women when out at night are usually either supervised or excorted by men. Burglary is also the type of offense for which boys in the normal process of growing up would be more likely to acquire the necessary skills. If one combines the categories of burglary and larceny, one finds that women account for 36.4% of the arrests--larger than their percentage for overall crimes (Uniform Crime Report, 1976). The categories of homicide and larceny are the only two types of major crimes in which women constitute a higher percentage of arrestees than their average for all crimes. This situation is again related to differential role expectations for and training of women as well as differences in available opportunities to commit such offenses (Hoffman-Bustamante, 1973). Robbery.--In the case of robbery, the apparently low female arrest rate is closely tied to the nature of the offense. The crime takes place in the presence of the victim and involves an attempt to take property or some article of value by force or the threat of it (Hoffman—Bustamante, 1973). According to Ward, 80% of the female robbery in his sample were either accessories or partners, and in only 14% of the cases was she the sole perpetrator. Fraud/Embezzlement.--There has been very little research on women arrested for fraud. It may be possible that most women arrested 18 in this category are involved in con games, welfare frauds, or possibly as accessories in fradulent business practices (Hoffman- Bustamante, 1973). The high arrest rate for women in this category may be the result of the types of fraud for which women are arrested. These crimes are usually fairly easy to detect and one in which the police would be more likely to investigate. Even in the crime of embezzlement, some clear possibilities for the high incidence of arrests are seen (women constituting 24.6% of those arrested). Women frequently steal from charities that are rarely audited, where income is often not watched as closely as in banks or businesses (Hoffman-Bustamante, 1973). The very high arrest rate of female offenders possibly reflects the effects of other factors as well. One important fact is that women generally hold positions of lesser authority in banks and businesses, which means that their work would be scrutinized more closely than that of a person in higher positions (e.g., bank presidents and vice-presidents). Another factor may be that persons in lower positions usually have less education in account- ing and financial manipulation than do those in higher status posi- tions. In addition to this, since persons in low status or lower paying jobs have fewer economic resources, they would be less able to replace the money before being detected. The sex role link con— cerns the differential in both skills and economic opportunities of men and women which result in women being concentrated at the bottom of the economic ladder and in positions that make their crimes more vulnerable to detections (Hoffman-Bustamante, l973). 19 In looking at the above categories, as well as those of forgery and counterfeiting, in which women comprise over 29.6% of those arrested, it is clear that both sex role behavior and the way in which the category is defined accounts for the larger than "expected" rate of female arrests. Each of these offenses are gen- erally defined as nonviolent. Contrary to the other offenses of robbery and burglary in which women comprise a much smaller arrest rate (12.3%) which are considered a lot more violent and requiring more physical strangth. If all of the arrests in all the categories involving "taking other's property" were combined into a single cate- gory, the women would account for only 22.1% of those arrested. This is still, however, above the 15.7% average for all arrests. Female Offenders and Parole Because this study involves a need assessment of female offenders in terms of their reintegration into the community, it is imperative to discuss parole. Parole is defined as . . the conditional release of a selected connected person before.the completion of the term of imprisonment to which he (she) has been sentenced. It is a penological measure designed to facilitate the transition of the offender from the highly controlled life of the penal institution to the freedom of community living. It is not intended as a gesture of leniency or forgiveness" (Kay & Vedder, 1963). Parole in itself does not, as mentioned above, "facilitate the transition of the offender from the push to community life." Inherent in parole are not agencies, programs and specially appointed persons to help the offender adjust to his community life. 20 Parole System I The probability of receiving a favorable parole hearing and maintaining a successful parole has been shown to be determined by the type of offense for which a woman was convicted, her prior criminal record, and her adjustment and behavior in prison (see Recidivism Literature). Other factors considered as good predictors of successful reentry are a woman's prior drug history, alcohol use, and her age at the time of conviction. Authors have posited and researched that younger offenders rather than older offenders are more likely to violate the conditions of their parole. Offenders with a history of drug or alcohol use are less likely to have successful paroles than are those without such a history. Property offenders have higher rates of parole vio- lation than do offenders convicted of prison crimes or more crimes of violence. The lowest rates of parole violators are associated with offenders who were convicted of homicide, manslaughter, forcible rape, and aggravated assault; and the highest with auto theft, forgery, larceny, and other types of fraud. From the Uniform Crime Reports, one knows that women are more highly represented in those offense categories that have less successful paroles (Neithercutt, 1972). Two studies will be discussed on parole outcome for female offenders. The first will be on parole outcomes of female felons from Detroit House of Corrections (DEHOCO) and the second, a more extensive study, discusses women parolees and recidivism. The first 21 was chosen becuase it represents research done on the institution which this study will be based on and the second was chosen because of its completeness as well as a rationale for this research on reintegration. The firstzstudy, "Parole Outcome of Female Felony Offenders from DEHOCO" (1967) was a study of 56 women placed on a 24-month parole period from the Detroit House of Corrections (DEHOCO) during the first seven months of 1965. Of the 56, 28 returned to DEHOCO on parole violation, and the other 28 successfully completed their parole. The study consists of a comparison between the parole viola- tor and the nonviolators. The first category for comparison was the offense type. Parole violators constituted 76.5% of the 17 originally sentenced for forgery; 71.5% of the seven sentenced for possession of narcotics; 44.5% of the nine sentenced for robbery; 25% of the eight sentenced for assault and 16.7% of the 12 sentenced for larceny. There is no mention made of the 28 nonviolators and the percentages they comprise of the total offense population at DEHOCO. For all one knows, the 28 could have comprised all prison offenders that are known to have better parole results. The second category of comparison was parole employment and residence. Two of the most significant factors (p < .001) were related to the actual parole period: (1) those who had no employment or highly irregular and changeable jobs were those who violated their parole. Those who had steady employment, no matter the type 22 of job, were apt to successfully complete parole, (2) refers to the parolee's residence. If she lived with members of her immediate family, she usually stayed away from criminal behavior whereas if she lived with friends or continuously moved about, she was apt to return to criminal behavior. Eighteen of the 28 women who completed parole lived with their immediate family compared to five of the 28 violators. A third group for comparison was the overall offense pattern. Two very significant factors (p < .001) were addiction and prostitu- tion. Approximately 48.2% of the parole violators were narcotic addicts, and 51.8% were prostitutes. Both of these categories lead to other crimes for which they could be picked up. Violators who were both addicted to narcotics and engaged regularly in prostitution represented 35.7%. The author does not discuss the percentages of addicts and prostitutes in the nonviolator category. The author also does not point out whether these women, comprising the 48.2% and 51.8% addiction and prostitution respectively, were addicts and prostitutes prior to convictions. Another factor having to do with prior criminal behavior was also found to discriminate between the two groups (p < .01). Of the group violating their parole, 72.5% had “committed a series of crimes." The author, however, fails to define "series of crimes." The remainder of the factors used by the author did not dis- criminate between the violators and the nonviolator: age, work and adjustment in DEHOCO, overall institutional adjustment, IQ, and 23 other personality factors. These categories were defined by the author as very vague and the scale to rate the women was also nebu- lous (e.g., poor, good, fair). Other problems of the study were that if only utilized files of the Michigan Department of Correction and of the psychologists at DEHOCO. There was no attempt to interview these women. Also, there was a large amount of missing data which did not really help the small sample size. The second study, which will be discussed briefly, details some of the characteristics of parole violators. Bececochea and Spencer (1972) critically look at 660 women parolled from California Institute for Women. The study states that these women were released for the first time from CIW. It is not clear from this statement whether these women were first-timers or had been convicted and/or sentenced in another facility. The authors obtained their data from the Research Division of the California Department of Correction, files of inmates at the California Institute for Women (CIW) and the Uniform Parole Reports of the National Proba- tion and Parole Institute. The subjects studied were two—thirds white and their ages tended toward the early 30's. They scored as low-normals on the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Test and at the junior high school level on the California Achievement Test. Most of the women had been convicted of insufficient funds, check forgery charges, and narcotics offenses. Approximately two-thirds had served jail or 24 prison terms before entering CIW and one-third reported heroin use. The most obvious question is whether this study group is representa- tive of the population at the CIW, let alone the female offender population across the country. Within the period up to eight years after release, 40% had been returned to prison at least once. Proportion varied significantly among ethnic groups, with blacks comprising 50% and whites 35%. In general, however, ethinic differences were found in intelligence test scores and in commitment records. The question is, what is it about these variables, 10, and prior commitment that leads one to recifivate? Low 10 obviously means lack of skills and restriction of job availability. However, the standardized test used (Wechsler- Bellevue) were standardized on nonincarcerated whites, largely from a middle-class occupational group. Other factors affecting the lower test scores of the sampled women were inexperienced with tests of this nature, tensions of the newly incarcerated which could depress performance, and cultural bias in certain verbal areas of the scale which assume exposure to middle-class learning and social situation. To give a clearer picture of return rates, the author gives a lengthy discussion of the status of their subjects. Eight years after their first release from prison, approximately 30% of the 660 subjects were still under California Department of Correction juris- diction--20% on parole and 10% in prison. Slightly more than half had been discharged (54.2%) without a serious parole incident, while 13.4% received discharges after having been returned to prison (3.2% were deceased). 25 Among the offense categories, the most successful parolees were the violent offenders with 85% of the homicide cases and 72% of the assaultive offenders having no returns. Least successful were those convicted of narcotic offenses, with only 39% remaining out of the institution and 38% returned more than once. Property offen- ders more closely approached the group average in percentage of women returning to prison as well as in the percentage of multiple returns. In short, new commitments were found to account for a small proportion of the total returns. Compared to other parolee's prior commitment records, intelligence test scores, ethnic groups, and narcotic use. women returning with new commitments differed only in terms of having a more extensive record of prior commitments. Women returning for parole violations, accounting for 80% of the readmis- sions to prison, differed from other parolees in terms of narcotics use, more extensive prior commitment records, minority group member- ship and lower intelligence and educational test scores. Also, according to the data, black women in general were returned with greater frequency than white women. Black women with assaultive offenses or backgrounds of narcotic use and prior commitment records were apparently considered greater parole risks than matched white women and were returned for parole violation at significantly higher rates (Berecochea & Spencer, 1972). The great majority of the studies carried out on recidivism, including the two mentioned above, have been based on existing reports of their subjects (e.g., social inquiries and criminal records). Only 26 a few cases have gathered their data by interviewing offenders. One in particular is the research conducted by John Irwin (The Felon, 1970). Some of the problem areas outlined by Irwin were the initial impact of reintegration, employment, locating housing, transportation, and the lack of vocational skills working with only existing records while not gathering the data directly through interviewing, leaves one with questions about reliability and the validity of the data concerned. The finding of the aforementioned studies indicate that necessity of exploring problems or concerns female offenders might have when entering the community from a correctional facility. Research Rationale The focus of this research is the defining of the needs and concerns incarcerated females have in terms of reintegration--1eaving the prison and returning to their communities. There are basically two limitations of previous research in this area. First limitation is that most researchers extract reinte- gration needs of offenders by analyzing post-incarceration data. This data were primary basis of the recidivism literature. In general, the researcher uses case files of the offender to generate possible indicators of needs; or more accurately, of ways people are not "successful" in their communities. These files, for the most part, tend to be unreliable in terms of giving sufficient and accurate information (Brecochea & Spencer, 1972). 27 The second shortcoming of previous literature on reintegra- tion, or more accurately stated, recidivism, is that the literature has primarily focused on the male offender. There are similarity in needs between the male and female offender; however, there are spe- cific needs of females that are not experienced or expressed by male offenders. Therefore, given these shortcomings, this research's focal points are the female offender and a reintegration needs-assessment. The female offender population was used because of the limited research on female offenders. This lack of research on and about the female offender effects her involvement, or lack of it, in the institution of criminal justice. An interview needs assessment, justified itself in that it allows for a wide array of information to be collected. A needs assessment also does not lend itself to "third party" information, thereby the information will tend to be more accurate and reliable. In terms of data analysis, given that this research was exploratory and needed descriptive analysis, two analytical procedures were used: factor analytic procedure and discriminative function procedures. The first statistical approach, factor analysis-principal components, served as a data reduction procedure. The discrimini- tative statistical approach was used to predict the needs from a woman's demographic characteristics. In summary, this research is important in that it only used an adult female incarcerated population to explore reintegration 28 needs. This provides much needed demographic information on the female and information on needs in terms of reintegration. METHOD Subjects The participants for this study were felony convicted female offenders. The females were chosen from an inmate population of a state-owned minimum-medium-maximum security women's correctional institution. The institution housed women who were at least 17 years of age and had a sentence longer than one year-felony offense. Approximately 435 women were incarcerated in the correctional facil- ity at the time of the study. There were 120 women listed for inclusion in the research. Of the 120, there were 30 women who could not be interviewed because they had been released from the correctional facility. (NOTE: Lists of women residing in the correctional facility were updated weekly. However, the lists were not always accurate.) The remaining 20 women refused to participate in the study. Therefore 70 (220%) of the total p0pu1ation were randomly chosen to participate in the study. In terms of representativeness of the sample, the women in the study were similar to the incarcerated population population from which they were drawn. They were similar in terms of age, race, and present offense. It was not possible to make my other comparisons due to the lack of data available on the incarcertated population. However, in using national statistics (Glick, 1977), the 29 30 sampled women tended to be similar in all ways, except in one area-- present offense. The sample group in this study showed a higher incidence of person related offenses and a lower prevalence of drug or drug-related offenses. This discrepancy is explained in terms of the sampling procedure used for this research. Women in this study were randomly sampled; however, of the 30 women that were released prior to participation 25 were serving time for less serious offenses. Women serving time for less serious offenses, drug and/or property, usually had short prison terms. Of the 20 women refusing to participate, 15 were women serving for less serious offenses. Given that there was not any way to determine the woman's offense prior to selecting her for the study, women serving time for more serious offenses were slightly over-sampled. In addition to this, the state in which the correctional facility is located, hasaihigher commitment rate for females committing person-related crimes and a lower commitment rate of drug-related offenses than the national statistics. Lesism The primary design used in the study was a discriminant function analysis which examined needs as they related to demographic characteristics. The independent variables were the following need areas: 1. job 2. on-the-job training 3. welfare 31 4. family 5. education 6. housing 7. child care 8. relationship development 9. legal 10. acceptance 11. mental/physical health The dependent variables were a group of collected demographic char- acteristics. Instrument Construction Two types of data were needed: (1) an assessment of needs concerning reintegration--obtained through an interview; and (2) demo- graphic information--obtained through an interview and criminal files. Questions for the interview were developed by an extensive review of the female offender literature; interviewing lO incarcer- ated and paroled women; interviewing parole officers, prison wardens (superintendents) and administrators within the Department of Correc- tions as to the needs, problems, and concerns of women's re-entry into the community from the correctional facility. A pilot study was conducted, using the instrument, on 15 randomly selected incarcerated women. The interview format was re-evaluated in terms of the purpose of the research and the obtained responses. The resulting interview was divided into two parts. The first part of the interview posed questions regarding the woman's background: 32 Ase The subject's age at the time of the interview. According to Glaser and O'Leary (1968) and others, concerns and problems about re-entry vary according to age. Ethnicity This variable had five categories: Black, White, Chicano/ Mexican-American, American Indian, and Other. Researchers have pointed out ethnically related reintegration problems (see Berecochea & Spencer, 1972; Reed & Woods, 1972). Education The highest grade completed prior to incarceration. This variable has been known to distinguish between those that made it after release and those who did not (see Berecochea& Spencer, 1972; Glaser, 1969). Living Situation Included variables are the number of times changed address one year prior to incarceration and with whom the woman was living. Marital Status/History This variable included both recent and past marital status. There were six possible response categories: legally married, common law married, separated, divorced, widowed, and single. This variable, along with other variables, has been used to measure stability, and this stability has been evaluated in terms of ricidivism (see Berecochea & Spencer, 1972). 33 Children Included are the number of children a women had and the child- ren's present and past custody status. Studies have shown this variable to be an indication of concerns of incarcerated women (see Zalba, 1964) which in turn may affect community adjustment. Employment History Employment history has been one of the number one variables depicting adjustment problems for the institutionalized population (see Berecochea & Spencer, 1972; Irvin, 1974; Glaser, 1969). Women were asked to give their employment history. Offense History This information was obtained from both the interview and from the criminal files. Only present offense juvenile and adult detainment questions were asked in the interview. The earlier offense history was collected from the criminal files. Offense histories have been shown to be related to community adjustments (see Berecochea & Spencer, 1972; Glaser, 1969). Offense was coded using Department of Correction Criminal Offense and Statutory Lengths (Table 1). Narcotics History Women responded to whether they were addicted to certain drugs prior to being incarcerated. Categories were: marijuana, uppers/downers, cocaine, LSD, heroin/opium, and alcohol. Drug dependence, specifically heroin, has been linked to adjustment/ recidivism (see Berecochea & Spencer, 1972; Glaser, 1969). 34 TABLE 1.--Criminal Offenses and Statuatory Sentence Lengths Code Offense. L1:?;;m agiggagory Explanation of Offenses 1 Murder, lst degree Life Premeditated. intentional killing 2 Murder, 2nd degree Life or any Murder not premeditated. e 9., term of years bar-room brawls. less than life 3 Attempted murder Assault with intent to do great bodily harm. 4 Assault with intent to commite murder 5 Robbery armed Life or any 6 Assault to rob, armed term of years 7 Rape ” B Kidnapping " 9 Conspiracy " 10 Bank safe or vault robbery ll Narcotics, unlawful sale, distrib., manufacturing 13.3 yrs. 20 years 11 Burning a dwelling house 13.3 yrs. 20 years Threatening a person with injury in order to obtain property. 11 Extortion 13.3 yrs. 20 years 11 Accept earnings of a prostitute pandering 13.3 yrs. 20 years Pimping 12 Robbery, unarmed 10 yrs. 15 years 12 Assault to rob 10 yrs. 15 years 12 Manslaughter 10 yrs. 15 years Killing but offender was provoked. Retaliation. 12 Breaking and entering an accupied dwelling 10 yrs. 15 years 12 Sodomy 10 yrs. 15 years Sexual assault (not violent). 12 Perjury 10 yrs. 15 yrs. Lying in a situation when yOu're under oath to tell the truth. 12 Place explosive by property with intent to discharge 10 yrs. 15 years 12 Firearm, cause death w/o malice 10 yrs. 15 years e.g., gun goes off by mistake and someone is killed. 13 Uttering and publishing 9.3 yrs. 14 years Passing a bad check. 13 Forgery of records 9.3 yrs. 14 years 14 Breaking and entering 6.66 yrs. 10 years 14 Possession of burglary tools 6.6 yrs. 10 years 14 Larceny from a person 6.6 yrs. 10 years Stealing from a person. e.g., purse snatching. Bargained dOwr robbery. l4 Assault less than murder 6.6 yrs. 10 years 14 Assault committing rape, sodomy. or gross indecency 6.6 yrs. 10 years 14 Assault to commit a felony 6.6 yrs. 10 years Assault with a dangerous weapon. without intent to commit murder. and without intent to inflict great bodily harm. i.e., less than murder. 14 False pretense to defraud 6.6 yrs. 10 years Falsely obtaining money. goods. or services from an individual. No theft because given articles voluntarily TABLE l.--Continued 35 Code Offense ;:2?;:m 2::tgzgory Explanation of Offenses 14 Indecent liberties with child 6.6 yrs. 10 years 14 Burning other real property 6.6 yrs. 10 years 14 Drunk driving-third offense 6.6 yrs. 10 years 14 Possession of a stolen auto 6.6 yrs. 10 years 14 Incent 6.6 yrs. 10 years 15 Non-narcotic drug, illegal sale. distribution 4.66 yrs. 7 years 15 Hallucinogens, sales, distri., and manufacturing 4.66 yrs. 7 years 16 Escape from prison 3.33 yrs. 5 years 16 Carrying a concealed weapon 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Receiving stolen prOperty 3.3 yrs. 5 years Commonly called attempted 8&5. Usually bargained down from 885. 16 Unlawful driing away auto 3.3 yrs. 5 yrs. 16 Larceny over $100 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Larcenv from motor vehicle 3.3 yrs. 5 vrs. 16 Larceny by conversion over $100 5 years Receiving money, goods, or other property and wrongfully applying it to a purpose other than that for which it was delivered to him. e.g. defendant given funds to buy stock for someone but uses money to buy himself a car. 16 Attempted gross indency between male and female 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Carrying weapon w/unlawful intent 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Possession of forged notes 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Transport drugs into prison 3.3 yrs 5 years 16 Mfg. or poss. illegal weapon 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Possession of bomb 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Common law offense 3.3 yrs. 5 years 16 Cross indecency between females 3.3 yrs. 5 years 17 Larceny from a building 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Felonious assault 2.6 yrs. 4 years Hitting a person 17 Nargotic drugs. possession of 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Intent to sell or use credit cards 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Marijuana. illeg. sale, distr., mfg. 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Mal. dest. property over $100 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Burning of personal property 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Prepare to burn property over $50 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Sale or use of credit cards 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Cruelty to children 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Mal. dest. house, barn, other bldg. 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 False statement to obtain relief over $500 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Larceny of livestock 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Theft of credit cards 2.6 yrs. 4 years 17 Obscounding or forfeiting bond 2.6 yrs. 4 years 18 U.O.A.A. w/o intent to steal 1.3 yrs. 2 years JOy-riding. 18 Checks w/o account or suff. funds 1.3 yrs. 2 years Checks that bounce. 18 Non-narcotic drug possession 1.3 yrs. 2 years 18 Resisting or obstructing officer 1.3 yrs. 2 years 18 Negligent homicide 1.3 yrs. 2 years Death due to reckless driving 18 Careless use of firearms 1.3 yrs. 2 years 18 Larceny of rented motor vehicle under $100 1.3 yrs. 2 years 18 Felonious driving 1.3 yrs. 2 years 19 Misdemeanor .66 yrs. 1 year SOURCE: Michigan Department of Corrections. 36 Family Background The variable contained both parents' education and occupa- tion. Family background variables were used to determine social position of the family (Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position, see Appendix). This area also covered information about the woman's environment--specifical1y behaviors of "significant others" in her life. The second part of the interview focused on the needs and concerns women have in terms of reintegration, as well as their knowledge regarding resources to help them in solving the "need" and their own ideas regarding the development of resources. There were basically 11 need areas: job, on-the-job-training, welfare, family, housing, education, child care, mental/physical health, legal, acceptance, and relationship development. Researchers have shown successful adjustment of offenders in the community dependent upon whether these problem areas are resolved (see Daniel Glaser, 1969; Teachout, 1957; Irwin, 1970). Specific problems in each group were to be identified by the subject. Procedures Selection and Training of Coders The raters were three undergraduate students enrolled at Michigan State University. Notices were placed at registration announcing three positions as raters for the research project requir- ing a three or four hour a week commitment. All prospective raters 37 were interviewed out of which three raters were chosen. A meeting was arranged with the three raters and the researcher. At the meeting the research project was explained and the data collection forms were studied. A second meeting was arranged to answer any questions regarding the collection forms and the corresponding codebooks. Practice cases (four) were prepared for the coders, and they were trained to code both the interview data forms and the criminal file data forms. Two raters were assigned to code both the interview and criminal files data. The third rater coded only selected interview data; the purpose was to do "inter-interviewer" reliability checks. The procedure in interviewing was that the researcher, while inter- viewing each subject, would also write out their responses. In order to check the accuracy of the data, 10 cases were tape recorded. The information on the tape recordings was then written out a second time by the rater. The value of this inter-interviewer reliability ranged from .85 to 1.00, with a mean of .95. Reliability checks were also done on the criminal file data. Ten cases were randomly selected throughout the collection period for re-collection. This reliability ranged from .90 to 1.00, with a mean of .99. The procedure for intra-rater reliability was similar to that of inter-rater reliability. For both interview and criminal file data, 10 coded cases, spread out over a period of time, were given to the same coder to recode intra—rater reliability for inter- view data, which ranged from .90 to 1.00, with a mean score of .95; for criminal file data scores ranged from .95 to 1.00, with a mean score of .99. 38 Data Collection Interview Each woman was randomly selected from a prison list of inmates compiled weekly by the institution. All women except those residing in either maximum or closed security units were eligible to partici- pate in the study. After the researcher selected the subject, the subject's unit counselor was called; the subject was instructed to come to a designated room for an interview. Upon arrival, the purpose of the research and participation requirements were explained to the subject. (See Research Explanation, Appendix A). At this point, if the woman did not want to participate, she returned to her unit. If she stated an interest in participating, a "Participation Agreement" (Appendix B) outlining her rights and the researcher's responsi- bilities was read. If at this point she declined participation, she was allowed to return to her unit. Of those agreeing to participate in the study, both she and the researcher signed and dated the "Par- ticipation Agreement" form. For each woman participating in the study, a brief descrip- tion of the interview explaining its format was given (see Appen- dix A). This description was followed by the following statement by the researcher: In my previous interaction with female offenders and in reading various literature on female offenders, I have come to the opinion that there are certain things that help foster a good adjustment for female offenders in the community after being incarcerated. I will ask you about some areas that may be a concern of yours in terms of your leaving the institution and going back into your community. Before starting, I would like to get background information on you, kind of a way of distinguishing you from other women I will interview. 39 Demographics are outlined in the interview format (see Appendix C), which made up the first part of the interview. The "areas of need," in the following order, were presented in the second part of the interview: Money--job with present skills, welfare, on-the-job train- ing, family; Housing, Education, Child Care, Physical/Mental Health Care, Legal, Parole, Acceptance, and Relationships. Criminal Files The corresponding criminal files for the subjects interviewed were pulled by a staff member of the Department of Corrections. Only offenses history data were collected. Offenses ranged from murder, lst degree, to misdemeanor. The offenses were coded according to the Department of Corrections "Criminal Offenses and Statuatory Sentence Length" (see Table l). Offense history included the offense and the disposition of the offense. The disposition included the following: (1) conviction/dismissal, and (2) conviction—fine, probation, jail, and/or prison. Also computations were made to determine property and assault risk. These risk screening forms were obtained from the Department of Corrections--Programming and Planning Office. RESULTS The data is presented in two parts. Part One presents descriptions of the demographic characteristics on the female offend- ers. Outstanding features of the subjects will be detailed. The second section of Part One will outline the "needs" important to reintegration. Part Two presents the factor analytic procedure results and discriminant function analyses. Descriptive Statistics Demographics The demographic characteristics were divided into seven cate- gories: Individual Attributes, Stability, Status of Child, Family Background, Employment History, Narcotics History, Offense History (see Table 2). Individual Attributes.--Approximately 67% (N = 47) of the women interviewed were between the ages of 19 and 29 with the majority of the women, 43%, falling within the age range of 25 to 29 (X'= 28.657). Most of the women interviewed, 67.1%, were Black, with non-Black comprising approximately 33% of those interviewed. In terms of educational background, 94.3% of the women had completed 10 formal years of education. Only approximately 6% of the women ahd formal education beyond high school. The mean number of years of education was 10 years. 40 TABLE 2.--Demographic Categories 41 “Category Variables Individual Attributes Age Race Education Stability Children Family Background Employment History Narcotics History Offense History No. of times changed address Living situation Marital status Care of child Current child custody Past child custody Father's education Father's occupation Mother's education Mother's occupation SES Parent's marital status Number of siblings--brother Number of siblings--sister Family members incarcerated Friends incarcerated Occupation 1 Type of occupation 1 Length of occupation 1 Occupation 2 Type of occupation 2 Length of occupation 2 Occupation 3 Type of occupation 3 Length of occupation 3 Occupation 4 Type of occupation 4 Length of occupation 4 User of marijuana User of uppers/downers User of cocaine User of LSD User of heroine User of alcohol Age at first adult arrest Juvenile detainment Prison time served Present offense Person offenses Risk screening 42 Stability.--The sampled women were single; however, 41.4% of those interviewed had at some time been married; only 10% were presently married while incarcerated. (See Appendix Table A for breakdown of marital history.) Even though the majority of women were single (N = 34), they tended to live with others prior to incarceration; approximately 87% lived with others prior to incar- ceration. Within one year previous to incarceration most women never changed their address; 67% of either never changed their address or changed their address only once. Approximately 33% of the women interviewed changed their address two or more times within the year previous to their incarceration. Status of child.--The mean number of children of the women interviewed was 2.225. However, 27% of the sample population didn't have any children; therefore, 73% of some interviewed had at least one child. The present custody status of these women that gave birth to a child depicted the woman maintaining custody over child while incarcerated (261%). However, for a large number of women (39%), the courts had jurisdiction over her child. In terms of the child's custody before the women's incarceration, approximately 88% of the women had custody of their children. There was an increase of approximately 27% of court involvement with the custody of children of incarcerated women. Family background.--In terms of family background, 86.6% of the women interviewed come from low socio-economic class status. 43 Most women also came from intact families: 57.1% of their parents are married and 35.7% of their parents were married at some time during their childhood. The mean number of siblings, brothers and sisters, were 2.27 and 2.59 respectively. Approximately 49% of the women had had immediate family members incarcerated. Also, most women 64.3% had friends who had been incarcerated. Employment Histogy All but approximately 13% of women in the study had been employed at least once in their lifetime. Only legitimate jobs were included in the employment history. The majority of the jobs held by women were semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. These job types were compiled using Hollingshead and Redlich's occupational categories (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958). For a breakdown of job categories, see Table 3. Most occupations held were full-time jobs (Full time vs. Part time: First Occupation, 253% vs. 234%; Second Occupation, 247% vs. 214%; Third Occupation, 230% vs. 213%. Fourth Occupation, 213% vs. 210%; Fifth Occupation, 24% vs. 0%). Total number of occupations decreased drastically: employed at least one time, approximately 87% to approximately 43% employed for their previous jobs held. Narcotics history.--For the six categories of narcotics use/ abuse, marijuana, uppers/downers, cocaine, LSD, heroine, alcohol, the majority of drug abuse (244%) was with heroine. A lower number of 44 m.e N.mm e._ m.N o.o o.o o.o m m.- _.NN o.m ~.~ ~.~ o.o o.o e m.~¢ _.Nm n.mp _.~_ o.m e._ o.o m ¢._o o.wm ¢.PN p.5N m.Np o.o o.o N c F.5m m.mp m.m~ n.me P.np e._ o.o P cowumaaooo uwzopmwm umppwxmcs ummwhwm uwppwxm Pacowmmwwmmm chowmmmmocm Axv uwxopasu Pouch pcwocma cw cowumgaooo mo weak * covenaaooo mowgommumo noa11.m MJm