A. 1!- Date Oo7 639 ‘ mum; lllzllfljlfllllll Luv m It In 11mg I This is to certify that the thesis entitled PAROLE DECISION MAKING AND THE AMERICAN INDIAN presented by KURT DAVID SIEDSCHLAW has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ’1 n‘ k—KL 1 U Major professor /0 A6 /77 @ I977 KURT DAVID SIEDSCHLAW ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PAROLE DECISION MAKING AND THE AMERICAN INDIAN By Kurt David SiedschIaw A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fquiIIment of the requirements for the degree of /41 5?. MASTERS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE CoIIege of Social Science I977 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to isolate the variables contribu- tuting to a parole board not granting an early release, in the form of parole, to those persons incarcerated during I970, in a midwest state prison system. American Indian offenders completed more of their sen- tence in prison than did white offenders with similar basic characteris- tics. American Indian offenders are viewed more critically than whites when prior record and major institutional infractions are examined. This is an initial phase of research and should not be considered conclusive. PAROLE DECISION MAKING AND THE AMERICAN INDIAN By Kurt David Siedschlaw A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE College of Social Science 1977 Approved: C airpe on 2 \ - . />'/' i I III."- _~. ' _,,>-r‘ 0/7" 1,‘/'H-/: H‘J {M’fl Menu: a / 4M 4, Membei‘ l ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sydell Spinner, David Kalinich and Robert Scott are to be thanked for their questions, commentary and encouragement. There is a long list of other individuals who have assisted and encouraged my workat Michigan State, I wish to thank them all. The administration and staff at the prison studied have my sincere thanks for their Openness and encouragement, although they remain unnamed due to the incomplete nature of this initial product. They have established a fair and equilibly run facility. I wish, above all others, to thank my partner in research, study and life, Joni Marie Tschetter-Siedschlaw. When I was ready to quit she kept me going. I h0pe I can be of as great of assistance to her as she has been to me. I also thank the Tschetter and Siedschlaw families for their support. Smallest, but not least, in furnishing inspiration at the low points in work and study is my daughter, Alissa Marie. TABLE 20. 24. LIST OF TABLES Sentence Preportion Served ............................ Population Examined ................................... Violent, Assaultive Crimes ............................ Property Crimes ....................................... One Prior Prison Term ................................. Two or Three Prior Terms .............................. Institutional Infractions ............................. ii PAGE 26 27 31 3I 35 35 37 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE A. Variables Collected in Prison Study ................. Sl B. Tables .............................................. 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................. i LIST OF TABLES ................................................... ii LIST OF APPENDICS ................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..... . ...................................... l The Purpose of the Study ................................ 4 Direction of the Study .................................. 6 II. STUDIES OF AMERICAN INDIANS IN PRISON ..... . ............. 7 Montana Study .............................. . ....... ..... lO Federal Parole Treatment ................................ 12 South Dakota Report ......................... _ ............ 14 Summary ....................................... . ..... .... 14 III. METHOD OF STUDY ......................................... l6 Variable Definitions .......................... . ......... l7 Calculations for "good time" ....... . ......... ........... 18 Population Limitations ............................ ...... 20 IV. ANALYSIS... ............... . ................ . ............ 2l General Population Analysis ................... . ......... 21 Offense .................................... ............. 23 Release Type ...................... . .............. . ..... . 24 Parole Board Action..... ............. . .............. .... 24 iv IV. ANALYSIS (con't) Sentences ........................................ Sgge Race by Percentage of Time Served ................ 25 Age .............................................. 28 Education ........................................ 28 Offense by Race .................................. 30 Prior Record ..................................... 32 Disciplinary Action .............................. 35 v. SUMMARY .......................................... 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 47 APPENDICES. ............................................... 50 TABLES ..................................................... 6O LIST OF FIGURES Page CRIME CATAGORIES BY RACE ........................................ 23 RELEASE TYPE .................................................... 24 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Prison and parole boards are the object of this study. Prison, in this study, is the facility used for the purpose of housing persons who have been determined by the police and judicial process to be in violation of the criminal statutes and to be of sufficient threat to the community that they should be removed from the community and placed in a confined situation. The prison is responsible for enforcing the order of the Court in regard to the offender and carrying that order out in an effective manner. Effective in this definition supposes a "just" manner in completing this responsibility. The responsibility of the parole board is to enforce, with as much justice as possible, the lawful statutes in regard to release of incarcerated individuals. "Pardle Board" need not be defined specifi- cally by number of persons, specific statute authority or administrative processes. The only factor significant at this point is the resulting action of the parole board in regard to the board's effect upon the length of time an inmate serves in regard to the original sentence. The criminal justice system as a whole must function within the greater societal p0pulation. This population exerts pressure upon the system. Societal and environmental stress is exerted upon the entire system. The prison setting is the only portion of the criminal justice system which affords any degree of insulation from the "real world" pres- sure. Until prison, the offender has been, to a greater or lesser degree, I within an environment in a proximity to that offender's home, friends and family. Prison in general is as isolated a community as currently exists in our nation. This isolation has brought depravation of varying de- grees.I This isolation should also provide an opportunity to enforce rules and regulations in a "just" manner. Theoretically, prison staff can regulate the economy of inmates in regard to purchases and sales of merchandise. Theoretically, prisons control behavior by isolating those persons of a violent nature and es- tablishing classifications through which to enforce compliance with the rules and regulations. Inequality of police action and enforcement are challenged in our nation's judicial system constantly. The police are continually visible in the community and are subject to close scrutiny when acting out the enforcer role in everyday activity. The courts of our nation are supposed to support the premise of "blind justice" in their functioning as enforcers. They are to be sure "the law" is carried out effectively. The courts also exist in a setting where their actions are visible to the community. The courts are subject to direct community pressure and to direct review by appeals courts. Class and racial bias in police action is supposedly rectified or filtered out in the court process. The court's actions have, however, demonstrated figures showing that the court's current sentencing l Krantz, Sheldon, The Law of Corrections and Prisoner's Rights, (West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1973), pp. 5l9-528. procedures contain inherent class bias.2 It is apparent by the representation of minority group members in our nation's prisons that minority group members are sentenced to prison more often than members of the societal majority. An example of this inequality in representation of minority group members in prison exists in the State of Michigan. In 1977, 55 percent of Michigan's prison pooulation was black.3 The percentage of blacks in the free world population in Michigan is approximately ten percent. Throughout history, many theories have been presented on the issue of causation of criminal activity. Among the various theories, race as a determining factor in criminal activityghas been ruled out. Delinquent behavior is "not re- lated to religion, nationality or race".4 Although theories are still being investigated and researched, it is virtually impossible to deter- mine the extent to which genetic variations operate to produce certain conduct.5 The fact remains that lower class minority race members are over represented in our criminal justice system. 2 Smith, Joan and Fried, William, The Uses of the American Prison, (Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massachusetts, l974), pp. 33-34. 3 Office of Public Information, Michigan Department of Corrections, (September, l977). Hartinger, Walter; Eldefonso, Ed. and Coffey, Allan, Corrections: ' in 1 Justice S stem, (Goodyear Publishing Company, Pacific Palisades, California, l973), pp. 247-248. 5 Wolfgang, Marvin E., Crime and Race: Conceptions and Misconceptions, (Institute of Human Relations Press, The American Jewish Committee, 165 E. 56th St., New York, New York lOOZZ, l974), p. 29. The over-representation of minority members in American prisons is a reality. It exists. It will continue to exist for years to come. The issue of crime causality is not at question in this study. What is at question is the equality of action taken in regard to persons in the system. The complexity of the problem of class or racial bias involved in police and court activity is too complex for examination in a single individual exploration. The prison receives a product. The prison system has little choice in the selection of this product. The system enforces institutional rules and regulations in relation to this product, and at some point a product is presented to a parole board for considera- tion for release. What factors appear significant to the parole board in deter- minig a persons fitness for parole? Does race act as a significant fac- tor in parole granting? What factors appear to influence the parole board in the most significant manner in allowing an early release from prison? This study will be undertaken to examine the make-up of a par- ticular prison population. The purpose of this study is to isolate the variables contributing to a parole board not granting an early release, in the form of parole, to those persons incarcerated during l97O in a midwest state prison system. Numerous characteristics relate in a positive manner to the granting of parole to incarcerated persons. Race, as a characteristic, should have no effect upon a person being granted or not granted an early release from prison. As indicated previously, figures are available to demonstrate a class bias and a racial bias in regards to those persons sent to prison. If the determination to release a person early from a prison setting is based on such factors as type of offense, prior record, age and institu- tional behavior; that individual's race should not have a significant relationship to the granting or denial of early release. Many researchers have examined prison populations and parole board decision making processes. It has been determined that minority group members vastly over-represent their free world counter-part in our prison pooulations. In this study, the effort is made to determine whether a system; through initial analysis, is inequitible in its admin- istration of parole granting authority in regard to the American Indian. The study will involve an examination of the characteristics of those persons committed to a particular prison system during the calendar year 1970. The effort will be made to isolate those factors that appear to have the greater impact on the parole granting decision. If other than equal administration of justice is indicated in regard to the American Indian in this study, it may merely add support to the studies of others which indicate inequitable administration of justice in regard to minority group members. More can be accomplished than adding fuel to the cry of racial discrimination. If race, in the final analysis, was a significant factor in granting of early releases during 1970; do items exist that indicate the source of that inequality? Questions must be asked in regard to isolating racial discrimina- tion during the parole board decision process. Given the existence of prejudice or discrimination by both the offender and the system, does racial membership indicate its influence significantly in the results of prison disciplinary proceedings? Are the factors influencing the granting of early release existant and isolated prior to incarceration in the sentences administered through actions of enforcement by the police and courts? A descriptive analysis of this prison population will be pre- sented. A descriptive analysis of several influences affecting early release in the form of parole will be completed, and an attempt made to indicate the direction of future analysis in this situation to reduce or eliminate forms of inequity that may appear in the 1970 population. Whether or not an individual's racial characteristics significantly affect the decision to give a person an early release from prison or not is of primary concern to this study. This study is limited in that little research has been completed in the past that has applied strict statistical standards or employs a solid scientific, methodologically sound framework. This study is limited to simple analysis of initial relationships. In order to supply even broad conclusive statistical results, advanced methods of studying the interrelationships of the variables, such as regression analysis, must be applied. This is an initial step in an attempt to examine the treatment of inmates at the point of a parole board decision to grant or deny an early release from prison. The comparisons in this study will be between Caucasian persons (for simplicity hereafter referred to as "white") and the Native American or American Indian. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE A review of literature relating to possible discrimination in early release decisions made by parole administrators in relation to the American Indian produces very few definitive studies. Several studies were discovered but they will be examined at a later point. A number of studies will be presented to demonstrate the broader areas of discrimina- tion relating to the administration of the criminal justice system as it regards the American black. A brief review of studies in regard to causation of criminality in regard to race must be addressed first. "Race is not a causal factor in increased criminal behavior."6 This statement is supported by Hartinger, Eldefonso and Coffey, in Corrections: A Component of the Criminal Justice System, when they re- late to the ethnic backgrounds of delinquent youth. They found when Black and White offenders were compared,those coming from the same area showed little difference in criminal activity. They go further to state that delinquency is "not related to religion, nationality or race."7 These authors indicated that the higher percentage of crime committed by Blacks could "relate to a high unemployment rate in the black ghetto pre- disposing an inordinate number of black male adults to economic 6 _ Hartinger, Eldefonso and Coffey, Corrections: A Component of the Criminal Justice System, pp. 248-254. 7 Ibid., p. 253. deprivation which in turn causes them to alleviate their poverty through criminal behavior."8 In Sociology of Punishment and Corrections, Edward Green reported that blacks are sentenced differently depending on who the criminal and victim are. Green conducted a critique of a study in regard to this phenomenon by Johnson.9 Johnson identified and examined four categories in sentencing: negro vs. white, white vs. white, negro vs. negro, and white vs. negro. The negro committing an act against another negro was not given as severe of a sentence as a crime against a white person. Green in critizing Johnson's examination of sentencing, points out his error in not considering the severity of the offense or the circumstances leading to the commission of the offense. When examining the added variables, Green concludes that there is no warrant for the charge of racial discrimination in sentencing. He goes on to explain, "Variation in sentencing according to the race of the offender and the victim does exist, but it is a function of intrinsic difference between the races in patterns of criminal behavior."10 It is not the purpose of this study to examine the impact of race upon sentencing but simply to support the fact of the existance of Ibid. 9 Green, Edward, "Race and Sentencing", Sociology of Punishment and Corrections, Johnson, Savitz and Wolfgang, (Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1970), p. 248. l0 . Ibld., p. 253. racial influence on sentencing. More minority group members appear in our prison populations than would be present in a free society sample. Studies have been completed that show that despite possible discrimina- tion in sentencing, once parole eligibility is reached, neither the minimum nor the maximum of a sentence had significant affect upon the decision to parole.II The dilemma of racial bias in the administration of our criminal justice will remain in existence. As indicated by Wolfgang: "What can be said beyond the oft-repeated asser- tion that white bias by the community, the police, prosecutors, judges and juries accounts for most ~ of the high rate of negroes in criminal statis- tics? The assertion may very well be true, but despite the many documented individual cases of such discrimination, there is practically no verified, methodologically adequate scientific research to prove that this kind of bias actually causes the disparity in rates, or that elimination of administration or judicial bias would eliminate the disparity. Research on the t0pics, while admgttedly difficult to perform, is sorely needed."I Numerous groups representing the black americans in our nation are supporting and encouraging research into racial bias, racial bias most 11 Heinz, Anne M.; Heniz, John P.; Sanderowitz, Stephen J. and Vance, Mary Anne, "Sentencing by Parole Board: An Evaluation", The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, (Northwestern University School of Law, Vol. 67, #1, March 1976, The William and Wilkins Company, Baltimore, Maryland 21202). 12 Wolfgang, Marvin E., Crime and Race: Conceptions and Misconceptions, (Institute of Human Rights Press, The American Jewish Committee, 165 E. 56th Street, New York, New York 10022, 1964), p. 35. IO specifically directed at the American Black. The N.A.A.C.P., Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Social Change and others have encouraged and supported this type of social research. The number of organizations actually encouraging and supporting research of racial bias as it affects the American Indian are few. The Native American Rights Fund of Boulder, Colorado, is one of these suppor- tive organizations. This organization and the Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., of Washington, D.C. has supplied information specifically on the Native American in the penal setting. Griffiths, Hall and Winfree, three doctoral students from the University of Montana conducted an empirical assessment of factors related to parole outcome in regard to American Indians and Whites.‘3 These researchers attempted to study the differences between American Indians and Whites who were returned to prison as parole violators. Their work was notwell defined. They examined alcohol use, education, previous state incarcerations, previous state paroles, enrollment in prison schools, time served until release and initial residence upon parole. The variables were not well defined and were scaled in a manner that would demonstrate very little discrimination in variances. Alcohol use was defined simply by an institutional judgment of whether or not an inmate had a drinking problem. Formal education was grouped into low (0 to 8 years schooling), medium (from 9 to 11 years), and high (12 years to college). Previous 13 Griffiths, C. Taylor; Hall, Edwin L. and Winifree, L. Thomas, 'Parole Survival Among American Indians and Whites", (University of Montana, 1973). 11 state incarcerations related to less than 2 prior state_incarcerations equaling low involvement: two or more incarcerations, equaled high in- volvement. There was no further examination of prior involvement of the offender in the criminal process. The number of prior paroles was con- sidered important and was divided into 3 categories of low (0 or 1 prior parole), medium (2) and high (3 or more). Time served until release was also poorly scaled,in that time served was simply grouped into divisions of low (0 to 6 months served), medium (7 to 12 months) and high (13 plus months served). No discussion was undertaken to relate parole granting regulations or authority except to state that the earliest a parole could be granted was 3 months after commitment. Initial residence after parole was grouped into, living with wife, parents, alone and other. The study included 1,201 cases but the lack of proper scaling of the variables considered would suggest results that were far from con- clusive. ‘The question of education and a relationship to parole outcome was suggested by demonstrating that American Indians with 12 years of educafion or less, failed at a rate of 53.1 percent on parole, whileivhites in that same group only failed at a rate of 41.2 percent. The analysis suggested that the rate of failure for both groups, increased for persons with more than 12 years of education. The number of prior incarcerations was suggested as being directly related to parole outcome, and time served was only predictive of a suc- cessful parole, if the time served was short. The outcome of time served relates only to 6 months or less being served with no consideration being given for length of sentence, type of offense, whether violence was in- volved in the offense and what "good time" considerations might be 12 allowed. These authors conclude that there is a significant relationship between the number of previous state incarcerations, number of prior paroles, time served before release, the initial residence and parole outcome. They conclude their project indicating, "the failure for Indians consistently remained at high levels, even for the four variables which were significant (to parole success) for both groups."14 The final statement of a higher rate of failure for American Indians is the only assumption made in this report that the current re— searcher can accept as valid or reliable. The authors call for further analysis of the problem of lack of literature on this subject and examin- ation of inequities in the current system. The call is applauded by this researcher, but these authors supplied little solid, empirical data from which to build. Byron Swift and Gary Bickel, examined differential treatment of federal parole in regard to American Indian and non-Indian inmates during 1973 and 1975.]5 The specific question examined was whether American Indian offenders experienced discriminatory treatment in the granting of parole. Swift and Bickel suggest that when crime categories were controlled, Ibid., p. 3. 15 Swift, Byron and Bickel, Gary, "Comparative Parole Treatment of American Indians and non-Indians at U.S. Federal Prisons, Fiscal Years 1973 and 1974”, (Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., 1990 M. Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036, Dec. 1974). 13 American Indians not only spent 15 percent more time in prison before parole, but also received longer original sentences. Therefore, American Indians in the crime categories for which they showed sub- stantial representation, actually served 35 percent more time in prison than non-Indian offenders.I6 This report, for the factors considered, appears to be sound. The problems of this report; when the reader deter- mines that other than length of sentence and crime category, no other variables are used to differentiate the p0pulation, became apparent when such variables as prior record, age and prison disciplanary action are brought into the influences of the parole treatment. This researcher does not suggest that these factors would necessarily alter the results of the Swift and Bickel research, but such factors must be considered if attempting to do a definitive study. The study's primary contribution to the examination of possible discrimination in parole decision making is to point out the importance of crime category. The report demonstrates some form of discrimination in original sentences. American Indians parole in 1973 and 1974 had sentences averaging 43.7 months and 39.9 months respectively, while the corresponding non-Indi an groups served 35.8 months and 37.4 months.17 Although this researcher can not discount the implications of discrimination in the treatment of parole, the data presented can not encourage a definite conclusion of 14 racial discrimination at the parole decision making point. A preliminary report of a study on the prisoners paroled from the South Dakota Prison system from 1970 through 1974, finds that "the overall parole rate (or 'rate of release-by-parole', defined as the number of prisoners released by parole as a percentage of all prisoners released) is significantly and consistently lower over the period for Indian prisoners than for non-Indians.”8 The report indicated a 41.6 percent rate of parole for non-Indians and a 27.5 percent rate of parole for Indians. The report continues by stating a total time served of original sentence for Indians of 40.3 percent and 33.5 percent for non- Indians. Considering that no explanation of methodology was presented and that no elaboration on the data was made, only 2 conclusions can be accepted from this data: (1) a lesser parole rate, for the years covered, was indicated for the American Indian offender, (2) American Indians served more of their original sentence than non-Indians. SUMMARY The parole decision making process has been questioned as to considerations of procedural due process and notice to the offender.19 18 Bickel, Gary W., "A Preliminary Report to Native American Rights Fund", (Bureau of Social Science Research, Ind., 1990 M. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036, February, 1975.). 19 Heinz, Anne; Sanderowitz, John P. and Vance, Mary Anne, "Sentencing by Parole Board: An Evaluation", The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, (Northwestern University School of Law, Vol. 67, #1, March 1976). 15 These, among the numerous other possible criticisms, have been voiced in objection to the existance of parole boards. The question is one of hot dispute. Most of the recommendations are stated in projections of a “better" system. The concern of this research is not to present suggestions for some future system, but rather determine what has been done in the immediate past for possible direction in improving the system today. The procedure is possibly subject to debate,but what have been the results of the procedure that has existed? The criteria used to grant parole may not be easily identified or prioritized, even by the parole board. Whatever the criteria, has a specific bias been the rule in granting parole? Ignorance, pure caprice, bigotry, or other abuses of discretion are alleged influences of those parole decisions.20 As indicated in other portions of this text, studies have been completed to study racial bias against Blacks in our nations prison system. What are the biases that exist in parole decision making in re- gard to the American Indian? 2 0Ibid., p.l. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The objectives of this study are two-fold. The initial goal is to present a descriptive analysis of a prison p0pulationibr 1970. The second is to examine several variables to determine their relative importance in affecting the early release of those persons received at this state prison during the calendar year 1970, in considering racial differences. The variables used in the descriptive analysis are the same as the variables examined for their impact on the parole decision. Although other variables were recorded, the primary variables being examined are: (1) age at time of prison commitment, (2) race as indicated on inmate prison entry record, (3) education completed at time of commitment as recorded on prison entry record, (4) juvenile record, whether or not the inmate had involvement with the criminal justice system as a juvenile, as indicated in Federal Bureau of Investigation records, (5) adult re- cord, extent of prior involvement with the criminal justice system as and adult, as indicated by Federal Bureau of Investigation records and (6) specific offense for which offender was sentenced. Variables to be considered that evolve during the prison setting stay are, discipline, whether or not an inmate received offical action in regard to prison infractions and to what degree, and results of parole appearances, whether subject was paroled, continued, denied pa- role or refused to appear for parole. 16 17 Age was determined bv subjects recorded birthdates. Age was calculated with only those persons within one month of their birthdate at the time of commitment being given the next higher age. The initial data collection allowed for actual age. Age was computed into categories after initial analysis. The age categories were selected by what appeared as natural groupings for this population. Greater differentiation was made in the younger ages due to the "n" at the lower range. Age cate- gories were 18 years and younger, 19 to 21 years, 22 to 26 years, 27 to 38 years and 39 to 50+ years. Race was grouped into white, American Indian, black, Spanish speaking, oriental and other, during original data collection. After initial analysis these areas were regrouped into white, American Indian and other. "Other" in this study represents 2.4 percent of the population or 6 cases and was disregarded after initial frequencies were determined, due to the low number of cases. Education was originally allowed actual range from 0 to 12 years, G.E.D., vocational training, 1 to 2 years college, 3 plus years but no graduation and finally college graduate. Initial distribution results suggested logical groupings of l to 8 years as group 1, 9 through 11 as group 2, 12 years, G.E.D. and vocational training as group 3, and college composing group 4. Juvenile record was recorded as: (1) no formal record indicated, (2) those that had received juvenile probationary periods and (3) those juveniles who had experienced juvenile institutionalization. Adult record is recorded in much the same manner allowing for: (1) no record, (2) misdemeanor arrests, and (3) those with records of prior felony probation sentences. 18 Prior prison terms were examined through groupings that illustrated: (1) no prior prison, (2) 1 prior prison term, (3) 2 or 3 prior prison sentences, (4) 4 or 5 prior prison terms, and (5) 6 plus prior prison terms. The prior prison record was recorded from the Federal Bureau of Investigation record checks by the institution. Offense types in the original data collection allowed for the total range of offense types. These types were reduced to 4 groups consisting of: (1) personal assaultive violent crimes, (2) property offenses, (3) checks and frauds and (4) all other offenses. The speci- fication of these groups will be examined further in the analysis presen- tation. This study was conducted on all prison comitments to a prison system in a midwest state during the calendar year 1970. This prison system consists of a maximum security unit for male offenders which was constructed at the turn of the century. A trustee cottage and a prison farm exist in conjunction with the main maximum security units. Original data was drawn from 3 sets of records from within the institution. The 3 sets consisted of the original inmate face sheet, the institution disciplinary records and the parole board records of action on cases. Initial analysis allows for simple descriptive percentages and frequencies for the entire population. When the first steps are taken in examining a population whose sentences range from three months to life, a realistic method must be determined for looking at sentence length as it relates to parole or no parole. 19 Initial calculations are allowed statutorially for a minimum of 2 months per year credit for good behavior. This calculation is made shortly after arrival at the institution and can only be removed through parole board action. Although the credit, or "good time", is calculated on a sliding scale that increases "good time" with longer sentences, 2 months per year is a minimum allowed to everyone. The effect of "good time" on actual sentence is to reduce a 12 month sentence to 10 months. A direct computation can be made for each sentence by multiplying the original sentence by 5/6. This gives a person a little more realistic idea of an offender's actual length of sentence. Without considering the increase in percentage of "good time" for the longer sentences, this basic calculation allows the obser- ver to examine all possible parole releases for the group who may have had actual sentences from O to 72 months. Since data on this population was gathered in July of 1976, which covers a 66 month period, it in effect would include persons paroled or released in some other fashion, who had sentences ranging to at least 73 months. Sentences of 76 months or less accounts for all cases examined except for 17 cases. These cases will not be examined in the analysis of parole release. This category represents a racial distribution of 13 or 87 percent Whites receiving sentencing of from 77 months to 40 years and American Indians 2 or 13 percent. Twovvhites were the only cases ranging from 41 years to life. The actual release date divided by the "good time" date gave a percentage that illustrated percentage of time served before release (release date e (sentence x 5/6) = % of time served). It is this 20 calculation for sentences less than 76 months that is used to examined cases that would have been eligible for parole consideration. The types of release allowed for categories of: (1) straight release-time served, (2) paroled, (3) suspended sentences, (4) released to new offense - new sentence, (5) pending - can not be considered, (6) appeal bond, (7) died in prison and (8) released to other authority - state or federal detainer. The only categories considered in the final data will be straight release-time served and paroled since the parole board has no impact on the remaining types of releases. Straight release and paroled cases are then included in a distribution of percentage of time served wfiifiul.00 equaling straight release and any percentage less than 1.0 indicating some type of parole board action. This particular distribution is then examined for persons with sentences of less than 76 months. To begin the examination of race and a relationship to parole granting an initial distribution of race by percent of time served needs to be established and the variables to be considered then compared, to indicate their individual relationships to percentage of time served and the distribution represented in the original table. The variables considered will be inserted in the program so that the tables will represent race by percent of time served [release time + (sentence x 5/6)] by variables (V1 through V8). ' The primary statistical function to be examined will be chi square to indicate representative relationships that are significant. The significance at .05 will be considered. The cross-tabulations will be examined for cell representation and percentage of distribution. The emphasis for this study is percentage distribution. CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS GENERAL FREQUENCIES During the calendar year 1970, 255 persons entered this prison system. One case, a duplicated case, was missing critical data and was coded to 0. Whether descriptions are in whole numbers or percentage representation, the sum under any one variable may not equal 255 or 100 percent, due to missing data in some areas. Of the persons committed to the prison, 31 percent were under 21 years of age. Those between 22 and 38 years of age represent 46 per- cent of the p0pulation; persons from 39 to 50 years of age represent 19 percent of the group; while those over 50 years of age comprised 4 percent. The mean age of this p0pulation was 28.4 years, while the most frequently appearing age group was 19 years old, that represented 20 persons of the 254 cases. The racial frequencies represented, 171 persons (67%) as being white, 77 persons (30%) American Indian and 6 persons (2%) comprising the collapsed category of other. These 6 cases were comprised of 3 blacks, 2 Spanish speaking and l oriental. With the conclusion of the initial description, the category "other" will be recoded to "0", so that com- parisons and percentages will be comparing white and Native Americans only. Marital status of the 1970 p0pulation is represented as: 48 per- cent single - never married, 21 percent married, 2 percent separated and 28 percent widowed or divorced. Area of birth shows that 22 percent of 21 22 the inmates were born on a reservation, 43 percent were from within the state other than reservation, 19 percent were from immediate neighboring states, 16 percent from other portions of the United States and .4 percent were from foreign countries. In examining education of American Indians and Whites only, 39 percent had eight years of schooling or less. Of that group, 69 per- cent were white and 31 percent were Native American. Persons with ed- ucational levels of 9 through 11 years comprised 42 percent, with Whites equaling 60 percent and American Indians equaling 40 percent. Persons who had completed high school passed the G.E.D. or had some vocational training made up 42 percent of the p0pulation with Whites comprising 86 percent and American Indians 14 percent. Only 9 persons had college educations, all of whom were White. Looking at juvenile and adult records, without controlling for race, 66 percent of the total cases had no juvenile record, 5 percent had been on juvenile probation and 29 percent had been in a juvenile institution. Adult records indicated 24 percent of all inmates had no prior record, 24 percent had misdemeanor arrest or probation offenses and 23 percent had been on prior felony probation supervision. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the total inmates had indications of prior felony arrests. The number of felony arrests is very possibly misleading in that record keeping and the sending of arrest records to the Federal Bureau of Investigation is not completed on a universal basis, eSpecially from small rural law enforcement agencies prior to 1970. The same type of allowance for error might be brought into play in juvenile records and their not having been kept and recorded properly prior to 1970. 23 The record of prior prison sentences should represent a fairly accurate picture in that most sentenced felons have their records for- warded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by both the sentencing county and the receiving institution. The total pooulation picture shows 49 percent of the inmates as not having served prison time on prior sentences. Seventeen percent (17%) had 1 prior prison term, 20 percent had 2 or 3 prior prison sentences and 9 percent had 4 or 5 prior prison sentences and 5 percent had more than 6 prior prison terms to their record. The offense for which an offender was sentenced to prison during 1970 was originally collected in a manner to allow the total range of offenses to be recorded. The distribution of offenses by race include the following: CRIME CATAGORIES BY RACE RACE TOTAL AND PERCENT White American Indian 1. MURDER 0R MANSLAUGHTER 8 (89%) l (11%) 2. ARMED ROBBERY 4 (66%) 2 (33%) 3. FELONY ASSAULT 8 (89%) 1 (11%) 4. RAPE 8 O 5. CHILD MOLESTATION 5 O 6. INCEST l O 7. BURGLARY 29 (54%) 24 (45%) 8. GRAND LARCENY 16 (57%) 12 (42%) 9. CHECKS 38 (16%) 23 (37%) 10. CON GAMES - FRAUD 4 O 11. MULTIPLE (1-4) 2 O 12. MULTIPLE (7-8) 12 (63%) 4 (21%) 13. MULTIPLE (9-10) 3 0 l4. REVOCATIONS SS & PB 10 (76%) 3 (23%) 15. DRUGS 8 0 l6. D.W.I. 10 (91%) l (9%) l7. ESCAPE 4 (40%) 6 (60%) 18. FAILURE TO SUPPORT l 0 TOTALS 171 (67%) N \l (30%) 24 RELEASE TYPE The variations of possible release types have been indicated previously. Here is the distribution of the total prison population that was admitted during 1970 and subsequently released. RELEASE TYPE STRAIGHT 121 48% PAROLED 88 35% SUSPENDED SENTENCE 17 7% RELEASE TO NEW OFFENSE 8 3% PENDING (were not eligible for any action) 4 2% APPEAL BOND 6 % DIED IN PRISON 2 .8% DIED ON PAROLE 1 RELEASED TO OTHER AUTHORITY 7 4 TOTALS 25 3% PAROLE BOARD ACTION Seventy percent (70%) of all persons committed to prison during 1970 appeared for some type of parole board action. Seventeen percent (17%) are accounted for by other release types and 7 percent are accounted for in that they had sentences of such a length that would not allow for a parole appearance at the point of data collection in July, 1976. These percentages allow a remaining 6 percent that represent cases with missing data. This 6 percent represents 15 cases which must be considered in presenting the total implications of this research in regard to the paroling decision. SENTENCE Sentences given to the respective groups (white and American Indian) varied inthe following manner: Mean = 29 months, Median = 24 months and Mode = 24 months for whites versus a Mean = 24 months, Median = 15 months and a Mode = 15 months for the American Indian offenders. It 25 should be remembered from the representation on the previous table that of the violent crimes of murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, felony assault, rape, child molestation and (because of the "n" of l) incest, the American Indian comprises only 12 percent of these offenders. This being the case American Indians would rationally have shorter overall sentences. The question to be examined later is how does percentage of time served relate to the various variables of offense, prior prison sentences, juvenile record, age, education and internal prison vari- ables? Internal discipline procedures in regard to inmates show that 34 percent of all inmates had no prison infractions of any kind. In addressing the category of major disciplinary proceedings above, 45 percent of the total p0pulation had no major infractions recorded, 13 percent had 1, 14 percent had 2 or 3, 8 percent had 4 or 5 and 15 percent of the inmates had 6 or more major infractions recorded. This variable as with the others will be examined further. RACE BY PERCENTAGE OF TIME SERVED It is at this point that the various factors must be brought together to determine juSt what can be examined in order to study what- ever relationship exists between race and percentage of time served before release. The first factor is the formula (percentage of time served = release e [sentence x 5/61). This factor will reduce the "n" to 194, having recorded allmissing data to O. The second factor is race, having recorded all values other than American Indian and white to O. 26 The percentage in percent of time served was recorded into natural groupings to allow an apprOpriate "n" in These recorded percentages were represented by 1 2 = 40 to 70 percent, 3 = 70 to 99 percent and 4 certain categories. less than 40 percent, 100 percent of time served. The table representing race by percent time served is illustra- ted below. Table l Sentence Pr0portion Served Less Than Race 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% White 26 28 31 39 124 % of row 21.0 22.6 25.0 31.5 62.9% % of column 76.5 82.4 62.0 51.3 % of population 13.4 14.4 16.0 20.1 American Indian 8 6 19 37 7O % of row 11.4 8.6 27.1 52.9 36.1% % of column 23.5 17.6 38.0 48 7 % of population 4.1 3.1 9.0 19.1 34 34 O5 76 194 7.5% 17.5% 25.8% 39.2% The following is a table representation of percent of time served by race. Categories of time served are 0 to 40% served, 40-70% served, 70-99% served and 100% of the sentence served. Table 2 POPULATION EXAMINED* (n=194) z 1 ‘9 y. < .1 D a. 2 RACE LL 0 .— 2 u: U c: If 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 21.0 22.6 25.0 31.5 =68.5% Parolled Indian: 11.4 8.6 27.1 52.9 =47.l% Parolled Without exploring further, a case might be presented suggesting that race was the determining factor in percentage of time served in that 80 percent of the American Indians served from 70 to 100 percent of their time compared taivhites with 56.1 percent serving 70 to 100 percent of their time. Further steps must be taken to examine other variables as they may appear to affect percentage of time served. No conclusions be- yond the implication of American Indians spending a larger percentage of time before release can be made at this point. 27 28 AGE As a rule of thumb the older a man is when release from prison, 21 If this is true and the the less likely he is to return to crime. parole board is in agreement, then age should be significant in considering the percentage of time served and should be equally a factor with whites as with Native Americans. (See Appendix 8, Tables 4 through 6) The distribution of cases by race when examining age does not differ significantly from the original representation of race by percent of time served. American Indians are represented more to a small degree, in the lower age groups including all persons under 21 years of age. This slightly higher percent representation may be understood when the fact that Native Americans had a median age of 20.4 years for males which is eight (8) years younger than the general population,22 is presented. EDUCATION Careers in delinquency and crime tend to go hand in hand with retardation in educational endeavors.23 Does the parole board agree, through their action, with this premise? (See Appendix B, Table 3). 21 Glaser, Daniel, The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, (Bobbs-Merrill, Company, Inc., Indianapolis, New York, 1969), p. 18 United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Census, "We the Americans", U.S. Bureau of Census, Census Population 1970, (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971) p. 5. 23 Glaser, Ibid., p. 174. 29 In considering education on a whole, no cell within the total percentages of white and Native American representation varies greater than 1.5 percent. If American Indian distribution among the education categories where the majority of American Indians are represented (less than 11 years of schooling) is compared to the White distribution, the American Indians are under-represented in releases prior to 70 percent of time served. Eighty-one percent (81%) of the Whites with education of less than 11 years were paroled prior to 70 percent of the time being served. Only 38.9 percent of the American Indians in this same category were released prior to 70 percent time served. The whites would appear to have a 42.1 percent greater chance of parole with education as the only criteria than would be present for the Native American. Again caution must be issued that this representation does not explain the interrelationship of education with other variables. The importance of Native Americans not receiving equal considera- tion if education is a criteria is supported by the 1970 census report which indicates that the education level for the American Indian was 9.8 years of schooling while the national average was 12.1.25 This would place, as indicated previously more American Indians in the less than 11 years of education category. Although those with lower education may not be paroled as readily, the representation by race should not vary by the degree that it does. 25 U.S. Department of Commerce, Ibid., p. 13. 3O OFFENSE Other than sentence length and prior records, the type of offense would logically be the most apparent item to consider in relation to criminal activity and a projected physical threat to the community. The factor of sentence length has already been dealt with. The examination of the offense committed is next at hand. Offense types, as indicated, are grouped into four categorhxsThe categories CONSISt 0f: (l) violent personal crimes; (2) pronerty offenses; (3) checks and fraud and (4) other. In presenting the analysis of violent crimes that had generally longer sentences, it must be remembered that the "n" of cases may be smaller due to not having been eligible for parole consideration within the 6 year time Span from January, 1970 through the collection of data in 1976. (See Appendix B, Tables 7 through 11). The type of offense committed appears to affect the percent of time served. American Indians committed only 15 percent of the violent - assaultive crimes that had sentences that allowed them to be considered for parole in the 6 year period of this study. That 15 percent re- presents only 3 cases. All 3 cases served from 70 to 99 percent of their time. The White offenders in the group were distributed throughout the categories, with 58.8 percent (lOcHi 17 cases) being released prior to 70 percent of their sentences being served. PrOperty offenses and the percent of time served before re- lease corresponded directly to the original comparison of race by time served, as does the crime category of checks and fraud. The category of bthefi'indicates the American Indian (7 cases) served all of their time. These 7 cases are summarized into one, Driving While Intoxicated case 31 and the remaining six were escape cases. The representation for the white offenders in these two categories are 10 and 2 respectively. The category of escape may explain why 6 of the 7 cases served 100 percent of their time. These escape offenders would have been serving a felony sentence or awaiting sentencing on a felony when they escaped. An inmate of the state prison who escapes must serve all of any present sentence and a minimum of 1/2 to 2/3 of his "good time" on the escape charge, depending on how many prior felony offenses he may have had. TabIe 8. Table 9. VIOLENT, ASSULTIVE CRIMES PROPERTY CRIMES In=ZOI In=781 Z 100 Z 100 g 90 S 90 3 8° 3 2 33 2 6° IL u. 0 40 o 40 +2- 30 p 30 m 2 2 1 i3 10 :3 o E 40% 40—70%70-99%100% o. 40% 40-70% 70-99%100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 28.4 29.4 17.6 23.5In-17) 85% White: 25.6 27.9 23.3 23.3In=43) 55.1% Indian: 00 0.0 100 0.0In=3) 15% Indian: 11.4 8.6 25.6 51.4 In=351 44.9% It would appear that American Indians who commit property offenses are possibly viewed as a greater economic threat to the community than the white offender. It would also appear that those Native Americans who commit violent-assaultive offenses are evaluated as more of a threat than the white offender, even though no Native Americans 32 appeared in the 100 percent of their time served category. This assump- tion will be addressed further in Chapter V. Caution must again be issued. Numerous other issues must be addressed; some of which relate to economics, employment, home community and various other individual variables before any statement of conclusive prejudice can be made. PRIOR RECORD Prior record for this study is examined through juvenile record, adult record and prior prison sentences. These are considered as individual variables and their interrelationship although considered, will not be examined in this study. (See Appendix B, Tables 12 through 22). The juvenile record illustrates that only the lack of a record is significant. The degree of juvenile involvement with the criminal justice system in regard to juvenile probation or juvenile institutiona- lization is not significant. Some factor other than the degree or extent of juvenile record is responsible for whatever discrepancy exists causing the Native American to serve a higher percentage of time. The pOpulation size does indicate that more Native Americans have had a juvenile institution exposure, (whole p0pulation, Whites = 64 percent, Indians = 36 percent; juvenile institutional experience, Whites = 52 percent, Indians = 48 percent) than would be suggested by their percentage in the population makeup. Adult record, other than prison is examined via categories of no arrests, misdemeanor offenses and felony probation. Those offenders with no prior record were represented in a generally equal distribution 33 in percent of time served. The Native American without a record of adult offenses served slightly less percent of overall time than the white offender. The American Indians received an early release at a rate of 4.7 percent greater frequency. In general those inmates without prior records were treated the same. More of those offenders who had prior misdemeanor records served 100 percent of the terms than those who had no record at all. White offenders who served all of their time in this category represented 37 percent of their group. This is a 4 percent increase in 100 percent of time served over those white offenders with no record. The same comparison with American Indian offenders shows that 60 percent of the Native Americans with misdemeanor records served all of their time. This is a 30.2 percent increase over those Native Americans with no record. This initially suggests that the American Indian with a prior record of misdemeanor offenses is given less Opportunity for parole release than the white offender. Will this view of the American Indian as less desireable for release than the white offender be supported in looking at prior felony probation records and prison terms? Persons who had prior felony probation terms again represented a spread of 24.6 percent more Native Americans serving 100 percent of their time than white offenders. Although the distribution of persons released who had prior felony probation records is much more evenly distributed, white offenders had a 2 percent advantage over the Native American in serving less than 40 percent of the sentence, 10.3 percent advantage of being released within 40 to 70 percent of the sentence and a 12.2 percent advantage in being released between 70 and 99 percent of their sentence. Although the small "n" in this variable (24 whites and 19 34 Native Americans) points out that a difference of one or two persons in a cell could cause a vast change in the percentage representation for a par- ticular group, it is felt that the statistical representation is important. The representation suggests that for some reason, as yet unexplained, the American Indian with a record is viewed differently than the white offender with the same type of record. Table 15. NO RECORD In=47I PERCENT OF POPULATION 40% 40709. 70.99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 30.3 12.1 24.2 33.3 (11:33) 70.2% Indian: 28.6 14.3 28.6 28.6 (11:14) 29.8% In referring to Table 15, having no prior prison sentence is a positive factor in being released, sometime prior to 100 percent of time served point. This chart is not statistically significant. Practical viewing indicates no gross advantage given to either the white or Native American inmates. A slight 3.4 percent advantage is experienced by the white inmates. However, when this advantage is restated it represents 3 persons. Possibly, this representation is not statistically or practically significant, but it does suggest that slight advantage for the white offender. 35 Those American Indian offenders with 1 prior prison term spent more time on a whole, in prison before their release although the per- cent of release prior to 100 percent is varied by only 1.2 percent in favor of the White offender. Again it must be remembered that, practically speaking, 1.2 percent equals only .2 of a case. Offenders with 2 or 3 prior prison terms on their record spent a larger percent of their sentence before release. Of those that completed all of their time, the Native American was represented at a 27.2 percent higher rate than the white inmates (42.9% white vs. 66.7% American Indian). The 27.2 percent difference would represent 5 cases. Table 19. Table 20. ONE PRIOR PRISON TERM TWO OR THREE PRIOR TERMS In=33l =33 g 100 z 100 I" I ,-_- 90 E 90 < < _l J a 70 D 2 8 60 n so 9 o 40 3 F 30 P 53 20 Z I“ g 1 o 1 u. S o o. 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% ‘3 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 10.0 20.0 25.0 45.0 (ll-’20) 60.6% White: 0.0 19.0 38.1 42.9 (l1’21163.6°h Indian: 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 (n=13) 39.4% Indian: 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 (n=l2) 36.4% The offenders with 6 plus prior prison terms demonstrate a marked difference in the number of Native Americans serving 100 percent of their time. There are 1411hites and 14 Native Americans, yet 85.7 36 percent (12 cases) of the Native Americans served all of their time versus 28.6 percent (4 cases) of whites. Various factors could influence this difference. These factors may be employment opportunities, voca- tional skills, family background, home situation or other unexplored variables. These various influences will be explored our outlined in the summary. DISCIPLINARY ACTION Internal institution variables are consistently considered by parole boards in making decisions as to whether or not to release early. This fact is supported by Louis Carney's text idenfitying three areas of "primary concern".27 (1) severity of the commitment offense, (2) prognosis for parole success or failure and (3) institutional adjustment. A factor of institutional adjustment is the disciplinary action, if any, brought against the inmate. Other aspects could include participation in programs, completion of training programs, etc. The most apparent internal prison factor that may influence the parole board is considered by this writer to be the extent of disciplinary action against the inmate. The fact of having no record of prison disciplinary infractions shows no significance to the question of difference in treatment by race. 27 . . Carney, Louis P., (Probation and Parole: Legal and Soc1al Dimen- sions, (McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, New York 19711) p. 190. 37 However, when the question of the influence of any recorded disciplinary infractions is reviewed it indicates that the American Indians in this setting with infractions serves all of their time at a rate of 59.5 percent compared to the rate of 28.8 percent with White inmates. These figures do not allow for the degrees of infractions, major or minor, nor do they allow for the gross number of infractions. The major infractions, being the more serious institutional offenses, should logically be a prime measure of institutional adjustment. Table 24. SOME In=117I 65 100 _. 90 g 80 EB '70 o 60 0. I5 ,_ 30 I; .20 Si 1 e- 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 20.0 26.2 25.0 28.8 In=80) 68.4% Indian: 5.4 8.1 27.0 59.5 In=37) 31.6% Major infractions for purposes of comparison consist of 5 groups. Group one represents those inmates with no major infractions. Group two is comprised of inmates with only one major infraction. Group three consists of offenders with two or three major infractions while Groups four and five include four or five infractions and six plus infractions respectively. American Indian inmates, during 1970, did not represent any higher than normal percentage of those with disciplinary records (American Indians = 31.6% of those with infractions versus 68.4% vhite inmates). In fact the Native American representation is approxi- mately 5 percent lower than it should be, all other factors being equal. The questions of major infractions and their effect on percent of time served is initially addressed by examining those offenders with no major infractions record. The distribution of cases of American Indians and whites are not altered to a significant degree by the lack of a major infractions record. Examination of the table representing the varying degrees of major prison infractions ranging from 1 to 6 plus presents the viewer with an immediate over-representation of American Indians in the 100 percent of time served cells. The American Indian committing major institutional infractions, whether it be one or five, is viewed for some reason differently than the white offender in these categories. The only area where major infractions is not significant is when examining cases with six plus prison infractions where the "n" size is again small and thus the percent representation may be too misleading. (Refer to Tables 25 through 29). CHAPTER V. SUMMARY Race should not be a determining factor in whether an early release from prison is granted or not. The steps taken in this study demonstrate that American Indians, as a group, spent a higher percentage of time in prison than did the white inmate p0pulation. The major factors that appear to be more NOTE: critical for the American Indian are crime type, prior record, prior prison terms served and extent of major internal prison disciplinary actions. There was no significant difference indicated between races in the area of education when relating to those persons with less than 11 years of education. It appears that a racial bias as far as the number of years of education did not affect the early release decision. Although those American Indians serving all of their time is equal to the white group, for those under 21 years of age, of those that had an early release the American Indian served a larger percentage of time. Thirty-three percent of American Indians versus seven percent of the white offenders spent from 70% to 99% of their time. Offenders serving from 40% to 70% of their time were 10 percent versus 31 percent for Indians and whites respectively, while those serving less than 40 percent were fairly equal, 39 percent and 33 percent respectively. The older American Indian offenders did Spend more time in prison than 39 40 the older white offender. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the American Indian offenders served all of their sentence, whereas white offenders represented only 33 percent of the persons serving 100 percent of their sentence. One factor that may affect this large percentage of American Indians spending their total time in prison is that 71.4 percent of those inmates with more than 4 prior prison sentences were American Indian. This group may be the representative factor in the number of older American Indians serving 100 percent of their time. AS suggested in the Introduction this particular difference may be eliminated in a multiple regression analysis. NOTE: American Indian offenders who committed violent offenses and property crimes served greater portions of their sentences than did the white offenders. The American Indians represented in the crime category of "other" served all of their time. Of these cases (n=7) 6 were serving sentences on escape and l was serving a driving while intoxicated charge. The offenses usually represent short sentence equal to 1 year or less and offenses which are not looked at favorably by the parole board for early release from prison dueto the nature of the offense and relaively short term of sentence. The influence of this small subgroup of American Indians versus whites in this crime category is represented in Table 11 in the Appendix. Analysis indicates that juvenile record was not a decisive factor in granting parole and that those with records showed no significant 41 difference in percent of time served. As prior adult record is examined, the more complex the prior involvement with the criminal justice system the more the percentage of time served. As the progression moves toward multiple prior prison terms, from those with no record, the gap between the percentage of American Indians serving all of their time and the white counterpart grows wider. Those with more severe records represent a high concentration of American Indians with a combined total of 60 per- cent of all persons with 4 plus prior prison terms representing American Indians. Seventy-one point four percent (71.4%) of those serving all of their time, compared with 47 percent representation of whites in this group, serving all of their time. NOTE: American Indian offenders had fewer institutional infractions than would be thought from a random sample. The American Indians represented only 31.6% of internal disciplinary infractions while they compose 36.1% of this population. Native Americans composed only 34.75% of all major institutional infractions in this population. Yet the American Indian offender with from 1 to 6+ major infractions serves all of their time in 61.73% of the cases compared to 27.95% of their white counterpart serving to the 100% time served point. The above statement must be read strictly as a representation of the population distribution and can not be used without studying inter- related variables to support a statement of racial discrimination. These Indian offenders making up the larger percent serving all of their time, may be the same cases as are represented with multiple prior prison terms and more serious offenses. This possible relationship can 42 not be tested conclusively without more advanced analysis. This study has allowed initial analysis to give direction for further research. The American Indian committing certain offenses, violent- assaultive, and property crimes, are somehow either different or are viewed differently by the parole board. Indian offenders with prior records either are different or are viewed as being different than their White counterparts. The American Indian offender who has committed major institutional infractions, although not greater in actual number of infractions is different, or viewed as different, from the white inmate in the same situation. The key may lie not only in the examination of the inter- relationship of the variables studied but in the view and perceptions of the parole board and the American Indian offender. Experimentation and research into the view or attitude of the offender and the view of attitude of the parole board is of key importance at this point. Hall and Simkus of the University of Montana Department of Sociology address attitude of the court and the offender in the sentencing of American Indian defendants. "The offender's 'attitude' before the bench was repeatedly mentioned as a crucial unmeasurable factor behind it 27 their sentencing decision This relates primarily to the offender's attitude as perceived by the court, or in the case of this study, the 27 Hall, Edwin L. and Simkus, Albert A. "Inequality in the Types of Sentences Received by Native Americans andWhites". Criminology, (Vol. 13 N. 2, August, 1975, American Society of Criminology.), p. 216. 43 the parole board. As suggested by Hall and Simkus, the American Indian offender, expecting unequal or arbitrary justice may project a hostile or negative image that is viewed as uncooperative, defiant, or negativis- tic by the authority involved.28 Comments collected from several parole board members involved with the population being studied support the importance of the inmates attitude in deciding whether tO grant an early release or not and at what point in the amount Of time allotted for a sentence should a release be allowed. The other side of attitude is also difficult to measure. It would appear from this data that the American Indian who commits a violent crime or a prOperty offense (i.e., burglary or grand larceny) is viewed as a less favorable candidate for early release. The same generalization also appears true for American Indians who commit major institutional infractions. These items are included in a discussion Of attitude because it would appear that these offenders may be viewed by the parole board as being persons who would cost the community more in economic terms. This brings to point the question Of the actual or perceived economic stability Of the offender. An area not directly addressed in this study is the employability Of the offender. Employability may range from job history and skills to job Opportunities in the area to which the defendant wishes to gO. Unemployment on the reservation Of 213 Ibid., pp. 214-219. 44 this area in 1970 was three times higher than the national average.30 Offenders, even if granted parole, could not be released from this prison system unless they had verified employment. The parole board's attitude Of the home setting of the Offender wishing to return to a reservation area, rightly or wrongly, may be viewed as returning to a living community setting that would be detrimental to a successful parole completion. The area Of employment, both historical and employment as projected in parole plans is of prime concern for future study. Included in study would have to be employment record, skills, training, attitudes and community Opportunities. The home, family, and community environment, its actual, as well as the parole board's conception Of it, must be evaluated in regard to its ability or lack of ability to supply, support and encourage the offenders in an employment situation. The question that rises from this study and that suggests a primary focus for further research is the further exploration Of the economics involved with the American Indian inmate. Employment, as suggested, is an important factor. Education and training although not suggested as directly influencial Of a favorable early release most cer- tainly affects the individual's employability. A model might be estab- lished that, holding crime type, prior record, and institutional infractions constant, could examine employment history, job related training and employment market as major factors in completing parole 30 Ibid, U.S. Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Census, p. 13. 45 and thus in parole decision making. If these factors can be examined more closely than the question Of racial discrimination can be examined more critically. It is possible that membership in a racial minority group and an unstable economic Situation can not be separated in examining a prison pOpulation. If indeed it can not then the direction for the prison systems, corrections, and society in general should concentrate on economic improvement in the form Of job training and job development. Implications for the present syStem would indicate that if the prison is functioning in a similar fashion now, aS it was in 1970, that prison is administering the correctional process (in terms Of recorded disciplinary proceedings) in an equitible and fair manner. This study would indicate that the present parole board would be prudent in examining their personal views of the Offender. The parole board must examine as many aspects Of each case as possible, but when examining prior record, Offense type and major institutional infractions it should be cautious not to add some firm Of unwarranted negative connotations on the Native American who may have an extended record or several major infractions to their record. Those inmates with more complex criminal histories must possibly be retained within the institu- tion but race Of that individual should not increase or decrease the percentage Of the sentence tO be served. This study is severely limited in not having subjected the data collected to regression analysis. The study, as completed tO this point does supply the initial descriptive analysis to give better direction for future research. The strength Of the variable relationships are not tested but the existance Of relationships are indicated. The amount Of 45 time served before release is affected by prior record, crime type and institutional infractions. The question from this point is how strong and how consistent are those relationships when other variables are introduced? This researcher expects to proceed from this point to examine the interrelationship Of the variables examined in this study. Through regression analysis the variables in which racial bias may truely be a significant factor may possibly be isolated and dealt with. Some readers may have predicted the areas suggested for future study, i.e., attitudes and employment or economic stability. This study has however established a bais in solid data collection and an initial analysis that contains a set Of variables with which tO test various hypothesis. Indicated in the appendix is the total range of data that was collected. In the future with proper controls and manipulation the existence and/or extent Of racial bias relating to parole decision making can be tested to a more conclusive extent. BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 Bickel, Carney, Glaser, Green, Griffiths, Hall, Hartinger, Heinz, Johnson, Krantz, Smith, BIBLIOGRAPHY Gary W. A preliminary report to Native American Rights Fund, Bureau Of Social Science Research Inc., 1990 M. Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20036, February 1975. Louis P. Probation and Parole: Legal and Social Dimensions, McGraw Hill Book Company, N.Y., New York:'1977, p.419OI Daniel, The Effectiveness Of a Prison and Parole System, Bobbs—Merrill Company, Inc., Indianapolis - New York, 1969, p. 18. Edward, "Race and Sentencing", Sociology Of Punishment and Corrections, Johnson, Savitz and Wolfgang, Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1970, p. 248. C. Taylor; Hall, Edwin L. and Winfree, L. Thomas, Parole Survival Among American Indians and Whites, University of Montana. Edwin L. and Simkus, Albert A., "Inequality in the Types of Sentences Received by Native Americans and Whites", Criminology, Vol. 13, NO. 2, August, 1975, American Society Of Criminology, p. 216. Walter; Eldefonso, Ed and Coffey, Allan, Corrections: A Component Of the Criminal Justice Syptem, Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., Pacific Palisades, California, 1973, pp. 247- 248. Anne M.; Senderowitz, Stephen J. and Vance, Mary Anne,, "Sentencing by Parole Board: An Evaluation", The Journal Of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern university School Of Law, Vol. 67 #1, March 1976, The Williams and Wilkins CO., Baltimore, Maryland 21202. The Negro and Crime, 271 Annals 93 (1941). Sheldon, The Law Of Corrections and Prisoners' Rights, West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1973, pp. 519-52 . Joan and Fried, William, The Uses Of the American Prison, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA, 1974, p. 36. 48 Swift, , United States Wolfgang, 49 Byron and Bickel, Gary, Comparative Parole Treatment of American Indians and Non-Indians at U.S. Federal Prisons, Fiscal Years 1973 and 1974, Bureau Of Social Science Research, Inc., 1990 M. Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036, Dec. 1974. Department Of Commerce Bureau of Census, We the Americans U.S. Bureau of Census, Census Population 1970, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1971, p. 5. Marvin E., Crime and Race: Conceptions and Misconceptions, Institute OfIHuman ReTatiOns Press,7The AmeFiEan Jewish Committee, 165 E. 56th St., New York, New York, 10022, 1964, p. 29. APPENDICES 50 APPENDIX A VARIABLES COLLECTED IN PRISON STUDY 51 VARIABLES IN PRISON STUDY VARIABLE VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE CATEGORIES ID # Individual Case 001 - 255 V1 Month 01 - 12 Month Received V2 A e 14 - 75 A35 at time Of commitment V3 Race 1 = White 2 = American Indian 3 = Other 9 = Missing Data V4 Marital l = Single Marital Status 2 = Married 3 = Separated 4 = Divorced/ Widowed 9 = Missing Data V5 Educat. OO - 12 (Actual # Education Years) 13 = G.E.D. 14 = 1-2 yrs. coll. 15 = 3+ yrs. coll. 16 = Coll. grad. 17 = Voc. Training 99 = Missing Data V6 Birth 1 = Home State Place Of Birth 2 = Neighboring State 3 = Reservation 4 = U.S. (other than 1-3) 5 = Foreign Country 9 = Missing Data V7 Town 01 - 35 Town Of Sentence V8 Judge 01 - 22 Sentencing Judge 52 VARIABLE V9 V10 V11 VARIABLE NAME Offense Present Offense Violent Violence indicated in present Offense Sentence 53 VARIABLE CATEGORIES 01 02 03 04 05 O6 07 O8 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 1 2 9 Murder Manslaughter Armed Robbery Felony Assault Rape Child Molestation Incest Burglary Grand Larceny Checks Confidence Game - Fraud Multiple Felony (1-4) Multiple Felony (5-7) Multiple Felony (8-9) Multiple Felony (lO-ll) Revocation Of SS. or Prob. Drugs Driving While Intoxicated Failure to Support Escape Carrying a Concealed Weapon Missing Data NO Yes Missing Data 84 (Actual no. of months) 85-96 97-108 109-120 121-132 133-144 145-156 157-168 169-180 181-240 241-480 Life VARIABLE V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 VARIABLE NAME JUVREC Juvenile Record JUVCONT Total number Of juvenile contacts was Total length of time if on probation (in months) JUVINST Total length Of time in juvenile institutions ADTOTAL Total # Of acts with the Criminal Justice System 54 1 boom SOCDNO‘U‘IDWN-J SONQUT-hWN—J 001 II II II II II II II II II SOCDNIO'IU'IDWNH DQNO‘m-fiwN-d VARIABLE CATEGORIES NO record Indicated Arrest Indicated (no action) Probation State Training School State Hospital Missing Data 1 2 3 4 5-10 11+ None Indicated Missing Data 1-3 months 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-24 25+ None Indicated Missing Data 1-3 months 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-24 25+ None Indicated Missing Data (”DOOM-H 6-10 11+ None Indicated Missing Data VARIABLE VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE CATEGORIES V17 V18 V19 V20 ADREC Adult record other than prison ADCONT Total number Of contacts with the Criminal Justice System Of a felony nature (other than prison) PRIOR 1 Most recent prior offense type PRIOR 2 Second most recent prior Offense type 55 1 til) (:31 (.31 -F=I (an) T‘s) ‘KIZD "-I (III! (.I'l -I=II (an) I‘\JI ‘--‘ II II II II NO Record Indicated Traffic Offenses Misdemeanor Arrests Felony Arrests Misdemeanor Probation Felony Probation Missing Data 1 2 3 4 5-10 11+ None Indicated Missing Data Murder Manslaughter Armed Robbery Assault with intent Rape Child Molesta- tion Incest Burglary Grand Larceny Checks Confidence Game Others None Indicated Missing Data Murder Manslaughter Armed Robbery Assault with intent Rape Child Molesta- tion Incest Burglary Grand Larceny Checks VARIABLE V20 (con't) V21 V22 V23 VARIABLE NAME PRIOR 2 Secona most recent prior Offense type PRIORS Total number Of prior prison sentences LAP. Length of prior prison sentences (accumulated months) LAPRO Length Of prior felony probation (accumulated months) INTERNAL PRISON VARIABLES V24 V25 DISCIPL Prison discipline action MINOR Total number Of minor infractions 56 VARIABLE CATEGORIES 11 _a_n “N —J .h SDQVO’IU‘l-th-fl 001 SOQNOSU'I-th-d Confidence Game Other None Indicated Missing Data U‘I-hOJNd 6-10 11+ None Indicated Missing Data 481 + months 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30 31-36 37-48 49+ Missing Data None Some Missing Data 01¢de 6-10 11+ None Indicated Missing Data VARIABLE VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE CATEGORIES V26 V27 V28 V29 PAROLE BOARD DECISIONS V30 MAJOR Total number Of major infractions RELEASE Type Of release from prison TRELEASE NufiEer of months before first release DISCHARG Total of months from commitment to discharge CUT DTH subject receive a cut or pardon 57 OmNOthNd d wa 01 01 99 01 66 99 MON-d (”AWN-4 6-10 11+ None Indicated Missing Data Straight (time served/GT) Paroled Su5pended Sentence Released to New Number/ New Offense Pending (still serving sentence) Out on Appeal Bond or by Court Order Died in Prison Died on Parole Released to other authority (state or federal) 66 Missing Data 66 (Actual no. Of months) Still serving Missing Data NO Yes Missing Data VARIABLE VARIABLE NAME V31 RESULTS Results Of parole appearance V32 OUTCOME If paroled what was the outcome? V33 RETURN I? returned -what type? 58 01 02 O3 O4 05 06 O7 08 O9 10 11 12 99 1 $001 SO-hw N-J VARIABLE CATEGORIES Paroled lst appearance Continued 1 or more months Parole denied by board Refused to appear Paroled 2nd appearance Continued 2nd appearance Parole denied 2nd appearance Refused to appear 2nd time Paroled after 3 or more appearances Parole denied at subsequent hearings Refused to appear at additional hearings Parole Revoked Missing Data NO violations indicated (dis- charged) Violations re- ported (remained in community) Violated - returned on technical violations Violated - new convictions not applicable missing data Parole revoked Suspended sentence revoked New sentence Not applicable Missing Data VARIABLE VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE CATEGORIES V34 NRETURN 1 = NO Has subject returned 2 = Yes on subsequent crime? 9 = Missing Data V35 REPEAT 1 = 1 NO.Of new convictions 2 = 2 since 1970 3 = 3 4 = 4+ 5 = None recorded 9 = Missing Data 59 APPENDIX B TABLES 6O TABLES LEGEND All tables represent the portion Of each race group, whites and Indians, which is included in the percent Of time served categories. Each table from Table 3 to Table 29 illustrates the percent distribution Of whites and Indians for that particular variable. Representation are presented in approximate bar comparison and exact percent figures. The lined bar represents the white population and the dotted bar represents the American Indian population. z 1 ‘9 5.. ‘< .i 6'. c: 0. I]. O .— z w c: S a 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 22.0 17.1 26.8 34.1 (n=4ll 57.7% Indian: 16.7 10.0 26.7 46.7 (n=30) 42.3% 61 .4 o E a N POPULATION EXAMINED' (n=194) z 1 9 p. < .1 D a. 2 RACE 11. O .— Z 111 U m E 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 21.0 22.6 25.0 ‘ 31.5 =68.5% Parolled Indian: 11.4 8.6 27.1 52.9 =47.1%Parolled Table 3. 100 90 80 70 6° EDUCATION—LESS THAN 11 YEARS PERCENT OF POPULATION 01 O 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 18.3 22.3 27.2 32.2 In‘961 Indian: 12.1 7.4 26.4 54.1 (n=63) 0n graph, American Indian is represented by column to the right in each category. 62 .1 a I o b z 1 9 1.. < .1 D a O P' AGE In=19OI LI. 0 1.. Z 111 U 1: EL’ 1 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 22.0 24.0 27.0 28.0 (n=122l 64% Indian: 11.0 7.0 24.0 58.0 In=68) 36% Table 5. Z 9 g. < .1 D O. 2 AGE In=63l 42% (“5 21 YEARS OLD 1... Z 111 U c: E 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 33.0 31.0 7.0 29.0 (n=42) 66% Indian: 29.0 ' 10.0 33.0 29.0 In=21) 33% Table 6. Z 9 1.. <1 .1 D o. - 2 AGE In=127) 58% 3 22 YEARS OLD p. Z 111 U a: 111 o. 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 14.0 19.0 35.0 33.0 Iii-80) 63% Indian: 4.0 6.0 23.0 66.0 (n=47) 37% 63 .1 111 E to \1 ALL CRIMES Z 9 p. < .1 :1 O. O :1. LL 0 1— Z W o a: Ii.‘ 40% 40-70% 70-99%100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 22.0 22.0 26.0 31.0 Indian: 10.0 9.0 28.0 52.0 Table 8. Table 9. VIOLENT, ASSULTIVE CRIMES PROPERTY CRIMES In=20) In=78l Z Z 0 9 1: 1- < < .1 .1 D D a. o. 2 2 u. o 6 +2- 1- w 2 o W m U m m ‘L E PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 28.4 29.4 17.6 23.5In=17l 85% Indian: 0.0 0.0 100 0.0(n=3) 15% Table 10. CHECKS AND FRAUD (n=59) Z 9 p. < .1 D d O n. 11. O I- Z 111 0 1:: 1.11 n. PERCENT OF TIME SERVED 10.8 16.2 40.5 32.4 (n=37) 62.7% 13.6 13.6 27.3 45.5(n=22) 37.3% White: Indian: 64 PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 25.6 27.9 23.3 23.3In=43l 55.1% Indian: 11.4 8.6 25.6 51.4In=35) 44.9% Tablell. OTHER In=26) Z 9 p. < .J D O. o 0. LL 0 1— 2 Lu U I IL” 40% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 26.3 10.5 10.5 52.6 (n=191 Indian: O O O 100 (n=7) 73.1% 26.9% Table 12. No RECORD In-121I z 1 , 9 1— < .l 2 2 IL O 1.. Z Ll-I U I '5.‘ 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 20.5 22.9 28.9 27.7 In=831 Indian: 7.9 7.9 21.1 63.2 Ina-38) T'm ‘3 JUVENILE PROBATION z 1 In-11) 2 1... < J D O. 2 II. D p. E g 1 E 40% 40. 709991 10011 PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 33.3 33.3 33.3 In=9) Indian: 50 50 (n=2) "5" 1" JUVENILE INSTITUTIONALIZATION In-BZI z 1 Q 1. S D Q 2 ll- O 1.. Z I“ U 35 IL 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 18.8 18.8 21.9 40.6 Irv-32) Indian: 16.7 6.7 33.3 43.3 (in-301 65 .4 111 g; 19 .0 0'1 NO RECORD In=47I z 1 9 1. < .1 D o. C o. 11. O 1.. Z ‘83 I: 1 E‘.‘ 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 30.3 12.1 24.2 33.3 In=33l 70.2% Indian: 28.6 14.3 28.6 28.5 In=l4) 29.8% Table 16. MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS In=47l z 1 9 ’— < .1 D o. O a 1L 0 I‘- Z 111 L) 35 °' 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 22.2 25.9 14.8 37.01n=27l 57% Indian: 10.0 10.0 20.0 60.0In=201 43% Table 17. FELONY PROBATION In=431 z 100 9 p. < .1 D a. O o. 11. O 1.. Z 111 o E 0- 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 12.5 20.8 33.3 33.3 In=24) 56% Indian: 10.5 10.5 21.1 57.9 I11=191 44% 66 Table 18. NO PRIOR PRISON In=89l 2 9 1. < .1 D a. O 11. LL 0 p. Z w o t: 1.11 O. PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 36.4 25.8 15.2 22.7 (n=66) 74.2% Indian: 34.8 17.4 21.7 26.1 (n=23) 25.8% Table 19. Table 20. ONE PRIOR PRISON TERM TWO 0R THREE PRIOR TERMS (n=33) (n=331 Z Z 9 9 I- I- < < .1 .1 D D a. a. 2 2 LL LI. 0- O 1— I- Z Z u.1 u.1 O O E E P- 40% 40-70% 7099% 100% 9- 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 10.0 20.0 25.0 45,0 (n=20) 60.6% White: 0.0 19.0 38.1 42.9 (11:21) 63.6% Indian: 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 In=13) 39.4% Indian: 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 (n=12) 36.4% Table 21. Table 22. FOUR OR FIVE PRIOR TERMS SIX PLUS PRIOR TERMS In=10) In=28) 2 Z 2 9 I— I- < < .1 .1 D D a. :1. O 0 a. :1. IL 11. O O I- I— 2 Z I.“ I.” o o a E o. 40% 407096 70-99% 100% n. 40% ISO-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 (n=3) 30% White: 21.4 50.0 28.6(11r14) 50% Indian: 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 (n=7) 70% Indian: 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 (n=l4l 50% 67 Table 23. DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS NONE In-71I Z 2 1 I- < .J D O. O E ll. 0 1.. 5 E 1 a. 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 22.0 17.1 26.8 34.1 In=4l) 57.7% Indian: 16.7 10.0 26.7 46.7 In=301 42.3% Table 24 SOME ln-117I z 1 9 1. < .1 D a. 2 11. O 1— E E 1 0- 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 20.0 26.2 25.0 28.8' In=80) 68.4% Indian: 5.4 8.1 27.0 59.5 In=37) 31.6% 68 Table 25. NO MAJOR DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS In=941 Z 9 p. < .1 D r; O :1. LL 0 .— Z 111 U SE 0- 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 22.0 20.3 25.4 32.2 (n=59) 62.8% Indian: 14.3 14.3 22.9 48.6(n=35) 37.2% Table 26. Table 27. ONE MAJOR INFRACTION TWO OR THREE INFRACTIONS (n=25) Z Z 9 9 I- I— s :i - 2 2 2 2 11. LL 0 O I- z E 111 111 U U 5 s 0- 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% n. 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 33.3 33.3 22.2 11.1 (n=18) 72.0% White: 15.4 46.2 15.4 23.1 (n=13) 56.5% Indian: 0.0 14.3 14.3 71.4 (n=l) 28% Indian: 10.0 0.0 20.0 70.0 (n=10) 43.5% Table 28. Table 29. FOUR OR FIVE INFRACTIONS SIX PLUS INFRACTIONS In=16) In=301 Z .9 .29 1 I— I— f. S 2 2 2 2 11. 11.. O O I- I- Z Z w 11.1 0 U E E u. 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% I": 40% 40-70% 70-99% 100% PERCENT OF TIME SERVED PERCENT OF TIME SERVED White: 0.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 In=10) 62.5% White: 19.0 0.0 33.3 47.6 In=21) 70% Indian: 16.7 0.0 0.0 83.3 (n=6) 37.5% Indian: 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 In=9) 30% 69 "Iillllllllllllllillli