‘ --‘.-.""-_ ’ ‘ ~ «1‘1‘ ‘ .1 THE PREDICTIVE EFFICIENCY OF CERTAIN FACT 0R5 IN SELECTING PRISONERS FOR TRUSTY STATUS Thais for the Dogm of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Gregory Allen Miller 1955 .. .; ....... ‘-&-’—+Lv _, *~ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\\\ll This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE PREDICTIVE EFFICIENCY CF CERTAIN FACTORS Ill SELECTING PRISONERS FOR TRUSTY STATUS presented by Gregory Allen Miller has been accepted, towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Education %% zémm Major profcétfi' Date November 15, 1955 0-169 40" f 1‘ / I w} r A {'2’ ‘ U 1—. - 1r“— MAGIC 2 MAY 2 5 1999 ~19 THE PREDICTIVE EFFICIENCY OF CERTAIN FACTORS IN SELECTING PRISONERS FOR TRUSTY STATUS By Gregory Allen Miller AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of . DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services Year 1955 Approved WW 1 W l GREGORY ALLEN MILLER ABSTRACT This study isIconcerned with determining the significance of data gathered on forty-eight selected items of information concerning the success or failure in trusty status of a group of prisoners at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. For the purposes of this investigation, a successful trusty has been defined as one who has been a trusty outside the prison walls on a prison farm or camp for a period of two years or more. An unsuccessful trusty has been defined as one who escapes while in trusty status. A Two groups of two hundred and forty-three prisoners each were utilized. One was a successful group and the other was an unsuccessful group. The sample, with the exception of a few cases, represented the entire number of available indi- viduals. The period studied was eight and one-half years, from January 1, 1945, to June 30, 1953. Letters were written to wardens of all adult penal insti- tutions in the United States asking them to list the criteria or factors they use in selecting prisoners for trusty installa- tions. Fifty-one per cent responded to the inquiry, and the factors they listed as selective criteria were used in this study. The total number of factors identified as usable was forty-eight. The records of the four hundred and eighty-six prisoners in this study were examined for each of the factors. The 2 GREGORY ALLEN MILLER ABSTRACT chi-square ()[1) method was used to enable the investigator to establish the significance of the relationships among the forty-eight factors and success or failure as a trusty. The major findings showed that of the forty-eight fac- tors analyzed twenty-six were significant at the one per cent level of confidence, two at the two per cent level, and three at the five per cent level. The remaining seventeen were not significant. Those items with predictive efficiency at the one per cent level were: Age, age at the commission of first offense, achievement test ratings, race, use of alcohol and/or drugs, size of home community, length of residence in Michigan, I. Q. score, military service and type of discharge, family social class, family ties, number of visits, stability of occupational history, crime, minimum and maximum sentence, method of conviction, number of Juvenile commitments, number of previous paroles, number of parole violations, number of commitments to prison, number of probation violations, length of time to serve before parole consideration, type of parole board action received, supervisor's rating of prison Job per- formance, and amount of money in the prison account. Factors with little or no significance for use as de- fined in this study were: Native or non-native of Michigan; education; mental history; homosexuality; physical condition; history of tuberculosis, epilepsy, syphilis or gonorrhea; religion; 3 GREGORY ALLEN MILLER ABSTRACT marital status; marital history; amount of mail; broken par- ental home; familial crime record; family locale, number of children; occupation; number of probations; number of Jail commitments; number of accomplices; previous escapes; prison behavior; prison commitment status; and church attendance. THE PREDICTIVE EFFICIENCY OF CERTAIN FACTORS IN SELECTING PRISONERS FOR TRUSTY STATUS BY Gregory Allen Miller A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1955 THESIS Gregory Allen Miller candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Final Examination, November 15, 1955, 2:00 p.m., Room 20, Morrill Hall Dissertation: The Predictive Efficiency of Certain Factors in Selecting Prisoners for Trusty Status Outline of Studies Major Subject: Education (Counseling and Guidance) Minor Subjects: Educational Psychology, Higher Education Biographical Items Born, April 6, 1919, Grand Rapids, Michigan Undergraduate Studies, Olivet College, 1937-1941 Graduate Studies, Michigan State College, 1947-1948, continued, 1951-1955 Experience: Student Psychologist, Traverse City State ' Hospital, 1941-1942; Military Service, United States Army, 1942—1945; Chief Psychologist, Psychologist, Traverse City State Hospital, 1947-1951; Chief Psychologist, Psychiatric Clinic, Michigan Department of Corrections, 1952—1955; Instructor, Michigan State University, April 1955, to present Member of: American PsychOlogical Association, Michigan Psychological Association, Society of Correctional Psychologists, American Personnel and Guidance Association, National Vocational Guidance Association, National Rehabilitation Association, Michigan Rehabilitation Association, Michigan Counselors' Association ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes particularly to thank Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Jr., who as his Major Professor and Guidance Committee Chairman provided invaluable counsel and encourage— ment throughout the course of this project. In addition, he desires to express his appreciation to the other members of his Guidance Committee, Dr. Harry R. Sundwall, Dr. Harry R. Scales, Dr. Willa Norris and Dr. Cecil V. Millard, for their helpful criticisms and suggestions relating to the thesis. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to Dr. Lee Katz, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, Michigan State University, and to Mr. Robert Huyser, Research Assistant, Bureau of Research and Service, Michigan State University, for their help, suggestions, and assistance with the statis- tical aspects of this investigation. The writer deeply appreciates the assistance and suggestions of Mr. Robert Glass and his staff of the Records Unit of the Department of Mental Health and the use of their IBM equipment. The investigator extends his sincere appreciation to Mr. William H. Bannon, Warden of the State Prison of _ Southern Michigan, to Mr. Robert A. Northrup, Director of Outside Placement, and to Mr. John Martin and Mr. William Dunham, Heads of the Record Office and Identification Bureau, respectively, for their permission, cooperation and help in carrying on this project. Also, thank you to those prisoners, especially Frank, for aiding me clerically and to the prisoners of the Trusty Division, without whom this study would not have been possible. Finally to his wife, Elizabeth Dickson Miller, the author expresses utmost appreciation for her assistance in tabulating, for her typing of the final draft, and for her inspiration and vital moral support without which this project would have been impossible. CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . Introduction , , , . . . . . Statement of the Problem Need for the Study , , , . . . . . . Limitations and Scope of the Study , Definition of Terms , . . . . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE , , , , . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Runaway Boys and Girls . . . . . . . Prison Escapes . . . . . . . . . . . Open Institutions . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERSONAL FACTORS IN RELATION TO TRUSTY PLACEMENT OUTCOME . . . . . . . . . . . Year of Birth . . . . . . . . . . . . Age at First Offense . . . . . . . . . Stanford Achievement Test Average Grade Rating 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 12 15 16 16 16 17 21 27 27 27 31 39 41 42 43 CHAPTER Page Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Addictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Time Lived in Michigan . . . . . . . . 47 Intelligence Quotient Scores . . . . . 48 Military Service . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Social Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Birthplace . . .'. . . . . . . . . . ., 52 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Psychiatric History . . . . . . . . . . 53 Homosexuality . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Physical Condition . . . . . . . . . . 56 Physical Diseases . . . . . . . . . . 57 Summary, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 V. FAMILY RELATIONSHIP IN RELATION TO TRUSTY PLACEMENT OUTCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Family Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Marital Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Marital History . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Broken Parental Home . . . . . . . . . 65 Family Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Locale of Family . . . . . . . . . . . 67 vi CHAPTER Page Number of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Economic Factors Related to Family Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Occupational Stability . . . . . . . . . . 70 Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 VI. CRIMINAL RECORD IN RELATION TO TRUSTY PLACEMENT OUTCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Maximum Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Minimum Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Method of Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Juvenile Commitments . . . . .-. . . . . . 78 Paroles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Parole Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Prison Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Probation Violations . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Probations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Jail Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Number of Accomplices . . . . . . . . . . 84 Previous Escapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 VII PRISON RECORD IN RELATION TO TRUSTY PLACEMENT OUTCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Time between Outside Placement and Earliest Release Date . . . . . . . . . . 87 CHAPTER Parole Action . . . . . . . . . . Prison Job Ratings . , . . . . . Prison Financial Account . . . Prison Behavior , . . . . . . . .1. Entrance Status . . . . . . . . . Church Attendance in Prison Prior Outside Placement . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII RELATING THE FINDINGS TO THE PRISON SETTING O I O O O O O O O O O O O I Factors Related to Success . . . Factors Related to Failure . . . Interrelationship of Factors . . Factors in the Selection of Trusties at the State Prison of Southern Michigan Locale of Michigan Prison System IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . Methodology and Procedures . . . The Findings . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications . . Implications for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . C C O O I O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vii Page 88 9O 91 92 93 94 95 97 97 99 99 100 111 113 113 114 115 117 121 123 126 TABLE I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. IXI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES POpulation Figures for the State Prison of Southern Michigan . . Year of Birth . . . . . Age at First Offense . . Standard Achievement Test Average Grade Rating . . . . . . Race . . . . . . . . . . Addictions . . . . . . . Environment . . . . . . Time Lived in Michigan . Military Service . . . . Social Status . . . . . Birthplace . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . Psychiatric History . . Homosexuality Religion . . . . . . . Physical Condition . . . Physical Diseases . . . Family Ties . . . . . . Visits . . . . . . . . . Marital Status . . . . . . Intelligence Quotient Scores Page 42 43 44 45 46 a7 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ' 55 56 57 61 62 65 TABLE XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV.‘ XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. xxxx. XXXII. XXXIII. xxxrv. xxxv. xxxvx. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. XL. XLI. xLII. xLIII. XLIV. Marital History . . . . . . . . . . Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Broken Parental Home . . . . . . . Family Crime . . . . . . . . . . . Locale of Family . . . . . . . . . Number of Children . . . . . . . . Occupational Stability . . . . . . Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Term . . . . . . . . . . . Minimum Term . . . . . . . . . . . Method of Conviction . . . . . . . Juvenile Commitments . . . . . . . Paroles . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parole Violations . . . . . . . . Prison Commitments . . . . . . . . Probation Violations . . . . . . . Probations . . . . . . . . . . . . Jail Commitments . . . . . . . . . Number of Accomplices . . . . . . Previous Escapes . . . . . . . . . Time between Outside Placement and Earliest Release Date , , , . . . , Parole Action . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 82 83 83 84 85 88 89 TABLE XLV. XLVI. XLVII. XLVIII. XLIX. Prison Job Ratings . . . . Prison Financial Account . Prison Behavior . . . . . Entrance Status . . . . . Church Attendance in Prison Page 90 92 93 93 94 CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The recurring central issue with outside placement authorities is the problem of whether or not a prisoner will make a "good trusty". Will he be able to make a satisfactory adjustment to his new, relatively unfettered surroundings and contribute effectively to the new pro- gram? Can he avoid the new temptations placed in his path by his new "freedom"? Does he have the necessary requisites to profit from a program planned for him? Will he run away? Unfortunately, prison authorities charged with select- ing men for outside placement are not clairvoyant. They cannot predict infallibly whether a person once sent outside the walls will live up to expectations. On the other hand, prison officials, from observation and practical experience, can isolate certain factors that are related to success or failure as a trusty. (A successful trusty in this study is defined as one who has been a trusty for two years or more; a failure or unsuccessful trusty is defined as one who escapes while in trusty status.) These factors can be set up as criteria by which to Judge outside placement 2 candidates. Such a procedure does not automatically end walkaways; it is employed merely with the hOpe of reducing the percentage of failures. In the past two decades there has been a rapid growth in the use of open type institutions and such facilities as camps, farms and Open Borstals. This rapid expansion was forced on the prison system by overcrowding, but authorities were quick to appreciate the intrinsic value of such systems; that is, the re- habilitative potential of such a system when compared with the traditional walled institutions. There is little doubt, however, that much of the outgrowth of the "prison without walls" is due to the failure of the traditional type of prison. Scudder (30:276) says "we develop our prison sys- tems on the false fear that all will escape and every- thing in the average prison revolves around this idea. In the process, the needs of the prisoner are too often forgotten as we eagerly strip him of all his individuality, give him a number, and call him a convict." He cites that in the nine years that had elapsed between the time that the California Institute for Men at Chino (an open institution) had begun operating and his book was pub- lished in 1952, "ten thousand prisoners had been trans- ported five hundred miles as ordinary passengers of a common carrier. They never carried handcuffs, billy clubs, or guns, and yet no man ever attempted to escape enroute, and the conduct and morale were excel- lent (30:278)." Scudder and other prison authorities have stated that one-half of their inmates do not need maximum custody with its high walls and guarded towers, and that prisons for this group should not be equipped and run Just to prevent escapes. They say that they should be administered with a program aimed to adjust men to society, and they should be manned by personnel who understand people. The penal farm had its beginning in EurOpe. The farm colony idea, originating about 125 years ago, was used most extensively in Belgium, Switzerland and Holland as the solution to the vagrancy problem. A few years later, several farm colonies started in the United States, the first of these being the Cooley Farm at Cleveland, Ohio. The honor camp of today is analogous to the penal farm and usually involves the same princi- ples; but, it is not usually as large and it is not used for the entire prison population. The honor camp is used for the more trustworthy prisoners, sifted from the larger prison population, who are sent to a camp conducted outside the walls many times located considerable distances from the central institution. Many penologists and criminologists feel that, of all the methods by which a prison regime may hope to inculcate self-respect and self-responsibility and in other ways prepare the prisoners for a normal life in society, the open institution appears to be prov- ing itself the most effective. The speed in the rapid expansion of open institutions has been forced on society by overcrowding. It was quickly appreciated that there was intrinsic value in the system, and that probably its development in its present state is the most permanently valuable contribution to enlightened penal treatment of any of the post-war experiences. Thus the establishment of camps, farm colonies and outside work placements for prisoners affords sev- eral advantages. First, overcrowding is reduced; second, prison construction costs are reduced; third, prison operating costs are reduced; fourth, idleness is reduced; fifth, opportunities for.self-improvement are afforded prisoners; and sixth, the public domain is protected and improved by the suppression of forest fires, reforestation, road construction, development of state parks, and other improvements on public prOperty, much of which would otherwise not be done at all due to lack of funds, or other reasons. It is, therefore, obvious that a camp or similar installation can serve a most useful purpose. It must, however, be maintained in accordance with standards which provide adequate safeguards against objectionable practices 5 that have plagued prison labor systems in the past. If this is not seen to, the public would not long tolerate this'system. It follows, then, that the selection of men for such installations should be men who will benefit from this type of treatment, men who will not run away. This is paramount in importance in making the system work. Statement of the Problem The main purpose of this study is to analyze various factors bearing upon outside placement with the ultimate end of assisting the prison authorities at the State Prison of Southern Michigan in Jackson; and, it is hOped, the rest of the prisons in the country in their task of defining and crystallizing criteria to be used in the selection of prisoners for placement outside the walls. This objective has been served by analyzing a number of factors related to 486 prisoners, placed outside the walls of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, in the light of their success as trusties. If relationships can be established between certain items and success as a trusty, and between certain items and failure as a trusty, more definite criteria will emerge and provide a rating scale or system that could be utilized by the outside placement authorities in their job of sep- arating the prisoners most likely to succeed from those most likely to fail. An additional purpose which this study serves is that of describing the trusty living in the numerous camps and farms and outside placement facilities in the corrections system of the State of Michigan. In this respect it pro- vides prison authorities with an inventory of the type of person who has passed through their hands in outside place- ment selection and furnishes them with a substantial body of data upon which to base other studies in their continuing task of improving selection techniques. Need for the Study While the writer was employed as the Chief Psychologist of the Michigan Department of Corrections, Psychiatric Clinic, located at the State Prison of Southern Michigan in Jackson, it was noted that between one and two prisoners in trusty status were escaping (walking away) from the institution every week. Although most of them were soon returned, as a result of manhunts, tips by citizens, etc., the consterna- tion caused the lOcal public, the bad publicity resulting, and the morale effect on the rest of the prison group seemed to make it a serious problem.1 Obviously, no prison authority would place a man outside the walls if he could foresee that he would escape; but this 1 509 Appendix A. . uWanted" posters illustrative of the type used in Michigan. 7 often happens, in spite of the best intentions, due to the inherrent difficulties of predicting human conduct. Any knowledge, therefore, that would assist the authorities in making wise trusty selections would improve their work and would render such correctional treatment more useful to the prison and more acceptable to the community. The misconception of the public in regard to prisons and prison policies can be a great detriment to proper prison administration. The misunderstanding of such terms as pardon, parole, and probation are legend. There are also misunderstandings regarding trusty placement. It is apparent that the views held by the public, the press and the professional politicians can have an important effect upon the operation of any prison system. Greater public understanding of prison operations would undoubtedly give rise to a demand for more adequate prisons and for rehabil- itation concepts. It will be admitted by many prison authorities that in many instances in the present day, and in most instances in the past, trusty selection has been haphazard and based on inadequate data. After reviewing thousands of cases for custody reduction Ikor the past several years, the prison authorities became aveare of a set of factors which were serving as handrails 1r! grOping through these problems of trusty selection. It was thought, therefore, that if these factors and others 8 obtained from other prisons were listed and analyzed as to their value, they might serve as a guide for future action in custody policies. The State Prison of Southern Michigan is responsible for roughly 6,500 inmates, of which approxi- mately 1,800 are quartered in medium or minimum custody. Over 1,100 of these men are quartered in barracks and over 600 in outside cell blocks.1 Housing is one of the most pressing problems of prisons today. Post-riot conditions and overcrowding demand that the process of custody reduction be streamlined. Almost every day the newspapers tell of some community turning itself into an armed camp through fear of escaped prisoners. The urgency of the moment demands that every possible im- provement in selection be made. Finally, most prison authorities admit that of all the methods by which a prison regime may hope to inculcate self-respect and self-responsibility, and in other ways prepare prisoners for a normal life in society, the open institution appears to be proving itself to be the most effective. If this study contributes to a more valid and reliable method of selecting trusties from prison populations it will furnish to the institution an additional element for consid- eration not found in the literature. Once the scale of criteria is established its utility VVill not be limited solely to selecting prisoners for OP (_outside placement). It might be adapted for placing V 'lThese are 1955 figures. See Table I for figures,l945—53 TABLE I POPULATION FIGURES FOR THE STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN* ‘ Average Population Trusty ngision Year Total Institution Trusty Division % Escapes iEsca. 1945 5.208 920(est.)1 17.6(est) 5o 3.2(est) 1946 5,225 950(est) 18.l(est) 2O 2.1(est) 1947 5.671 1,201 21.1 15 1.2 1948 5,905 1,083 18.4 13 1.2 1949 5,646 1,075 19.1 22 2.0 1950 5,877 1,200 20.4 24 2.0 1951 6,164 1,522 21.3 43 3.2 1952 6,481 1,566 23.2 59 4.4 19532 5,880 1,576 26.8 73 4.6 eTable I shows the number and percentages of prisoners in the Michigan. escapees from the trusty division. ed to show the increase in escape rate. trusty division of the State Prison of Southern It also shows the number and percentages of This table was present— For example, from 1950 to 1953 the trusty population rose thirty-one per cent while the escape rate during the same period rose 204 per cent. 1Data not available. 2Figures for all of 1953 are shown above; present study includes the first six months, only. lO prisoners in various degrees of custody and supervision outside the walls. Furthermore, such a device might give prison authorities clues as to which phase of a prisoner's life needs the most attention. Limitations and Scope of the Study Statistical prediction has one serious limitation which might be termed a defect of its virtue. It predicts for a group of cases rather than for each individual, con- sequently it is concerned with the way in which a given factor Operates in the majority of cases, disregarding individual variations. It is, therefore, important to make an intensive study of each individual to determine his particular attitudes and motivations, for in the present state of its development, statistical prediction deals with the external rather than the subjective aspects of behavior. Since two years was set as the minimum time for a prisoner to be outside the walls in order to be termed successful, it is recognized that many men in the trusty group were eliminated from this study, since there are a large number of prisoners who are placed outside the walls, complete their prison sentence, and are paroled prior to two years. This, of course, would mean that many "good trusties" would be missed. However, the group that is termed successful in this study is considered as successful 11 as any group; they remained in custody during the same period of time as the group termed unsuccessful (the men who escaped). The purpose of the analysis is not to evaluate the performance of the Michigan Correction System in terms of outside placement success or failure. Rather, it is to derive criteria for the guidance of the authorities in future custody reductions. Although the line between success and failure is not absolute, it is regarded, for purposes of the present study, as the most satisfactory way of comparing men who were the best trusties and those who were not. Thetremendous numbers handled in this immense institution make it difficult to examine the total populations throughout the entire history of the institution, therefore, an eight and one-half year period was studied. For example, during this sight and one-half year period 24,000 Egg admissions or readmissions came through the gates of the prison. The average admissions from all causes including parole violation returns, returns from escape, returns from court orders, and transfers from other institutions approximate 350 a month, or more than 4,000 a year; and the number of men in trusty status and processed for trusty status during any one year will reach as high as 5,000. Another limitation of the study is the fact that prison records were used to obtain the data on the factors studied. These records are compiled by individuals with l2 varying degrees of proficiency and may, in some cases, be incomplete or inaccurate. Other limitations are imposed by the sample used and will be further pointed out in Chapterwvulof’this investi- gation. This study is limited to the trusty population of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Jackson, Michigan. This is a specific group of prisoners in a specific prison in a specific state. The findings may or may not apply to trusty groups in general. The number of variables used in the study are certainly not the only variables that could or should be explored. The variables were gathered from data sent by mail from fifty-two per cent of the adult male prisons in the United States and from data available in the Michigan prison system. Definition of Terms The terms defined in this section are used in this study or are mentioned in this study as terms about which there is wide spread public misunderstanding. Prison "language" is a jargon almost unto itself. Prison language terms used in connection with this study are defined by the author after consultation with prison personnel. These definitions will be starred. The other terms are para- phrased by the author from the EncyOIOpedia of Criminology (6). 13 Borstals — An open type institution for youthful offenders in England. Commutation - A reduction of the penalty granted by governors or the President by means of an executive order. *Custpgy Reduction - The changing of the custody clas- sification of a prisoner from maximum to medium, or from medium to minimum. *Escapee - A prisoner who leaves the confines of the penal institution without authority. *"Free World" - A common term used by prisoners, meaning society at large. Iggeterminate Sentence - The sentencing of a prisoner for an indefinite period with a specified maximum. They are released when the releasing authorities reach the conclusion that it is safe to set them at liberty. They must, however, be released on the expiration of the maxi- mum sentence. Maximum Custody (Security) - Generally means a walled institution with the inmates occupying inside cells at all times surrounded by a high wall manned by armed guards. Medium Custody (Security) - Generally means an institu- tion with no walls but perhaps a fence, outside cells for night lock-up, and some supervision of working assignments. Minimum Custody (Security) - Generally means an open institution like a camp with no fence, wall or armed guards and very little direct supervisiOn of working assignments. 14 Outside Placement - Medium or minimum custody. Pardon - An executive act associated with clemency but presuming guilt. It effects release of the prisoner where it is felt that the penalty is too severe or there is some doubt of guilt, i.e. extenuating circumstances. Parole - Granted after the offender has served a portion Of his sentence. The sentence is continued, but is served outside the walls in the prisoner's community. *Pass (Parole Board) - ActiOn taken by a parole board in continuing a prisoner beyond his present possible re- lease date; can be done until maximum sentence is reached. Probation - A court action whereby the offender is placed under supervision before serving time in prison, and may never go to prison as long as the rules laid down by the court are observed. A procedure usually used for first offenders and juveniles. anrantine - The cell block in which a newly arrived prisoner is placed for a period of from twenty to sixty days. Here routine physical and psychological examinations take place. Prisoners are classified as to job and are oriented to prison life. They have no contact with the general prison body. Trusty - A prisoner in medium or minimum custody. *Trustyland - Medium or minimum custody where there are no armed guards and very few fences, if any. Further definition of terms will be found in Chapter III, where the Operational definitions of the 15 variables used in comparing the two groups in the study are included. Organization Of the Study This chapter has presented a brief background and statement of the problem, the need for the study, the limitations and scope, and a definition Of terms. In Chapter II the review of the literature pertinent to this study is presented. This consists of reporting studies on escape from trusty units of penal institutions, boy and girl runaways, and selected studies regarding trusty installations. Chapter III consists of a discussion of the metho- dology and procedures employed in this research. In this chapter the processes of gathering the information, establishing the sample, and tabulating and analyzing the data have been reviewed and discussed. Chapters IV, V, VI,and VII are the "findings" chapters. A chapter is devoted to the discussion of the findings of each of the four groups into which the varia- bles were divided. In ChapterVIIIthe findings of the study are discussed in light of the selection procedures already in use at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. There is, in addition, a discussion of the prison itself and the trusty division. Chapter Ix includes a summary of the main findings of the study with accompanying conclusions and suggestions for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In general, the previous studies Of escapes from prison trusty placements have been few. This chapter will review the literature on runaway boys and girls, prison escapes, and open institutions. Runaway Boys and Girls Many studies of escapes and runaways by children are in the literature, and can be used as hypotheses, or sug— gestions of hypotheses regarding the dynamics which might be similar to adult men escaping or running away from prison. However, they cannot be classified as prison escape studies. Four representative studies are reviewed. One of the earliest studies of escapes that this writer was able to locate were those of C. R. Keough (21)., The study indicated that instability on the part of the boy and varying personalities of cottage parents influenced the number of escapes. In a Master's Thesis by A. Belkin (5) the author studied eleven boys who had repeatedly run away from home. She found that these boys had all felt rejected at home, hated their fathers, and were neurotic. She found that the running away ‘ ‘I 1 I l‘_' _ I 17 was compulsive in nature, and that the boys could not accept frustration. Prognosis was poor. Lawson Lowery (22) in a study of runaway boys and girls made by the New York Traveler's Aid Society found that running away is not necessarily a complex psychopathological phenomenon, but represents in the great majority of cases a simple and primitive reaction to an uncomfortable situation, the details of which are not necessarily understood by the individual or those in the environment. Hardships undergone during the runa— ways seem to give positive pleasure such that a self-punishment motive seemed to underly the activity. In an early study by Armstrong (3) concerning runaway boys, she found that runaway children most often are motivated by the desire to escape and not by wanderlust or desire to see the world, nor self-assertion nor spirited independence. She found that they escape for fear of punishment or emotional conflict with authority. In boys who run away from institutions post-escape institutional adjustment was usually poor. Armstrong feels that running away is a psychoneurotic response to stimuli. Prison Escapes ' In a study by Pigeon (28) it was stated that prisoners will escape and are poor outside placement risks if they have long sentences or anticipate a long sentence, if they have a long criminal record, have a bitter attitude, are psychopaths, 18 have warrants filed against them, have been denied parole, worry about their families, are concerned about the fidelity of wives and sweethearts, are young, have no family ties, are afraid of assault, and are the "hoodlum" type who have received newspaper notoriety. In 1942, William H. Johnson (20), Senior Sociologist at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, gathered data on 46 escapees and compared them with 46 non-escapees and 200 general inmates on several factors, by percentages. Johnson considered the following factors important in considering inmates for outside the wall placement: Stability, history of nomadism, and wife in state. The prisoner with two or more offenses is the best risk, and the assaulting offender is the poorest risk. He also found escapees to be younger in age. Factors of no importance seemed to be length of residence in state and parental family in the state. This study seemed to have promise in the selection of factors studied, but chance dif- ferences were not ruled out, and the samples were small. Probably the best study of escapes from outside placement to date is one by Nelson Cochran(8). Cochran studied sixty escapees from the Norfolk Prison Colony in Massachusetts. The factors studied by Cochran and his conclusions are practical in nature. With regard to time of escape, Cochran concluded that the preferred time is in the evening before nine. Most escapes occur in September and the fewest occur in March. Fewer than one-tenth of the men escaped while they had less 19 than six months prior to their parole hearing, and less than one-third escaped while they had less than a year to go before meeting the parole board. Those who escaped had served less than forty per cent of their time. The type of offense for which a man was sentenced was not considered to be an im- portant factor. The escape group shows a larger per cent of habitual offenders and fewer first offenders which, incidentally, was opposite to the findings in Johnson's study (20). Two- thirds of the escape group were under thirty-one years of age and more than three-quarters were under thirty-six years of age. The escape group showed less geographic stability, as well as greater occupational instability. The strength and nature of family ties was viewed but not studied due to the complexity of classifying family ties. An important observation was that no inmate escaped who was on congenial terms with his wife. Cochran concluded that the ideal outside placement candi- date was one who "has less than six months to his next parole hearing, less than three years to his maximum, has served ap- proximately half his entire term, is a first offender, is over thirty-five years old, is geographically stable, has been a steady worker outside, and is happily married." Cochran’s favorable factors were: (1) congenial family ties; (2) served half his entire term; (3) less than one year to parole hearing; (4) less than three years to the maximum; (5) occasional first offender; (6) over thirty-five years of age; (7) fair geographical 2O stability; (8) employment record fair; (9) no detainers on file; (10) generally COOperative attitude; (11) mild non- aggressive personality. The unfavorable factors were: (1) weak or non—existent home ties; (2) served less than forty per cent of his term; (3) more than eighteen months to parole hearing; (4) more than four years to maximum; (5) habitual offender; (6) under thirty years of age; (7) frequently transient; (8) poor employment record; (9) de- tainers on file; (10) unc00perative attitude; (ll) overbearing aggressive personality; (l2) mental instability; (l3) inferior intelligence. Although Cochran's study appears to be the best in the literature, it remains statistically weak primar- ily because of the small sample. Some of the data are negated as far as drawing conclusions is concerned because there was no control with which to compare factors in the escape group. An article by McKendrick (23) which appears to be based primarily on experience, states that it is incumbent upon good prison management to make sure that all available facil- ities be used in selecting prisoners for outside work assign- ments, and that the following information should be studied. First, there should be information gained about the prisoner himself; his emotional stability, the length of his sentence, his type of crime, his previous escape record, and his prison history. Secondly, there should be information obtained about the prisoner's relationship to others such as his family, his free world employment, his community adjustment, his prison 21 account, and his friends and enemies. Thirdly, the work situation that he will be going into should be evaluated for its productive value and its treatment value, and the health of the inmate and his attitude regarding this work should be evaluated. In addition, the supervisor's attitude in the work is most important. This study appears to be empirical in nature, but contains a good many factors used in the present study in selecting prisoners for outside placement. In a study by Levy, et a1, (29:276) it was found that in using the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory there was a decidedly different personality profile between escapee and non-escapee. It showed definitely that the paranoid scale, the schiz0phrenic scale, and the hypomanic scale are higher among the escapees, which might tend to indicate that some of the escapee are based on the projective mechanisms, and that some goal of the escapee may be to get even with society. On *the other hand, on the basis of the high Ma scale, it could also show that the escapee tends to be more restless and hyperactive and thus is unable to settle down in any environ- ment and that in turn might be a basic cause of escape. This study does not differentiate between escapes from the trusty division and "over the wall" escapes. Open Institutions There is considerable literature on the subject of the advantages of open institutions over traditional prisons for a great number of prisoners today. 22 Scudder (30:273-274) says in the last chapter of his book: America cannot solve her crime problem by locking up a few men in prison. The FBI reports for 1939 showed that in 78 cities with a population of 13 million there were 27 arrests for each hundred major offenses known to the police. Out of the 27 arrested, 19 were held for prosecution and only 14 convicted . . .This means that there are at least 73 known offenses that are never ap— prehended. It is known to be higher in individual large metrOpolitan cities such as Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Austin McCormick, professor of Criminology at the University of Southern California, former president of the Osborn Association, and leader in penal reform in the United States, said at the American Prison Congress in Long Beach, California, in 1947 (302273): The hard fact is so small a percentage of the total , number of offenders are caught and convicted in America today that legal punishment cannot be considered a major factor in the control of crime. Society derives no benefit from punishing a man . . . Punishment can hardly be classed as rehabilitative. The only possible justification of punishment is as a deter- rent. Even in an open institution, incarceration is punishment (30:27). There can be no regeneration except in freedom. Re- habilitation must come from within the individual and not through coercion (30:50). This is the concept on which Chino is based. It has proven to be one of the best experiments in open penal insti- tutions. It began by accepting six per cent of the men coming to the prison system in California. In 1952, it was accepting twenty-two per cent. The institution at Chino, California, when started set as its criteria the following (30:44): 23 These first men should be of average intelligence, in good physical condition, able to do hard work with ' no previous escape history or reformatory experience. Above all they must also have a good record in prison. In this experiment each man was selected by personal interviews and all types of offenses were represented by the final thirty-four men that were picked for this experiment. However, the offense was not the deciding factor in each man's selection but rather his willingness to accept responsi- bility for his own adjustment. Each man has to make his own decision whether to escape or not to escape. Obviously, the adjustment was more likely to occur in an atmosphere of freedom than in a large penitentiary with locks and guns. Scudder found that the prison officials who recommended men to be trans- ferred to Chino in this initial experiment felt that unless the release date was near the men would escape. They, therefore, recommended men within three or four months of their release on parole; but Scudder felt that it was his responsibility whether they escaped or not, and that it was better to get the men before they had had extended association with hardened offenders, and accordingly he decided that no man should be selected who had less than six months to serve before his re- lease. In the first four years, Chino lost through escapes 4.16 per cent of a population of 600, with what Scudder admits to be "a crude method of selection" (30:195). The study also disclosed the fact that half of those who escaped went within the first thirty days following their arrival. As time went on, empirically better methods were stumbled upon. Of the 24 59,000 men who had been transferred to Chino during the ten years since it Opened, only 290 escaped and all but ten of “traces were apprehended. The American Correction Association's publication, A Manual 93 Correctional Standaggg (1), indicates a selection (>1? inmates for reduction of custody should be the problem of a: Egroup rather than a single person. This system has the satiwrantage of dividing responsibility for decisions. Histor- ically, the Deputy Warden and in many cases the Warden, himself, <3t1<>oses the trusties personally after interviewing each man c:c>risidered. Those were the days of smaller trusty units when most of the trusties returned inside the walls each night. This is still the case in many of our southern prisons. Present day classification facilities offer a much greater device for Screening and selection due to refined and more objective u101:.hods of studying human beings. In 1952, California had eighteen prison camps with over a. thousand men each year working in comparative freedom and reI’iflering outstanding assistance both to the state and the Urlisted States lbrestry Services. For the taxpayer this is a aIDlendid investment as these men earn their own way instead ‘3f"being supported at public expense in a state institution, arui they are not in competition with labor (30). The Michigan camp system under the direction of Seymour Gilman has expanded its camp program in the last ten years to a point where there are now ten Camps in the Upper and Lower Peninsulas of 25 haichigan, housing over 1,000 men; they do useful and con- structive work for the Department of Corrections and the (3c3nservation Department of the State. They are being housed :111. low cost housing, and they are reducing the frightful iJifileness inside the walls of the world's largest prison at Jackson, Michigan (2). Ohio, likewise, is proud of its ";pzrison without walls". In the last five years, 935 men kisaxre gone out and only 23 have walked away. No criminals with sex offenses are allowed to go out (2). In Wisconsin at the Wisconsin State Prison, twenty-five I>€31~ cent of the population is outside the walls. These men 611’s: chosen for their industry, their conduct, and their atti- 1Guile, and return to the penitentiary is their only punishment for walking away (2). Yet, in 1951 Testers (32) found, on Sending out questionaires, that. one prison admitted to still 8having the heads of escapees upon recapture! In 1925, the governor of New York State, Alfred E. Smith (31:105), said: I believe that the cell block system as used in our prisons should be abolished. .A man locked up in one of these cages overnight cannot feel that the state is treating him as a human being. The ideal prison, in my opinion, should be built on a cottage plan. I do not believe that it is necessary to cage men up as in earlier times. It is not so easy to escape in these days of automobiles and motorcycles, but it would be a good deal better for one or two to get away than for thousands to be so closely confined. It would seem better that one out of one hundred men escape, which is greater than the present average, than to submit the other ninety-nine to a system of de- basement in the operation of a bestial regime. It would be better that one man obtain his freedom illegally and continue in crime until recaptured, than that the 26 ninety-nine who might be greatly influenced toward a respectable life and obedience to the law by a system which appeals to their highest qualities of manhood, be ground down to despair by a method which debases them and sends them out into the world with a grudge against the state maintaining such a system. Scudder (30:276-277) says: The old-timer predicted . . . that the plan upon which Chino is based would fail. They said the public wouldn't stand for the decent treatment of prisoners. The greatest fear has always been that of escapes. The general public still believes that all men in prison are desperate and dangerous . . . The public must be protected they say. In spite of the fact that not more than one- fourth of these men would escape if given the Opportunity we develop our prison systems around the false fear that all will escape, and everything in the average prison re- volves around this idea. . . All states if they desire can segregate the hardened offender and give the more hopeful cases intensive training and treatment so that they will leave better equipped and adjusted than when they entered prison and less likely to resort to crime. And for this more hepeful group--thirty to fifty per cent of any prison population--we do not need maximum custody with its frowning walls and bristling guns . . . There can be little doubt that a prison experience is too often apt to bring out the worst in a man and leave its perma- nent scar upon his personality. CHAPTSR III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE Introduction In this study an attempt is made to determine the reselationship between selected items gathered on the prison- eaxrs and their success or failure as trusties. In the past twenty-five years social scientists have HIELdfi significant progress in their efforts to find out which £>Irisoners on parole succeed or fail, and under what condi- t;1.ons the success or failure occurs. Out of their research has grown a conviction that notwithstanding the difficulties involved, it is possible to predict to some extent how prison- €3r~a will behave on parole. One state, Illinois, has made use 3 lines 1933 of techniques developed by such research. It was the reading of this book by Ohlin (26) which led the author 13‘3 believe that some similar method could be applied to the Prediction of trusty success or failure. The Sample Methgd:9f Selection. The population that was selected fWDr'this study consisted of a group of prisoners at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, Jackson, Michigan, who 1'léirl been selected from inside the walls of the prison and Placed in the trusty installations in the prison jurisdiction. These installations include the several farms, relatively near 28 t;he main prison, the outside cell blocks directly outside the auain prison walls, and the several camps, ranging from within as few miles of the main prison to several hundred miles.1 The study includes 486 male prisoners living outside the walls for at least some period of time between January 1, 1945, sarutl June 30, 1953. This time period was selected for two ireasasons: (a) All prisoners now living outside the walls were saearit out since January 1, 1945; and (b) this period of time c:c>\rers three prison administrations, i. e., three different ‘VEIIFdenB. It is felt that this gives the study wider applica- bility, since many penologists state that escapism can be re- 1.£11:ed to specific prison administrations. One-half of this group, or 243 men, were inmates who as <>1? June 30, 1955, had been outside the walls for a period of two years or more, but'had not been in the trusty division I31‘1.or to January 1, 1945. This group was termed "successful" The other 243 men are men who escaped from their trusty Placement during the period from January 1, 1945', to June 30, 1953. This group was termed "unsuccessful". The total number of escapees during the period was slightly more (about 30) than 243, but due to the unavailability of I‘ecords as a result of transfer to other institutions, poor l33.13:er keeping, and other conditions beyond control, the final figure of 243 was reached. \ 1See Chapter VIII, this study for a more detailed treat- ment of the Michigan trusty division. 29 In the "successful" group there were actually 252 cases. Since this represented only nine more cases than the "unsuccess- ful" group, an impartial person was asked to select at random riiJne cases from the "successful " group, thereby making equal "1fl” " for the two groups in order to make them easier to analyze and compare. Over 97 per cent of all escapes occurred during the first tavvc> years of a prisoner's trusty placement at the State Prison C>1? Southern Michigan. It was felt~safe to state, on the tDElEBlS of this percentage, that a man is a "successful" trusty 3-1? he has been outside for two years or more. With the exception of the nine cases, eliminated by ran— iiIDUn selection in order to make it easy to handle, this repre- sents the entire number of available individuals for the IDe’r'iod studied. Generalization to other prisons in the coun- t-I'y will have to be made on the basis of similarity in Eifiluhinistration, trusty selection and geOgraphy to State Prison of Southern Michigan.l Methogs of_Analysig. Each individual prisoner's file Containing case history, prison and criminal record, and other 1tems of information pertinent to the individual was examined. 1Detailed description of how the prisoners in this study were selected for outside placement are in Chapter VIII of this investigation. Due to length, however, they were not included here. Normally they would have been included in the Appendix, but since the information. served an additional purpose it was included as part of Chapter VIII. \ 30 The data were recorded on individual printed schedules.l Due to the large number of factors involved, machine tabulation Every item was coded and recorded on IBM cards,2 The codes was used. the information for each prisoner filling one card. used were those used by the records and research section of the Michigan Department of Correction in c00peration with the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons. Finally, the cards were sorted and counted by IBM machines VEIIICi frequency tables as well as other appropriate tables were constructed for purposes of summarizing the data accumulated. After consultation with faculty members of the Department or Mathematics and Statistics, Michigan State University, it Was decided that the tabulated data should be treated by ap- All of the data meet the pllcation of the chi-square method. necessary assumptions for the .use of this method. Other methods were c‘onsidered for use with some of the data, but it seemed advisable to use a uniform statistical method throughout study since this would facilitate the interpretation of the The chi-square method enables the investigator the findings. to establish the significance of the relationships among the factors studied and success or failure as a trusty. lees Appendix a. 2See Appendix C. 31 The Data In order to predict trusty success or failure, reliable information is needed. Information is needed which will help to distinguish between prisoners most likely to succeed as a trusty and prisoners most likely to fail. It is hypothesized in this study that certain information about trusty prisoners 'will point in the direction of a successful outcome, and other information will point toward an unsuccessful outcome. The taste which reflect most distinctly the actual influences at 1work in a trusty situation will also provide the sharpest .separation between the two outcome groups. The difficulty is, tiowever, that it is arduous to know exactly what the in- :fluences or causes of escapism are. The interaction of the cnany controlled factors Operates to produce a particular event. It was felt, therefore, that the search for good predictive :factors would best be accomplished by making use of the ob- servations and insights gained by prison authorities charged VVith the responsibility of selecting prisoners as trusties. TPhus, a letter1 was written to all the major adult male state sand federal prisons (reformatories not included) in the [Jnited States. The response to these 65 letters was 52 per (cent or 34 answers. The letter asked the prison wardens for ‘the objective and subjective factors used in selecting prisoners 1See Appendix D. 32 for outside placement in their reapective institutions. All of the criteria mentioned by these institutions were listed and used as the factors to be studied in the inves- tigation. Some factors listed had to be eliminated due to the impossibility of subjecting them to statistical analysis. Factors such as COOperativeness, personality, character, attitude, and industry were cited frequently and, although they could not be measured specifically, some of these charac- teristics are included in such factors as job stability both in and out of prison, religious attendance, and prison conduct. Three other factors listed in the letters from the wardens could not be investigated with the sample used in this study because Michigan trusties were not selected by these means. This fact made it impossible to test these factors with this group. The three items were: a. Recommen- dation of the sheriff in the jurisdiction where prisoner was sentenced; b. attidude; every prisoner in this study, with one exception, was listed by his counselor as having accepted his crime and/or his imprisonment; and 0. recommendation of out- standing citizens in the state. Therefore, of the 51 factors submitted, the 48 used are listed and operationally defined below. For ease in studying these 48 factors or variables, they were classified into four major categories. These categories comprise the material for the next four chapters of this study. They are: A, Personal Factors in Relation to Trusty Placement Outcome. 33 B. Section 1., Family Relationships in Relation to Trusty Placement Outcome. Section 2., Economic Circumstances Bearing on Family Relationships. C. Criminal Record in Relation to Trusty Placement Outcome. D. Prison Record in Relation to Trusty Placement Outcome. The performance of all prisoners in this study with re- sspect to each of these major categories will be examined. The successful trusties were matched individually with ‘the escapees on the basis of: a. Personal Factors. 1. Year of Birth: The year of birth was used ‘to make age constant throughout. 2. Age at First Offense: From age 10 to age 50 or over. 3. Average Grade Rating: Grade on the Stanford ltchievement Tests from illiterate through twelfth grade; an Etchievement test showing grade placement in school subject Unatter. 4. Race: White race, Negro race or Other. 5. Addiction: Abstinent alcoholic, temperate alcoholic, intemperate alcoholic or drug user. 6. Residence Environment: As related to pOp- ulation, from rural to communities of over 250,000 population. 7. Time in Michigan: From no residence in 34 Michigan to life time in Michigan. 8. Intelligence Quotient: Intelligence quo- tients on the Army Alpha, Army Beta, or Wechsler-Bellevue tests; intelligence quotients from below 60 to over 120. 9. Military Service: In the service or not, and if so, whether honorably discharged or discharged under conditions other than honorable. 10. Social Status: The classes used were upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle and lower. 11. Birth Place: Born in Michigan or born in another state or country. 12. Education: From no education through four years of college. 13. Psychiatric History: History of psychiatric treatment or no history of psychiatric treatment of any nature. 14. Homosexuality: History of homosexuality, no history of homosexuality. History was defined here as meaning any consistent record of homosexual behavior. 15. Religion: No professed religion, Hebrew, Protestant, Catholic or Other. 16. Physical Condition: Normal or partially disabled; taken from prison medical record. 17. Physical Diseases: None, history of syph- ilis, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, or epilepsy.1 1Only these diseases were used as they are the only ones classified by the Michigan Department of Corrections, Form #14, from which some Of the data for this study was obtained. This form appears in Appendix B. 35 All of the above factors were determined upon admis- sion to the prison. b. Family Relationships 1. Family Ties: Close, average, loose, or un- .known. These judgments were made by a three man panel after :reading the case histories. 2. Visits: Regular, receiving one or two visits gper month; occasional, receiving at least one visit every three months; and none. 3. Marital Status: Single, married, widowed, tiivorced, separated, or common-law. 4. Marital History: Classified as to the com- ;patibility of the marriage, or whether married or single. 5. Mail: Received regularly; five or more let- ters a month from relatives; occasionally two letters a Inonth, not more than one every three months; and none. 6. Parental Home Broken: No broken home, or knows broken before ages 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, or after 16. 7. Family Crime: Crime in the family, other ‘than the inmate, classified as none, father, brother, or (others. Crime is defined as a legal conviction of a crimi- nal act or acts. 8. Locale of Family: All Michigan, some in Michigan, none in Michigan, or unknown. 9. Number of Children: None, one or two under 16 years of age, three to five under 16, six or over under 16, or children 16 or over, or a combination of the above. 36 10. Occupational Stability: Stable means work- ing steadily all of his working life at one or only a few jobs; fairly stable defined as holding a job for no length of time but showing fairly continuous employment; and un- stable defined as a man who could not hold a Job for more than a few months at a time, and who is generally discharged or quits because of his indifferent attitude toward work in general. 11. Occupation: Unskilled labor, farm hand, skilled trade, own business, profession, clerical, or other. 0. Criminal Record. 1. Crime: The official charge for which the of- fender is committed. If the offender has been committed on more than one offense, the offense which is regarded as the most serious is recorded. This is defined as the crime which carries the longest term as a maximum. If two offenses carry the same statutory maximum, the one that appears to be of the most advanced type of criminal behavior has been selected. 2. Maximum Term: Less than two years to life sen- tences. 3. Minimum Term: Less than one year to life sen- tences. 4. Method of Conviction: Whether the inmate was convicted by a plea of guilty, by trial by Judge, or by a Jury trial. 5. Juvenile Commitments: No Juvenile commitments, one juvenile commitment, two or more. 37 6. Paroles: None through more than three. 7. Parole Violations: None through more than two. 8. Prison Commitments: None through more than four. 9. Probation Violations: None through more than one. 10. Probations: None through more than one. 11. Jail Commitments: None through more than four. 12. Number of Accomplices: None through more than two. These are the number of persons associated with the of- fender on the offense for which he is serving time. For where there has been several different charges, the largest number of associates has been indicated. 3. Escapes: Previous escapes from none through more than one. These are defined as escapes from any penal institution or the military service, including desertion but not including AWOL. d. Prison Record. 1. Time between the Date Placed Outside and Earli- est Possible Release Date: Indicates the amount of time a man has left to serve before he can be considered for re- lease. This does not guarantee a release, but indicates that a man had this to look forward to. From one month to men serving life sentences who technically have no release date, although they may be considered for parole after ten years for all life sentences except Murder, 1st Degree. In Michigan it is the present policy, and has been for a number of years, 38 to consider lst degree lifers for commutation of sentence after seventeen years' servitude. 2. Parole Action: From no action through the various other considerations a parole board may give an in- mate. This does not include all the possible action the Michigan Parole Board may give, but includes all actions given to the sample in this investigation. 3. Prison Job Ratings Prior to Outside Placement: These are the classifications received on the jobs held by the prisoners while inside the walls; good, fair, and poor, or directly placed outside from quarantine. Ratings are made by job supervisors. 4. Prison Financial Account:l Amount of money the inmate has in his prison account at the time of outside place- ment from $5.00 or less to over $500.00. 5. Prison Behavior: Listed from no reports to minor and major reports. 6. Entrance Status: First commitments were those coming to prison for new offenses, although not necessarily for the first time. 7. Church Attendance: Regular, meaning at least twice a month; occasional meaning at least four times a year; and no church attendance. It should be noted that most of these 48 items are ob- jective, factual data. Those which required subjective judg- ment were rated by a panel of two psych010gists and one psychi- atric social worker, because experience has shown that a combi- nation of several judgments generally has greater validity. CHAPTER IV PERSONAL FACTORS IN RELATION PO TRUSTY PLACEMENT OUTCOME It would seem that the personal characteristics of the prisoners would contribute appreciably to the body of facts which may be related to trusty success or failure. Informa- tion from the personal life of an individual usually forms the most basic information learned about him. This chapter is the first one of five devoted to an analysis of the factors used in trusty selection. It is directed toward an examination of the prisoners' physical and mental make-up to ascertain which personal characteristics tend to be associated with suc- cess or failure in the process of placing prisoners outside prison walls. The tables to be present d in this chapter and in the next four chapters have all been similarly constructed, and make it possible to present the actual frequency distributions of the prisoners used in this study in each of the forty-eight variables. A brief description of how the tables are made up and interpreted follows. In the first column the facton_being studied is subdi- vided; for example, in Table II year of birth is divided into six sub-groups. The second column in each table presents the 'actual or observed frequencies of the escapees. The_third column presents the "normal" or expected distributions that 40 one would find by chance of the escapees. The fourth and r1fth columns are identical to the second and third columns Qxcept that these data are for the trusty group. The sixth column gives the total number of frequencies found in the sample. The seventh column is the second column minus the third column, or the observed frequencies of the escapees minus the expected frequencies of the escapees. This column‘ is used for two reasons. It is part of the formula for the chi-square, and it presents the discrepancy between the ob- served and expected frequencies. Negative discrepancies are favorable for trusty success and positive discrepancies are unfavorable for trusty success. The eighth column is the seventh column squared and divided by the expected frequency. This column presents the individual contribution to the chi- aQuare. The total of the eighth column doubled is the chi- Bquare. If any one contribution to the chi-square in the 61ghth column is 3.5 or more this indicates that this particular 1t36m in the table is significant beyond the one per cent level °f confidence. In these cases it is then possible to use the negative or positive signs in the seventh column to predict t'I‘Msty success or failure on a particular item. . Tables of total chi-square bearing a triple asterisk 11'ltiicate that this result is significant at or beyond the one per cent level of confidence, or stated another way, that the probability of obtaining a result such as this due to chance 13 less than one out of a hundred. A double asterisk indi- Qates the two per cent level of confidence and a single 41 aSterisk the five per cent level of confidence. It is generally accepted by statisticians such as Garrett (15) that these results are too significant to be wholly acci- dental or ascribable to chance. The remaining tables, without asterisks, present factors that, according to this investigator's methods and sample, cannot be considered as useful in predicting trusty success or failure. In the study of behavior it is very difficult to control which factors are at work in a given situation and to deter- mine their effect in causing a given event. The interaction of many uncontrolled factors cperates to produce a particular event. For this reason chi-square values at the one per cent level only, will be described as significant for use in ef- factively predicting trusty success or failure. The tables which follow and the accompanying discussion Summarize the findings concerning the 17 personal factors which were studied. Year of Birth (age) Table II presents the relationship between the prisoner's 5‘86 and his success or failure as a trusty. This factor is s lgnificant beyond the one per cent level of confidence. The data indicate that prisoners born prior to 1910 made more suc- cessful trusties than prisoners born after 1920. Prisoners in this sample born after 1920 made relatively successful t-1"usties. 42 TABLE II YEAR OF BIRTH 'Year Escapes Trusty Total Escapee (0-E)2 0. E. O. E. 0 — E E 1926-34 1 36 22 8 22 44 14 8.91 1921—25 80 54.5 29 54.5 109 25.5 11.93 1911-20 75 73 71 73 146 2 .05 1901-10 32 47.5 63 47.5 95 -15.5 5.06 1890-00 18 39.5 61 39.5 79 —2l.5 11.70 Totals 243 243 486 40.77 Z1: 81 . 54*** Age at First Offense A review of the State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation records was made and information recorded as to when these prisoners had their first contact with the law, Other than just being picked up for questioning. In Table III t‘ohese data are significant beyond the one per cent level in predicting trusty success or failure, and indicates that those 1l'ivolved in criminal activity between the ages of 13 and 16 made unsuccessful trusty risks. Men who become involved in their first criminal activity between the ages of 25 and 40 uJade significantly better trusty risks than any others. In general, however, those involved in early anti-social behavior were poorer risks than those whose criminal behavior a/ 43 began in adulthood. TABLE III AGE AT FIRST OFFENSE Age Escapes Trusty Total Escapee L0:§13 O. E. O. E. O «- E E . 10-12 14 9 4 9 18 S 2.78 13-16 74 47.5 21 47.5 95 - 26.5 14.78 17-19 66 58 50 58 116 8 1 . 10 26-30 16 26.5 37 26.5 53 -10.5 4.16 31-39 10 18.5 27 18.5 37 - 8.5 5.91 ‘*1-49 3 7.5 12 7.5 15 - 4.5 2.70 50&over 2 6.5 11 6.5 13 - 4.5 3.12 Totals 243 243 486 34.45 I“ 68 , 90mm- Stanford Achievement Test Average Grade Rating Table IV, which is the only table with unequal numbers, E3hows the relationship between the two groups and the average ESIfiade rating received on the Stanford Achievement Test. The tarlequal N's occur here because of the fact that some men in the a‘t-tidy had never received this test since it was not given rou- t“ll'iely until about 1948. Although an attempt was made to test E‘Jnl men, those already outside were not tested and obviously ‘3klose on escape were not tested. The number of cases here is «39. Consequently, the columns in this test differ from the C=01umns in all other tables. 44 TA BLE IV STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT I‘EST AVERAGE GRADE RATING Grade Escapes Trusty Total Escapes Trust' Rating 0. E. O. E. 0 - E LJO-EJZ E E Illit. 10 12.6 14 11.4 24 .. 2.6 .54 .59 2nd. 3 8.9 14 8.1 17 - 5.9 3.91 4.30 3rd. 20 24.7 27 22.3 47 - 4.7 .89 .99 4th. 28 31 31 28 59 - 3 .29 .32 5th. 43 37.9 29 34.1 72 5.1 .69 .76 6th. 53 28.9 22 26.1 55 4.1 .58 .64 7th. 20 22.1 22 19.9 42 - 2.1 .20 .22 8th. 20 17.9 14 16.1 34 2.1 .25 .27 9th. 26 17.9 8 16.1 34 8.1 3.67 4.08 10th. 17 13.2 8 11.8 25 3.8 1.09 1.22 11th. 6 9.5 12 8.5 18 - 3.5 1.29 1.44 12th. 5 6.3 7 5. 12 — 1.3 .27 .30 Totals 231 208 439 13.67 .1 15.13 X 3 28 . 80*** The item is significant as a whole beyond the one per cent 1evel of confidence. Strongest evidence with single cells here shows that men with Grade Rating Scores of the- second grade made more successful trusties than men with ninth grade scores. VGry generally low and high scores made better trusty risks 1“flan middle scores. Race Analysis of Table V reveals that race is a significant f‘actor in differentiating between the two groups. 45 TABLE V RACE Race Es capes Trusty Total Es capes $0-E22 00 E. O. E. O - E E White 207 185 163 185 370 22 2.61 Negro 30 52 . 74 52 104 -22 9 .30 Other 6 6 6 6 12 0 0 Totals 243 243 486 11.91 X‘: 23 .82*** White and Negro prisoners make up the great majority of the Prison population in Michigan. Other races include mostly Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Japanese. Here the evidence is that Negro prisoners made significantly better risks as trus- ties than whites. No prediction could be made for the other Paces on the basis of these data because of the small number involved. Addictions Whether a prisoner has been a user of alcohol or drugs or r181ther is shown in Table VI. 46 TABLE VI ADDICTIONS Escapes Trusty Total 29.92222 $223112 0. E. O. E. O - E E Abstinent Alcoholic 23 33.5 44 33.5 67 ~10.5 3.29 Temperate Alcoholic 63 74 85 74 148 -11 1.63 Intemperate Atlcoholic 156 131.5 107 131.5 265 24.5 4.56 Drugs 1 4 7 4 8 .. 3 2.25 Totals 243 243 486 11.73 Z I':: 23 .461”; Prison administrators frequently mention this item as one Which they use. These data show that this is an item signifi- cant beyond the one per cent level in differentiating between the trusty and the escapee. The former intemperate users of alcohol were not likely to make successful trusty risks. The a~bstainer appeared to be a successful trusty risk; and the eVidence concerning drug users is not considered significant as significance is defined for this study, but indicates at a.bout the three per cent level of confidence that former drug addicts were more successful as trusties than they were unsuc- csssful. 47 Environment The type of environment in terms of the size of the com- munity from which the prisoner comes is presented in Table VII. TABLE VII ENVIRONMENT Population Escapes Trusty Total Escapes {O-E)2 O. E 0. E. E , Ol-nE Rural 31 38.5 46 38.5 77 - 7.5 1.46 Ilhd-SM 17 17 17 17 34 0 O Sid-10H 18 13 8 13 26 5 1 .92 10M— 50M 21 22 23 22 44 - 1 .04 5011-10011 44 30.5 17 30.5 61 13.5 5.97 10011-250“ 24 24.5 25 24.5 49 - . 5 .01 Over 250M 88 97.5 107 97.5 195 - 9.5 .95 TOtals 24} 243 486 10. 32 X 7- : 20.64%“ There is no constant pattern in this table, and the only sig- nificant single cell indicated that prisoners from communities or from 50 to 100 thousand made the least successful risks. The item is significant beyond the one per cent level. Time Lived in Michigan Table VIII shows the length of time the prisoner lived in M1chigan prior to his arrest. This information is gathered I‘Outinsly on all prisoners in Michigan, and is significant be- YOnd the one per cent level in differentiating between success— t‘ul and unsuccessful trusty risks. 48 TABLE VIII TIME LIVED IN MICHIGAN L Intervals Escapes h Trusty Total W M2 o. E. o. s. 0 -- E E 0—6 mos. 18 13 8 13 26 5 1.92 7m.-1yr. 10 9.5 9 9.5 19 .5 .03 2—3 yrs. 17 14 11 14 28 3 .64 4-6 yrs. 19 2o 21 2o 40 - 1 .05 7’10 yrs. 19 1905 20 19e5 39 " 05 .01 Over 11y. 47 67 87 67 134 ~20 5.97 Isife 113 100 87 100 200 13 1.69 Totals 243 243 486 10.31 X?- = 20.62%“ llore than half of this significance comes from the one item Which predicted beyond the one per cent level of confidence, that prisoners who have lived in Michigan for eleven years or more, but not for a life time, have made successful trusties. There is some evidence (at the five per cent level) that non- residents and life time residents made the least successful 1" isks. Intelligence Quotient Scores Table IX which is based on intelligence quotient test Elcores indicates that intelligence is significant in the IDrediction of trusty success or failure at the one per cent Ilevel of confidence. All prisoners on admission to the State Prison of Southern Michigan were given, during the period of time used in this investigation, an Army Alpha 49 Test or an Army Beta Test. Selected men on whom invalid group results were suspected were given individual lechslsr- Bellevue examinations. TABLE IX INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT SCORES A Scores Escapes __pr_s_ty_ Total Escapes (0-11312 00 E. 0. E. 6'- E E Below 60 7 8.5 10 8.5 17 - 1.5 .26 60 — 69, 15 16 17 16 32 - 1 .06 7O - 79 35 49.5 64 49.5 99 ~14.5 4.29 80 - 89 65 60.5 66 60.5 131 4.5 .33 9O - 99 45 40 35 40 80 5 .62 100-109 41 33 25 33 66 8 2.13 110-119 25 18.5 12 18.5 37 6.5 2.28 Over 120 10 12 14 12 24 - 2 .33 Totals ’ 243 243 486 10.30 X1: 20.60*** This table very generally resembles Table IV, the table show- 11155 grade ratings on the Stanford Achievement Grade Rating Test. The lower and higher I. Q. scores tended to be better 1"lake than the middle I. Q. scores. The most significant single 9911 revealed that prisoners with I. Q. scores from 70 to 79 made successful trusties. At the three or four per cent level or confidence I. Q.'s of between 100 and 119 tended to be un- aLlccessful. 50 Military Service In Table X military service is explored. The item is significant beyond the one per cent level with the greatest single contribution to the chi-square from the cell regarding TABLE X MILITARY SERVICE Escapes Trusty Total Escapes (O-Elz O. E. 0. E. 0 —- E E No Military Service 161 180.5 200 180.5 361 - 19.5 2.10 Honorable D i s charge 49 41 33 41 82 8 1 . 56 Diehonorable D 1 a charge 16 10 4 10 20 6 3 . 60 other Types 01‘ Discharge 17 11.5 6 11.5 23 5.5 2.63 To tale 243 243 486 1 9 .89 X ; 19.784445 dlehonorably discharged veterans. These men made less success- ful trusty risks than any other group. There are many men with no service at all. This is due primarily to the fact that many or these men were in prison during the war. The "no service" SI‘Dup tends to be (four per cent level) successful. 51 Social Status Table XI analyzes social status. For purposes of this study the social classifications of upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, and lower were used. No classification of upper was used since the judging panel did not find any prisoners that they could classify as upper in social status according to the accepted meaning of this term in Sociology text books. TABLE XI SOCIAL STATUS Class . Escapes Trusty Total Escape_s (0-E)2 O. E. O. E. O -- E E . Upper Middle 6 8 10 8 l6 ' - 2 .50 Middle 160 147.5 135 147.5 295 12.5 1.06 Lower Middle 49 62 75 52 124 ~13 2.73 Lower 3 6.5 10 6.5 13 3.5 1.88 Unknown 25 19 13 19 38 5 l . 89 TOtais 243 243 486 1 8.06 X .—. 16.12%" The category is significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence. The only individual contribution to the total which is significant (the two per cent level) indicates that the lower middle class prisoners made more successful trusties than any other social status group. 52 Birthplace Table XII tabulates those prisoners who were born in Michigan and those who were not. Those not born in Michigan were born in other states or other countries. TABLE XII BIRTHPLACE Escapes Trusty Total Escapgg (O-E)2 0 E E 0. E0 0 e 0 -E In Mich. 120 106 92 106 212 14 1.84 Out of Mich. 123 137 151 137 274 - 14 1.43 Totals 243 243 486 1. 3.27 X : 6.54** This factor is significant at the two per cent level of confidence and although the two per cent level is not of sufficient confidence to predict in this type of study, it is noteworthy that this sample indicates trusty success for non-natives of Michigan and trusty failure for natives of Michigan. Education The way in which educational level was related to trusty success is seen in Table XIII. Educational level is listed from no education at all through college. 53 College included both college graduates and those with any attendance at college. Although these data are significant only at the five per cent level it is more noteworthy be- cause it is identical to the somewhat similar items of I. Q. and average grade rating (Tables IV and IX, respectively). -TABLE XIII EDUCATION Grade Escapes Trusty Total Escapeg (O-E)2 0e E. O. E. O 'I- E E none 2 3e5 S 3.5 7 "' 105 .64 1 - 2 4 8.5 13 8.5 17 - 4.5 2.53 3 - 4 19 25.5 32 25.5 51 - 6.5 1.65 5 - 6 45 45 45 45 90 0 0 7 - 8 103 94.5 86 94.5 189 8.5 .76 9 - 10 46 40 34 40 80 6 .90 11 - 12 21 20 19 20 40 1 .05 College 3 6 9 6 12 - 3 1.50 Totals 243 243 486 8.0 X1”: 16.06» From these three tables it may be generally concluded that prisoners with the lower and higher levels of education, grade achievement, and I. Q. made.more successful trusties than the middle level groups. Psychiatric History Another item frequently mentioned in the letters re- ceived from the wardens was that of the psychiatric background of the prisoners. This factor seems to be taken into 54 account in most states in selecting or rejecting prisoners for trusty placement. Although few prisoners in the State Prison of Southern Michigan trustyland have banxplaced out if they had a history of psychiatric attention this item is tabulated in Table XIV. TABLE XIV PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY Escapes Trusty Total Escapes go-sz2 0. E. 00 E. O - E E None 231 226 221 226 452 5 .11 History of. 12 17 22 17 34 - 5 1.66 Totals 243 243 486 1.77 xx: 3054 It was not of statistical significance, with the sample used in this study, in predicting trusty success or failure. Homosexuality Prisoners with a history of homosexuality and those without are listed in Table XV. 55 TABLE XV HOMOSEXUALITY Escapes Trusty Total ggcapee 101§12 00 E0 00 E. O - E E None 233 228.5 224 228.5 457 4.5 .08 History of. 10 14.5 19 14.5 29 -4.5 1.40 Totals 243 243 486 1.48 XL: 2.96 This factor was not statistically significant within the defi- nition of this study, and probably has little bearing on trusty success or failure. Religion The several most common religions are listed in Table XVI. TABLE XVI RELIGION Ms. Trust-x Total assess: 1.921312w 0. E. O. E. O - E E None 7 905 12 905 19 "' 205 065 Hebrew 2 5 8 5 10 - 3 1.80 Protestant 74 167.5 161 167.5 335 5.5 .25 Catholic 58 58.5 59 58.5 117 - .5 0 Other 2 2,5 3 2.5 5 - .5 .10 Totals 243 ~ 243 486 2.80 56 The data on this factor were not statistically significant and would indicate that with the sample used in this study religion was not an’effective predictor of trusty success or failure. Physical Condition Table XVII presents frequencies on those trusties and escapees who were disabled and those who were able. As the working assignments in the trusty installations throughout Michigan require primarily hard, outdoor, physical labor, no disabled and very few partially disabled prisoners can be placed in such installations. TABLE XVII PHYSICAL CONDITION Escapes Trusty Total Escapes {0-1312 0. E. 0. E o o - E E Normal 240 238 236 238 476 2 .01 ‘Partially Disabled 3 5 7 5 10 — 2 .80 Totals 243 243 486 .81 X1: 1.62 The data here indicate that the physical condition of the pri— soners in regard to partial disablement or no disablement was not a significant predictor of trusty success or failure. 57 Physical Diseases Data regarding physical diseases gathered by the Michigan Department of Corrections is limited to gonorrhea, syphilis, tuberculosis, and epilepsy. These diseases or the history of them is tabulated in Table XVIII, and from the evidence in this investigation this factor was not an effic- ient predictor of success or failure as a trusty. TABLE XVIII PHYSICAL DISEASES Escapes Trusty Total Escapes (O-E}2 0. E0 00 E. O - E E None 198 189.5 181 189.5 379 8.5 .38 History of . Syphilis 11 10.5 10 10.5 21 .5 .02 Syphilis 7 9.5 12 9.5 19 - 2.5 .69 History of Gonorrhea 23 30.5 38 30.5 61 - 7.5 1.84 History of TB or Epilep.4 3 2 3 6 l .33 Total 243 243 486 3.26 )0: 6.52 Summary Seventeen personal factors were studied in this chapter. These factors weretased on informationboncerning a prisoner that existed on imprisonment and not subsequent to imprison- ment. 0f the seventeen studied, ten were found significant at the one per cent level of confidence, one at the two per cent 58 level, one at the five per cent level, and five were found to be of no statistical significance. 1. Successful trusties were found among prisoners who were born prior to 1910. Prisoners born after that time were considerably less successful. 2. Men who got into criminal activities from age 13 to 16 made less successful trusty risks than men whose criminal activities did not begin until the ages of from 26 to 39. 3. Prisoners with the outer limits (high and low) of education, intelligence quotients, and Stanford Achievement Test Ratings made more successful trusties than those in the middle ranges. 4. Negroes were found to be better risks as trusties when compared to whites and other races. 5. Prisoners who had been intemperate alcoholics were found to be unsuccessful as trusties. 6. Prisoners from communities of from 5,000 to 100,000 made less successful trusties than prisoners from any other sized communities or from rural areas. 7. Those who had lived in Michigan 11 years or more but not a life time, made better risks for trusty placement than those who had lived in Michigan all their lives or than those who had lived in the state for less than 11 years. 8. Dishonorably discharged veterans made less success- ful trusties than prisoners without such discharges or with- out military service. 59 9. The social status from which a prisoner comes was an efficient predictor of trusty success or failure. 10. Those who were born in Michigan were not as success- ful as those who were born in states or countries other than Michigan. 11. Factors concerning a prisoner's mental history, homosexuality, physical condition, history of tuberculosis, epilepsy, syphilis, gonorrhea, or his religion, seemed to have little bearing on whether a prisoner did or did not make a successful trusty. CHAPTER V FAMILY RELATIONSHIP IN RELATION TO TRUST! PLACEMENT OUTCOME The close connection between unsatisfactory environment and instability, particularly in reference to criminal activ- ity, has long been recognized. Criminologists have found that unstable or disrupted family relationships are frequently the direct cause of crime. Studies by Graham (17) and Ohlin (26) have revealed that family ties and the condition of the home play an important role in the criminal's life after release and even during con- finement. The first section of the chapter analyzes the fami- ly relationships of Michigan trusties and escapees in an effort to determine the bearing they have upon success or failure in trusty status. Section II of this chapter dis- cusses the economic circumstances bearing on family relation- ships. Section I Family Ties Table XIX considers the first factor in family relation— ships, that of family ties, and its relationship to trusty success or failure. Judgements were made on the basis of the prisoner's case history as to whether his ties with his family could be considered close, average, loose, or unknown. 61 TABLE XIX FAMILY TIES Escapes Trusty Total Escapee {O-E!2 Co E. O. E. O — E E Close 5 17 29 17 34 - 12 8.47 Average 123 1245 126 1245 249 - 1.5 .02 Loose . 94 84.5 75 84.5 169 9.5 1.07 Unknown 21 17 13 17 34 4 .94 Totals 243 243 486 10.50 X1: 21.00”" The factor was significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence. The greatest contribution to this result was from the single cell indicatnugthat prisoners with close family ties were likely to have been successful as trusties. Visits The way in which visits affected prisoner success as a trusty are shown in Table XX. Prisoners in trusty status at the State Prison of Southern Michigan are allowed two visits a month on Sundays. The rule is relaxed only in the most unusual circumstances. Visits used in this sense indicate visits with family or friends, as visits with legal personnel were not considered as visits. (Visits with legal personnel do not count against the prisoner's two visits per month quota.) 62 TABLE XX VISITS Escapes Trusty Total ggcapee LO-Elz o. E O. E. None ' 9s 94 9o 94 188 4 .17 Occasional 99 83.5 68 83.5 167 15.5 2.88 Regular 46 65.5 85 65.5 131 - 19.5 5.81 Totals 243 243 486 8.86 )(l= 17.72*** Prisoners who received regular visits during their entire imprisonment were much more likely to make successful trusties than those who received only occasional visits or no visits at all. The table is significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence. It is recognized that it may not have been the visits, per so which produced this relationship, but rather such factors as closer home ties, and so forth, of which it could well be symptomatic. Marital Status An important problem to be considered is that of marital status. Its relationship to the adjustment of prisoners in trustyland can be seen in Table XXI. In this table were listed the marital stahuaof the prisOners at the time they were ss- 1eoted for outside placement. 63 TABLE xxx MARITAL STATUS Escapes Trusty Total Escapes (O-Elz O. E. O. E . O-— E E Single 77 77 77 77 154 0 0 Married - 90 80.5 71 80.5 161 9.9 1.22 Widowed 10 16.5 23 16.5 33 - 6.5 2.56 Divorced 56 30.5 25 30.5 61 5.5 .99 Separated 21 23.5 26 23.5 47 - 2.5 .26 Common Law 9 15 21 15 30 - 6 2.40 Totals 243 243 486 7.43 x1: 14.86** The factor is significant at the two per cent level of confi- dence which indicates that more caution should be used in ap- plying this information than in applying the information gained from factors which were at or beyond the one per cent level of confidence. Evidence from the findings on this factor indicated that widowed prisoners and prisoners married by com- mon law made more successful trusties than any of the other marital groups. Unmarried prisoners failed and succeeded in equal number in both the trusty and escapee groups, thereby indicathxgthat this factor alone could not be used as an effec- tive predictor of trusty success or failure. Marital History After studying case histories, judgments were made concern- ing the compatibility of the prisoner's marriage. 64 The marriages were rated as compatible, fairly compatible, or incompatible. A fourth category was used for unmarried men. This factor which is shown in Table XXII did not predict with statistical significance, trusty success or failure. TABLE XXII MARITAL HISTORY Escapse_ Trusty; Total Escapes LQ-Ei2 0. E. 0. E. O- E E Single 77 82.5 88 82.5 165 - 5.5 .37 Compatible 21 20.5 20 20.5 41 .5 .01 Fairly Compatible 47 40.5 34 40.5 81 6.5 1.04 Not Compatible 98 99.5 101 99.5 199 - 1.5 .02 Totals 243 243 486 1.44 X‘; 2.88 Mail Table XXIII is a table of the mail received by prisoners in this study. Prisoners in the State Prison of Southern Michigan are allowed to write ten letters a month and to receive the same number. As with visits, communications concerning legal mat- ters are not included in the limit of ten. 65 TABLE XXIII MAIL Escapes Trusty Total Escapes jO-El2 0e Es 0e Es O - E E None 31 29 27 29 58 2 .13 Occasional 71 65 59 65 130 6 .55 Regular 141 149 157 149 298 - 8 .42 Totals 243 243 486 1.10 X1 = 2.20 Evidence from this investigation indicates that there was no evidence that this item significantly differentiated between successful and unsuccessful trusties. Broken Parental Home Some prison authorities feel that a broken home history is a significant factor in deciding whether or not to put prisoners in trusty installation. Table XXIV shows the re- sults of this factor with the prisoner sample used in this study. BROKEN PARENTAL HOME TABLE XXIV 66 Escapes Trusty Total Esca ee (O-E)2 0. E. 0. E. 0 - E E Not Broken 53 54.5 56 54.5 109 - 1.5 .04 Before Age of 3. 35 33 31 33 66 2 .12 Before Age of 6. 32 50 28 30 60 2 .13 Before Age of 9. 22 17.5 13 17.5 35 4.5 1.15 Before Age of 12. 14 15 16 15 30 - 1 .07 Before Age of 16. 26 28 30 28 56 - 2 .14 After Age of 16. 61 65 69 65 130 — 4 .25 Totals 243 245 486 1.91 Xx: 3.82 From the evidence here this factor did not differentiate between the two groups. Crime in the prisoner family is shown in Table XXV. Family Crime It was intended that familial criminal behavior would be shown by this means although only 46 prisoners of the four hundred eighty-six in the study had families in which there was re- ported criminal activity other than their own. 67 TABLE XXV FAMILY CRIME Escapes Trusty Total Escapes O-E 2 O. E. O. E. ‘ O C" E E None 215 220 225 220 440 - 5 .11 Father 6 6.5 7 6.5 13 .5 .04 Brother 17 13 9 13 26 4 1.23 Others 5 3.5 2 3.5 7 1.5 .64 Totals 243 243 486 2.02 With the sample used in this study there is no evidence that this factor efficiently predicted between the successful trusties and the escapees. Locale of Family The geographic location of immediate members of the Prisoner's family is shown in Table XXVI. If all, or all but. one of the prisoner's family lived in Michigan at the tline-of his consideration for outside placement, tabulation “'38 made as "all Michigan"; if at least one immediate family tnember lived in Michigan, tabulation was made as "some Michigan"; if no family lived in Michigan, tabulation was made as "no Michigan". This information was unavailable on 16 men in the study and they were tabulated as "unknown". 68 TABLE XXVI LOCALE OF FAMILY Escapes Trusty Total Escapes 10:11:12 O. E. O. E. 0 - E E All Mich. 124 121 118 . 121 242 3 .07 Some Mich. 67 76 85 76 152 - 9 1.07 No Mich. 45 38 31 38 75 7 1.29 Unknown 7 8 9 8 16 - 1 .12 Totals 243 243 486 2 . 55 X‘: 5.10 There is no evidence that this information can be used to Predict success or failure in trusty placements. Number of Children Tables XXVII lists the number of children that the Prisoners had when considered for outside placement. More than half of the men in this sample were childless and/or Unmarried. There was no basis to state, from the results of this analysis, that the number of children a prisoner has effectively predicted his potential trusty placement outcome. 69 TABLE XXVII NUMBER OF CHILDREN Escapes Trusty Total Escapes O-E 2 O. E. O. E. O - E E None 141 146 151 146 292 - 5 .17 1 or 2 under 16 yr. 65 59 53 59 118 6 .61 3 to 5 under 16 yr. 30 25.5 21 25.5 51 4.5 .79 6 or over under 16 yr. 2 3 4 3 6 - 1 .33 16 yr. or over, or combination. 5 9.5 14 9.5 19 - 4.5 2.13 Totals 243 243 486 4.03 XL: 8.05 Section II Economic Factors Related to Family Relationships Criminologists and Sociologists, among them Bates (4), Clemmor (7), Glueck (16), Minehan (24) and Testers (32). have emphas 1zsd that fact that economic factors frequently are the 3°19 cause of crime. Although this is also disputed in these same references, the concsnsus seems to reveal evidence that °°°n0mic status bears a direct relationship to total personal Stability and thus to criminal activity. In obtaining the data for the study, the prison officials who responded to the 1fitter sent to them mentioned economic factors very infre- quently. Only two factors were analyzed that could be 7O classified as economic circumstances. Occupational Stability The stability of the prisoner's occupational history prior to incarceration is shown in Table XXVIII. This in- formation was obtained from letters received from prisoners' former employers. TABLE XXVIII OCCUPATIONAL STABILITY J Escapes Trusty Total Escapes {O-El2 O. E. O. E. O - E E Stable 13 33 53 33 66 ~20 12.12 Fairly Stable 7O 82 94 82 164 -12 1.75 Unstable 146 113.5 81 113.5 227 32.5 9.30 Unknown 14 14.5 15 14.5 29 - .5 .02 Tote. 1 s 243 243 486 23 . 19 Xx : 46 . 38*** The factor is significant at the one per cent level of confi- dBrine and indicates that occupationally stable prisoners were more successful as-trusty risks than prisoners who had “1'18 table occupatonal histories . Occupation The type of work in which a person was engaged prior to comriction often gives an indication of economic status. The diatribution in Table XXIX is made on the basis of the 71 occupation that this group reported on arrest, verified in part by letters from former employers. Only two men in this study reported no occupation whatsoever. TABLE XXIX OCCUPATION Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LO-El2 O. E. O. E. O - E E Unskillsd Laborer 186 187.5 189 187.5 375 - 1.5 .01 Farmer or Farm Hand 11 11.5 12 11.5 23 - .5 .02 Skilled ' Trade 32 29.5 27 29.5 59 2.5 .21 Own Business 6 4 2 4 8 2 1 Professional 2 2.5 3 2.5 5 - .5 .10 Clerical 5 7 9 7 l4 — 2 .57 No history 015‘ occup. 1 1 l l 2 O 0 Totals 243 243 486 1.91 X1 - 2.82 This table shows that in this study occupation has no ef- f1Giency in predicting trusty success or failure. Summary Eleven family and economic factors were studied and only t-hl"ee proved to be efficient at the one per cent level as Predictors of trusty success or failure. One item was at the two per cent level of confidence. The remaining seven 72 were not statistically significant for use as defined in this study. 1. The prisoners with close family ties appeared to be better trusty risks than those with average, loose or un- known family ties. 2. Prisoners who received regular visits made more suc- cessful trusties than those who received only occasional visits or no visits. 3. The marital status of a prisoner was an efficient Predictor 'of trusty success or failure at the two per cent level. lidowed prisoners and those married by common law made more successful trusties than separated, divorced, married, or single prisoners. 4. Factors concerning marital history, mail, broken Parental homes, familial crime, family locals, and number 01' Children seemed to have little bearing on trusty success °I‘ fa ilure. 5. Prisoners with stable occupational histories made more successful trusties than prisoners with unstable occu- patlOriel. histories. 6. Occupations did not differentiate between the suc- cessful trusties and the escapees. CHAPTER VI CRIMINAL RECORD IN RELATION TO TRUSTY PLACEMENT OUTCOME Criminal records provide, according to the data analyzed in this study, one of the principal criteria by which outside placement candidates were judged. These data are more accurate than the data in the preceding chap- ters since they were gathered officially; whereas, personal, family and economic factors were obtained from the records, in some cases, but mostly from information from the prisoner himself and from others who knew him. Crime One of the crucial points in this process of identifying and appraising factors affecting trusty outcome lies in de- tsI‘mining which types of criminals are most successful in Outside placement. Table XXX shows the relationship between the type of crime for which the prisoner was sentenced and tmusty success or failure. The classifications in the table are largely self-explanatory. The crime classification in Miohigan is basically similar to that in the majority of shates, and the classification in this table comes from the c=I‘ime classification used in the Department of Corrections 01‘ Michigan.1 ‘ 1See Appendix E. 74 TABLE XXX CRIME Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LO-El2 O. E. O. E. O — E E Hom‘c ids 7 48 89 48 96 -41 35.02 Rape 15 21.5 28 21.5 43 - 6.5 19.65 Robbery 37 31 25 31 62 6 1.16 Assault 10 9.5 9 9.5 19 .5 .26 Burglary 59 39.5 20 39. 79 19.5 9.62 Larceny 36 20.5 5 20.5 41 15.5 11.71 Auto Theft 18 10.5 3 10.5 21 7.5 5.35 Forgery 19 14 9 14 28 5 1.78 Emb. & Fiaud 9 7 5 7 14 2 .57 C. C. W. 2 6 5 4 S 10 l .20 Sex Offenses 12 25.5 55 23.5 47 -11.5 5.62 Other Offenses 15 13 ll 13 26 2 .31 Totals 243 243 486 91.26 X t = 182 . 52*" Table XXX shows data that were significant at the one per cent level and indicates that crime is an efficient pre- dictor in determining trusty success or failure. Table XXX indicates that prisoners serving sentences for homicide, rape and other sex offenses made successful trustees while burglars, larcenists, and auto thieves made unsuccessful trusties. The other crimes listed show relationships to failure but the levels of confidence make the prediction tenuous. 1Carrying Concealed Weapons. 2Not including the crime of Rape. 75 Maximum Term Table XXXI presents a study of the length of the maximum sentence in relation to trusty success or failure. The maximum sentence for any felony in Michigan is set by statute. TABLE XXXI MAXIMUM TERM 2 Escapes Trusty_ Total Escapes LO-E) “a" o. E. o. E. o — E E Two or less 5 3 l 3 6 2 1.33 Three 3 1.5 O 1.5 3 1.5 1.50 Four 24 13.5 3 13.5 27 10.5 8.17 Five 50 36.5 23 36.5 73 13.5 4.99 Six to Ten 35 4O 45 4O 80 - 5 .62 Eleven to Fifteen 88 71.5 55 71.5 143 16.5 3.71 Sixteen to Twenty 12 11.5 11 11.5 23 .5 .02 Over Twenty 15 19 23 —19 38 - .84 Life Term 11 46.5 82 46.5 93 -35.5 27.10 Totals 243 243 486 48.28 ;( = 95.55*** This factor is significant at the one per cent level of confidence. The data show that prisoners serving life sen- tences enjoyed greater success as trusties than those serving a maximum sentence of a specified number of years. This must be interpreted with some caution, since lifers are not usually placed outside until they have served several years inside the walls and have demonstrated their stability. 76 Prisoners serving maximum sentences of four years or five years made the least successful trusties. Minimum Term The results of Table XXXH indicate similar conclusions drawn from Table XXXI Minimum terms in Michigan for any felony are set by the sentencing judge. The minimum repre- sents the prisoner's first chance (less the customary time off for good behavior) for release consideration. TABLE XXXII MINIMUM TERM Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LO-Ele Years 0. e. o. E. o — E E Less than One 10 7 4 7 l4 3 1.29 One 56 41.5 27 41.5 83 14.5 4.82 Two 51 38 25 38 76 13 4.45 Three 37 27 17 27 54 10 3.70 Four 9 8.5 8 8.5 17 1.5 .26 Five 24 24 24 24 48 O 0 Six 3 3 3 3 6 0 0 Seven 20 18.5 17 18.5 37 1 5 .12 Eight to ' Ten 10 13 16 13 26 ~ 3 .69 Eleven to Fifteen 8 8.5 9 8 5 17 - 5 .29 More than Fifteen 2 7.5 13 7.5 15 - 5.5 4.03 Life Term 11 46.5 82 46.5 93 —35.5 27.10 Totals 243 243 486 46.75 77 Prisoners serving minimum sentences of fifteen years or more or life sentences (in Michigan when the crime calls for mandatory life, the minimum and maximum are both listed as life) made better trusty risks than prisoners serving minimum sen- tences of three years or less. There is indication at the one per cent level of confidence that this factor is an efficient predictor of trusty success or failure. Method of Conviction In Michigan an individual charged with a crime may plead guilty to that crime, may request a "bench trial", which is a trial with the judge sitting as the judge and jury, or he may request a jury trial. Table XXXIII compares the method of conviction of the trusty group and the escapee group. This item is significant at the one per cent level of confidence. TABLE XXXIII METHOD OF CONVICTION Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LO-El2 O. E. O. E. O-E E Plea 191 158 125 158 316 33 6.89 Judge 18 26 34 26 52 - 8 2.48 Jury 34 59 84 59 118 - 25 10.59 Totals 243 243 - 486 1 19.96 x = 39.92%Ht 78 The evidence shows that men who pleaded guilty to their crimes made unsuccessful trusty risks and men who received jury trials made successful trusties. Those who were con- victed by a judge tended to make successful trusties but this is not as efficient a predictor as the two other items in Table XXXIII. Juvenile Commitments Table XXXIV tabulates the vocational school type sen- tence, the juvenile misdemeanor convictions, and the juvenile felon conviction of this sample. Only actual convictions were recorded. Cases brought to court but not prosecuted were not tabulated. These criminal acts were committed before the age of sixteen in most cases. However, because of the incom— pleteness of fingerprint systems and court records, these figures cannot be presumed wholly accurate in every particular. TABLE XXXIV JUVENILE COMMITMENTS — Escapes Trusty_ Total Escapes {O-EQZ' 0. E. O. E. O—E E None 163 189. 5 216 189. 5 379 (~j26 .5 3 .70 One 57 4O 23 40 80 17 7.22 Two 14 9 4 9 18 5 2.77 More than two 9 4.5 0 4.5 9 4.5 4.50 Totals 243 243 486 18.19 )L‘: 36,38**w 79 The factor is significant at the one per cent level and indicates that prisoners with no criminal commitments as juveniles succeeded as trusties while those with one or more juvenile commitments tended to fail. Paroles More than half of the sample had never been on parole, whereas most of the rest of the group had had one or more paroles. This factor is an efficient predictor of trusty success as the chi-square is at the one per cent level of confidence. Table XXXV shows prisoners who have never been on parole made significantly better trusty risks than prisoners who had had one parole. Prisoners who had had more than one parole did not show significantly either as successful or unsuccessful trusty risks. TABLE XXXV PAROLES Escapes Trusty Total Escapes {O-Ez O. E. O. E. O-E E None 113 140.5 168 140.5 281 -27.5 5.38 One 76 56.5 37 55.5 113 19.5 6.79 Two 37 32 27 32 64 5 .78 Three 9 7.5 6 7.5 15 1.5 .30 More thanthres 8 6.5 5 6.5 13 1.5 .35 13.60 Totals 243 243 486 1_ . Z ; 27.20%”:- Ll; .-.——_fl' .1. "l' 80 Parole Violations Table XXXVI is very similar to Table XXXV. The table shows prisoners who have previously violated parole and shows prisoners who have never been paroled, therefore, could not have violated a parole. These data, too, are sig- nificant at the one per cent level of confidence and indicate that prisoners who had not violated parole, either because of good behavior on parole or because of never having had a parole, make better risks as trusties than did prisoners who have had one parole violation. As in the_tabls on paroles, data on prisoners who had had more than one parole violation were not significant. TABLE XXXVI PAROLE VIOLATIONS Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LO:§1 O. E. O. E. O-E E None 137 162 187 162 324 ~25 3.85 One 71 54.5 38 54.5 109 16.5 4.99 Two 25 18 11 18 36 7 2.72 More than two 10 8.5 7 8.5 17 1.5 .26 Totals 243 243 486 11.82 XE.- 23.64“” 81 Prison Commitments Those men who had been in the State Prison of Southern Michigan previously or in any other prisons, foreign or domestic, and those men for whom their present prison com- mitment was their first are tabulated in Table XXXVII. TABLE XXXVII PRISON COMMITMENTS Escappe Trusty_ Total Eppapse LO-E12 O. E. O. E. O~E E None 83 104 125 104 208 -21 4.24 One 91 73.5 56 73.5 147 17.5 4.16 TWO 45 38.5 32 38.5 77 6.5 1.09 Three 14 16 18 16 32 — 2 .25 Four 4 4 4 4 8 O 0 More than four 6 7 8 7 14 - 1 .14 Totals 243 243 486 9.88 )0: 19,75... The factor of previous.prison commitments is significant as a predictor of trusty success or failure at the one per cent level and indicated that prisoners with no previous prison experience made more successful trusties than prisoners who had been in prison once before. More than one previous prison commitment yielded results not considered significant for prediction in this study. 82 Probation Violations Table XXXVIII lists in tabular form the prisoners who had had neither probation nor probation violations, plus those who had violated their probation. It can be predicted at the one per cent level of confidence that prisoners who violate probation one time made significantly less successful trusty risks than those prisoners who had never violated probation, or those who had never received probation. TABLE XXXVIII PROBATION VIOLATIONS Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LO-Ela 0. E. O. E. O-E E None 182 196 210 196 392 -14 1 One 58 44.5 31 44.5 89 13.5 4.09 More than one 3 2.5 2 2.5 5 .5 .10 Totals 243 243 486 a. 5.19 - X ~.-. 10 . 38*" Probations The data on Table XXXIX indicate that prisoners who have had probation and prisoners who have not had probation were not differentiated as to trusty success or failure. '83 TABLE XXXIX. PROBATIONS Escapes Trusty Total Escapes {O-Elz O. E. O. E. . O-E E . None 182 179.5 177 179.5 359 2.5 .35 One 58 59.5 61 59.5 119 - 1.5 .38 More than one 3 4 5 4 8 - 1 .25 Totals 243 243 486 .98 L = 1.96 Jail commitments in relation to outside Jail Commitments cess or failure are shown in Table XL. TABLE XL JAIL COMMITMENTS placement suc- Escapee Trusty Total Escapes {O-Ez2 O. E. O. E. O-E E None 156 167 178 167 334 -11 .72 One 53 45 37 45 9O 8 1.42 Two 16 16 16 16 32 O 0 Three 7 6 5 6 l2 1 .17 Four 4 4.5 5 4.5 9 - .5 .56 More than four 7 4.5 2 4.5 9 2.5 1.39 Totals 243 243 486 4.26 7(7: 8.52 84 Here is listed the number of times a prisoner has been in jail (not prison). There is no evidence from this study that indicates that this factor can be used in predicting success or failure as a trusty. Number of Accomplices Table XLI reveals that in Michigan the factor of asso- ciates in crime (or number of accomplices) was of no significance in terms of predicting trusty placement outcome. TABLE XLI NUMBER OF ACCOMPLICES Escapes Trusty Total Escapes {O-E)2 O. E. O. E. O-E _ E None 181 174.5 168 174.5 349 6.5 .24 One 38 37.5 37 37.5 75 .5 .07 Two 15 15.5 16 15.5 31 - .5 .17 More than two 9 15.5 22 15.5 31 6.5 2.73 Totals 243 243 486 1 3.21 )( : 6.42 Previous Escapes Although very few prisoners are placed outside the walls if they have an escape on their record, escape is considered such an important factor that an analysis of the prisoners in this study and their escape records are given in Table XLII. In this study fifteen prisoners had escape 85 records. The item is not significant from the data used in this study. There is some evidence (four per cent level) that prisoners with escape records made more successful trusties than those with no escape records. TABLE XLII PREVIOUS ESCAPES Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LQ-Elz O. E. O. E. O-E E None 234 235.5 237 235.5 471 - 1.5 .01 One 5 5.5 6 5.5 11 - .5 .05 More than . one 4 2 0 2 4 2 2 Totals 243 243 486 l 2 .06 = 4 . 12 Summary Thirteen factors were studied that concerned the prisoners' criminal record. All of these data are a matter of official record in the individual inmate's file. Of the thirteen factors, nine were significant at or beyond the one per cent level of confidence. The remaining four were not statistically predictive. 1. Successful trusties were found among prisoners who were serving time for homicide, rape and other sex offenses. Burglers, larcenists and auto thieves were the least success— ful in trusty placements. 86 2. The maximum and the minimum term were found to be significant factors in predicting success or failure. In general the prisoners with the shorter sentences made less successful trusties than those serving relatively long sentences or life sentences. 3. Men convicted by jury trial made significantly better trusty risks than did men who pleaded guilty. 4 4. One or more than two juvenile commitments by the prisoners made them less successful as trusties than prison- ers with no juvenile commitments. 5. Those prisoners who had had no paroles, no parole violation, and no probation violation succeeded as trusties significantly more frequently than those who had had a previous parole, a previous parole violation, or a previous probation violation. 6. The investigation also revealed that those prisoners who had been in prison once previously failed as trusties significantly more than those who had never been in prison. 7. Information regarding probation, jail commitments, number of accomplices and previous escapes did not have statistically significant bearing on whether a prisoner would remain in trusty status or would escape. CHAPTER VII PRISON REC RD IN RELATION TO TRUSTY PLACEMENT OUTCOME In this chapter the record a man obtains or makes in prison is analyzed through the use of seven tables. This record is the information on which many penal workers judge prisoners as to their suitability for outside placement. Prison record is defined as that record the prisoner has which is directly connected to his current imprisonment in the State Prison of Southern Michigan. Time between Outside Placement and Earliest Release Date All prisoners except the most defective or psychotic know how much time they have before they "go to the board" for release consideration. Table XLIII indicates the number of months or years the prisoner had left, when he was placed outside, before he would appear before the paroling authorities. The factor itself is significant beyond the one per cent level of confidence and signifies in general that prisoners with a longer period to serve made more successful trusties than those with short terms. Statistically significant at the one per cent level is the following: Prisoners with one year or less to serve were more unsuccessful as trusties than prisoners with five years or more to serve. As a result of the fact that the single cell of lifers 88 in the chi-square table made such a large contribution to the chi-square, the table was retabulated without lifers. It was still significant beyond the one per cent level of confi- dence. TABLE XLIII TIME BETWEEN OUTSIDE PLACEMENT AND EARLIEST RELEASE DATE Escapag_ Trusty Total Escapes {O—Eii O. E. O. E. O — E E l to 6 mos. 43 26 9 26 52 17 11.12 7 to 12 mos. 58 41.5 25 41.5 83 16.5 6.56 1 Year 90 71.5 53 71.5 143 18.5 4.79 2 years 26 31.5 37 31.5 63 - 5.5 .96 3 years 8 15 22 15 3O - 7 3.27 4 years 5 5 5 5 10 O 0 Over 4 yrs. 2 6 10 6 l2 - 4 2.67 Lifers 11 46.5 82 46.5 93 -35.5 27.10 Total 243 243 486 56.47 X‘; 112 34*" Parole Action When a prisoner in Michigan goes to the parole board, if he is not released he can be given several other types of action such as are outlined in Chapter III of this study. In Table XLIV are listed these actions as they were given by the parole board to the sample in this study. Many prison- eres who had had no parole board actionJas yet,wsre lifers (especially in the trusty group) and this must be considered . A15!— 89 when using this table. TABLE XLIV PAROLE ACTION Escapes Trusty Total Escapes (O-E)? O. E. O. E. O — E E None 165 185.5 206 185.5 371 -20.5 2.27 l-2yr.pass 22 13 4 13 26 9 6.23 3yr.pass 15 l7 l9 17 34 - 2 .24 Pass to maximum 31 19 7 19 38 12 7.58 Other 10 8.5 7 8.5 17 1.5 .26 Totals 243 243 486 16.58 X‘:33.16*** This item is significant at the one per cent level of confidence and indicates that prisoners who have had one or two year passes,or who have been continued by the parole board on to their maximum sentences made much less successful risks in trusty status than did the prisoners who had had no parole board action. The board action shown in this table was the most recent action taken at the time the individual records were reviewed for this study. There was no attempt made in this study to separate the sample as to whether they received the parole board action listed prior to outside placement or while outside. It might be inferred, however, from this table that if a prisoner is outside and is passed over or not released when he goes to the parole board that he be removed from minimum or medium custody 1| ll, III, I. .||l I. 1 l 90 for re-evaluation. Prison Job Ratings The rating a prisoner received by his job supervisor on his prison job is shown in Table XLV. These are jobs held inside the prison walls. There are a few men who are selected to be placed outside the walls directly from quar- antine. As no men in quarantine have steady working assign- ments (they may do janitorial or kitchen work for a few days), they have been listed separately. TABLE XLV PRISON JOB RATINGS Esca.ee Trusty Total Escapes (O-E)2 Rating 0. Q E. 0. a, 0 .. E E Good 200 207.5 215 207.5 415 - 7.5 .27 Fair 28 17.5 7 17.5 35 10.5 6.30 Poor 9 4.5 O 4.5 9 4.5 4.50 Outside Place- ment from Quarantine 6 13.5 21 13.5 27 - 7.5 4.17 Totals 243 243 486 15.24 1" = 30.48““ This factor is significant beyond the one per cent level in predicting trusty success or failure. It predicts with sig- nificance that prisoners with "fair" or "poor" job ratings 91 inside the prison walls dhinot succeed as trusties as well as those with "good" ratings, and that those selected for outside placement directly from quarantine are statistically signifi- cant successful risks. This may indicate that some highly significant predictive items relating to success as a trusty were being used in selecting prisoners for outside placement directly from quarantine. Prison Financial Account Table XLVI reveals that the amount of money a prisoner has in his prison account is significantly related, beyond the one per cent level, to his success or failure as a trusty. The monies in these accounts may be earnings since com- ing to prison, may have been brought in with the prisoner, may have been sent by persons outside the prison or may be a combination of these. There is no limit as to how much a prisoner may have in his account, but he may spend no more than $14.00 a month. These amounts are spent on small items in the prison stores such as soap, cigarettes, toothpaste, and similar items. Men without Jobs are furnished these items and indigents who cannot WOPK are given one dollar a month in addition. Since no man outside the walls at the State Prison of Southern Michigan is not working, they must furnish their own personal items. Prisoners in the trusty division are paid from five cents to forty cents a day for their labor. Unlimited amounts may be sent cout by the prisoner to approved individuals. 92 Table XLVI indicated that the prisoners with between one hundred and five hundred dollars in their accounts made more successful trusty risks than those with less. TABLE XLVI PRISON FINANCIAL ACCOUNT _2 Escapes Trusty_ Total Escapee O-E Amount 0. E. O. E. _. E 5 or less 66 56 46 56 112 10 1.79 -50 or less 154 140.5 127 140.5 281 13.5 1.30 100 or less 14 21 28 21 42 - 7 2.33 500 or less 7 20 33 2O 40 - 13 8.45 Totals 243 243 486 15.10 )(‘=»30,20*** Prison Behavior Prisoners who violate Michigan’s prison rules are sum- moned before a court made up of prison officials where the charge is read to them and where they are allowed to plead guilty or offer some defense. If guilty, they are usually given some punishment in solitary confinement, usually ranging from three days to thirty days. In this study sentences of five days or less are considered minor, and sentences of more than five days are listed as major. In Table XLVIIare tabulated the findings in this factor. It is significant at the five per cent level of confidence, but in this study it was felt that levels of confidence must be 93 one per cent for predictive efficiency. TABLE XLVII PRISON BEHAVIOR Reports Escapes Trusty Total Escapes (O-Ela O. E. O. E. O .- E E One or two minor 30 23 16 23 46 7 2.13 One major 5 6 4 6 12 — l .16 More than two 8 5.5 3 5.5 11 3.5 2.22 None 200 208.5 217 208.5 417 - 8.5 .35 Totals 243 243 486 4.86 X1 = 9072* \ Entrance Status Also significant at the five per cent level was the factor analyzed in Table XLVIII. TABLE XLVIII ENTRANCE STATUS Escapes Trusty Total Escapes {O-E)2 0. E. o. E. O'- E E New commitment 231 224.5 218 224.5 449 6.5 .16 Other 12 18.5 25 18.5 37 - 6.5 1.96 Totals 243 243 486 2.12 X1: 4.24* 94 Although not significant enough to use as an efficient pre- dictor, the trend should be noted as it is contrary to the notion held by many prison workers. First prison offenders do not appear to have made more successful trusty risks than prisoners coming to prison other than the first time. Church Attendance in Prison Prior to Outside Placement Records are poorly kept on this item. However, this item was analyzed in Table XLIX since it was mentioned by one prison as a factor in their selection of men for outside placement. The evidence from this study indicates this factor did not predict potential success or failure as a trusty. - TABLE XLIX CHURCH ATTENDANCE IN PRISON Escapes Trusty Total Escapes LO-El? O. E. O. E. 0—- E E Regular 28 35 42 35 7O — 7 1.40 Occasional 35 32.5 30 32.5 65 2.5 .19 None 120 115.5 111 115.5 231 4.5 .17 No record 60 60 60 60 120 O 0 Totals 243 243 486 1.76 X‘- : 3.52 95 Summary The relationship between prison record and trusty place- ment outcome is summarized in the following terms. Seven factors were analyzed. Four were found to be significant as predictions of trusty success or failure at or beyond the one per cent level of confidence using the chi-square method, two were found to be significant at the five per cent level, and one was found to be of no statistical significance. 1. The time remaining before parole consideration and outside placement was one of the most highly significant items in the study. It can be confidently predicted, within the ‘ limits of this study, that those prisoners with one year or less to serve before parole action were less successful as trusties than those prisoners who had three years before con- sideration or who were lifers and technically had no consider- ation. 2. The type of parole action a prisoner received was a predictive factor. Prisoners who had not yet been to the board made more successful trusty risks than those who had had board action. 3. The job rating a prisoner received on his prison job was an efficient predictor of trusty success or failure. 1See Chapter III, page 37 , this study, for differentia- tion of prisoners serving life sentences in Michigan. 96 Prisoners with fair or poor job ratings were more likely to escape than those rated good, or than those sent to the trusty installation directly from quarantine. 4. Prisoners with several hundred dollars in their prison accounts were more successful as trusties than those with little or no money. 5. Behavior in prison was somewhat significant but not sufficiently so to be emphasized in this study. 6. Men broughtto Michigan prisons or any prisons for the first time were less successful trusties than were previous offenders; however, this was significant at the five per cent level which is actually not enough to serve as an efficient predictor as defined in this study. 7. The factor of church attendance appeared to have no goredictive efficiency with the sample used in this study. CHAPTER VIII RELATING THE FINDINGS TO THE PRISON SETTING It is possible now, from the analyses provided by the foregoing chapters, to construct a composite picture of the successful and unsuccessful trusty prisoner. Certain fac- tors, attributes and characteristics are associated generally with success as a trusty, certain others with failure. The interrelationships of the factors used in this study run literally into the hundreds. The dependence of one factor upon another for its significance is manifest in many of the tables. These facts must be considered in applying the findings. Finally, included to provide better understanding of the State Prison of Southern Michigan and its settings for those who might wish to utilize the findings, is a further (iiscussion of the sample and of the general population from which it has been drawn. Also discussed are the prison, itself, tins prison farms, and the prison camps of Michigan. Factors Related to Success What characteristics and qualities are related most defi- nitely to success in the trusty division? Only factors with leirels of confidence at the one per cent level have been used in tirawing the composite picture. Generally speaking, the successful trusty was born before 98 1910, and got into difficulty with the law after the age of 25. He had a grade placement level of the second grade. He was a Negro, and an abstainer from alcohol. He lived in Michigan for over 11 years but not all of his life. He had an I. Q. of between 70 and 79. He had close family ties and received regular visits. He had a stable pre- prison job rating. He was in prison for homicide, or for a sex offense, and was serving a maximum sentence of "life" and a minimum sentence of 15 years or more or "life". He was tried by a jury and has had no juvenile commitments. He has never had a parole or a parole violation. He has never been in prison before. He has very little hope of parole, but went directly to the trusty division from quar- antine. He has from one hundred to five hundred dollars in his prison account. Obviously, no successful trusty would be likely to fit precisely this description; for each individual presents a separate problem, reacts to conditions in his own way, and so falls into no such easy pattern as delineated above. It is necessary, therefore, to examine certain of the major :factors related to success in the light of what factors and selection procedures were in use at the time he was selected to go outside. In addition, these factors must be examined With any other important success factors if a true picture of the successful trusty is to be obtained. 99 Factors Related to Failure The "typical" escapee was born after 1920, and first became involved with the law between the ages of 13 and 16. He had a grade placement level of the ninth grade. He was an intemperate alcoholic, and came from a community with a population of from fifty to 100,000. He was a dishonorably discharged vsteran,and was unstable on his pre-prison job. He was convicted of burglsry, larceny or auto theft, and was serving a maximum term of four, five, or 11 to 15 years. His minimum term was one, two, or three years. He pleaded guilty to his crime, and has had either one or more than two juve- nile commitments. He had been given one parole and has had one parole violation and one probation violation. He had been in prison once before. He hai less than one year to serve before parole consideration and had been passed by the parole board for from one to two years, or ha} been passed to his maximum sentence. He had fair or poor ratings from his prison job supervisor. No escapee would be likely to fit precisely this des- cription; but in using this study it is as important to use the negative findings as it is the positive findings. Also, it is important to use those findings which were of no sta— tistical significance. Interrelationship of Factors The interrelationship of these factors is recognized by 100 the author although all these possible relationships were not discussed in each chapter. Also, no group of factors could be given as hard or fast rules for trusty success or failure at even one institution, due to the changing needs in the prison system and changing administration and philosOphy. Factors in the Selection of Trusties at the State Prison of Southern Michigan A Director of Outside Placement position was estab- lished at the prison immediately after the riots of April, 1952. This official is paid a salary of approximately $8,000 a year and is a college graduate. He states that he interviews at least thirty per cent of the applicants for outside placement and makes a complete study of all materials in the records of each inmate. On the basis of this he effects a custody reduction as he believes the case merits. A notation is made in each case of the reasons for approval or denial, and each inmate is notified of the progress of his application and of its ultimate approval or denial, and is told the reasons for this action. ,In Michigan, all inmates are classified to medium custody,and subsequent reduction to minimum custody is made by the Classification Committee in the Trusty Division after the inmate has been placed outside the walls. Actually, the group selected as potential trusties are subject to review and are screened by the warden's office and by the Classification Committee as soon as the prisoner ar- rives. In nearly every case the inmate's counselor evaluates 101 the case, classifying the applicant for outside placement as poor, fair, or good prior to screening. The Director of Outside Placement uses 18 principal factors which are considered to be basic in determining a prisoner's eligibility for custody reduction. They are at least touched upon in each case and serve as the gauntlet through which each prisoner must run. The factors are listed in the order of importance as established by the authorities at the prison, although they are not, of course, invariable. It must be pointed out that housing shortages and changing philosophy have caused prison authorities to be less arbitrary in denying custody reduction. The Director of Outside Placement states that officials are advancing to trusty status inmates who would have been emphatically rs- jected by them several years ago, on the basis of a single entry in their records. A brief description of these 18 factors follows: Public Safety: The motto, "The Safety of the Peeple Shall Be the Supreme Law" could be well followed in custody reduction. The primary factor to consider is: Does the particular individual's background under consideration show a sustained pattern of predatory violence? The compulsive arsonist, the rapist who has repeatedly receded and who shows no iniication of favorable personality change, are not the best of material under any conditions. Escape History: The inmate whose background pictures flights from custody and arrest shows also flights from 102 reality, and could be reasonably expected to abscond as he has in the past more readily than an equal number of non- escapes. Prisoners are arbitrarily denied outside placement if they have had an escape from custody within the last five years. ‘ Mental and Physical Health: The inmate who is mentally ill or medically hospitalized or undergoing treatment should certainly not be considered. In addition to those actually under treatment there is a high percentage, sometimes as much as 50 per cent of a selected group of 20 inmates or so, who although ambulatory and in superficial hearty health can- not measure up to the physical demands of field hands re- quired of nearly all trusties. An impressive number of in- mates develop mental illness and a email, but substantially shocking number, not only have a history of mental illness and hospitalization but have been known to be psychotic upon commitment. The selector of trusties must be aware of the likelihood of remissions in making his decisions. Qgtainers: There are a number of men in custody whom other jurisdictions want for trial or further imprisonment. It is considered more or less a courtesy of the trade that an inmate be availble to another jurisdiction if that juris- diction has filed a legal detainer against him. Also, the prisoner with a detainer has compounded time and has a prob- lem which will not make him the choice candidate over one who has but his present sentence to weigh upon him. 103 Social-Emotional Situations: The immediate emotional situation of the applicant for reduced custody must be con- sidered. A sudden or recent death of a child, wife or parent should cause the inmate to be passed over long enough to overcome the initial shock of misfortune and possible depres— sion. Divorce notifications and "Dear John" letters fall in this category. ngates Treatment Program: The program of the inmate is also to be borne in mind, as an individual may be develOp- ing vocational or other skills on his present assignment: placing the subject out and away from the training facilities would be a penny—wise and pound-foolish transaction, treatment- wise. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of the illiterate enrolled in the primary academic school. Essential:;pmate Skillg: The operation of a large insti- tution demands that certain key inmates not be removed from their assignments. If they were, essential services would be disrupted. In this category are placed the inmate surgical nurses and the industrial machinists. It has been estimated that one thousand inmates (23 per cent of those within the enclosure) are needed to provide for the maintenance and daily Operation of the institution. Eight hundred and thirty-eight are employed in the prison industry, alone, on off seasons. In similar token men must be assigned to the trusty division because of a need of specialized skills, notwithstanding the lack of complete eligibility. In this group one would find the blacksmith, the veterinarian nurse and skilled garage mechanics. 104 Inmates in Degrees of_;solation: Inmates in certain cate- gories awaiting classification in quarantine, those in deten- tion, the seniles and others total about eight hundred, some- what more than twenty per cent of those inside. These, of course, are not eligible for assignment to the trusty division. Time to Serve: The remaining time to serve is a basic factor. Ordinarily three years is considered the customary maximum of remaining time for custody reduction to minimum, unless the applicant has nine years or so of good service on the present sentence, as in the case of lifers. Limitapépns of Trusty Programg: Reduced custody general- ly brings reduced scOpe of recreational facilities and pro- fessional contacts. In some incidence cpen housing conditions and dormitories are not as easily endured by some inmates. To this group there is a loss of dignity and privacy,as well as protection of possessions from what they had in a single housing unit. There are inmates who prefer to spend their leisure hours in writing, hobbycraft or listening to the radio and resent the loss of privacy which becomes more noticeable to them with the passing years. Migratory Tendencies: Migratory tendencies in some, cases are very obviously noted by following their arrest re- ports. The viewer is able to trace the major railroad lines of the United States as the subject moved from one arrest to another. To such individuals escape usually comes naturally. Nomadic tendancies,toq,seem to be associated 105 closely with the absence of primary group ties. Outgige Contacts: The frequency and nearness of family and group ties is an item in the screening Of inmates for outside placement. The fear of disapproval Of loved ones, as well as the absence of the rejected, forlorn feeling which goes with no contact with the outside world are not likely to be experienced as readily by the inmate who has regular letters and talks with his family. The person with nearby in-state ties could be more readily located. His pos- sible sources of aid and comfort in case of escape are nearby, known and within the jurisdiction of state officials. The same cannot be said for the prisoner who hails from out of state. Welfare of the Trusty pivision Eliminates Certain Typgs: The solicitous and predatory homosexuals might look with favor upon the sleeping quarters of an Open barracks with re- duced custodial check. Actually, some inmates have been ter- rorized by the presence of this kind, some driven to escape. The known sneak-thief and cell-thief can create consternation in minimum custody. The known connivsr promotes many fights through the sale of contrabrand and illicit contacts, vastly easier secured and arranged. The unwashed inmate with poor personal hygiene causes disorder in a confined, arid group. The trusty, relatively speaking, must be a socially accepta- ble person because of the greater social inter-action in camp or barracks life. This is a magnified principle when we consider that prisons are made up of, among others, many 106 maladjusted personalities. Sensapipnal Cases: Public gaze seldom pierces the high prison walls.but trusties are constantly on parade to at least the local citizenry. Society is eager to seek the sensational and condemn quickly, Often upon isolated cases or bizaare occurrences. An incident of minor consequence in a prison community has on occasion been blown up by the press) which curtailed, if not endangered, prOper and progressive prison administration. For that reason, sensational cases are carefully screened and in many instances the individual inmate could have been placed in the trusty division, but his transfer was forestalled on the principle of securing the best for the most. Prison Record and Progggss: In a sense, the prisoner leaves behind footprints of progress and adjustment by his prison record. A steady prison work record, or one of school training shows not only an attempt to improve the inmate's position but may be an indication of his stability. An inmate should not earn his way to trusty status by mis- conduct, but each misconduct report must be fully studied before rejecting the applicant. Misconduct is a likely symptom of psychopathic or at least sociopathic tendencies which, if progressive, might jeepardize others in the trusty group. Adverse factors of impetuousness and immaturity are gleaned through study of prison conduct records. Previous trusty experience is-ons of the most potent, favorable recom- mendations for trusty assignment, even out-balancing, perhaps, 107 multiple past prison terms. Military History: A history of military desertion is given more emphasis than a record Of AWOL's. The person with a good military record has given evidence of being able to respond to rigid personal limitations and could be ex- pected to adjust to a reduced custody program better than his errant comrade. In recent years less emphasis is placed upon the AWOL, perhaps because the passing years have turned youthful soldier into a matured or middle-aged man. Recently a high Air Force Official stated that the daily number of AWOL's reaches into five figures. AWOL may deserve but pas- sing consideration unless it matches other similar symptoms previously discussed. Narcotic and Alcoho;;cVAgdictigp: The alcoholic and narcotic personalities are found on trusty assignments in great numbers. Prisons are stocked with drunks or dypso- maniacs serving a sentence. The inmate who gets drunk and lescapes is somewhat common. Quite a few escapes have been traced to a mere trickle Of contrabrand liquor, but the drunk who absconds to get drunk is rather unusual and frequently after escaping can be searched out in some local saloon. In part, the same holds for the narcotic addict. The problem of reducing custody in these cases is controlling the addicts' access to barbiturates and drugs. Lines of supply become most likely in a freer environment. A principal considera- tion is that sufficient time be permitted for withdrawl. Upon conference with students of narcotics and those engaged 108 in the treatment of addicts, it has been arbitrarily estab— lished that three months will be a minimum period of with- drawl, and at least a thirty day period for the dypsomaniac. During these periods they should be in maximum custody. It would be unfair to the patient-prisoner to place him in an Open field in the latter stages of DT's or painful withdrawl. Agg: Until a short time ago inmates under 23 years of age, and positively under 21, were not considered eligible for medium custody except in outstanding cases, In eleviat— ing housing conditions inside the walls, the age limit was one of the first bars lowered. When a youthful age appears as a factor along with immaturity, and particularly with a record of numerous automobile thefts, truancies, and AWOL's, the particular inmate is not approved for trusty housing; as such a descriptive background may be based on impulsive immaturity, the stuff of which many walkaways seem to be made. Racial Factors: In 1953 the Federal institutions repor- ted one hundred and twenty-six escapes, 21 still at large at the time of the report, and of that group only one escapee was Negro although almost 25 per cent of the Federal prison population is colored (11:40). At the State Prison of Southern Michigan Negroes accounted for only five of the 80 walkaways in 1954 and two of the 30 up to May 27, 1955.1 1The 18 factors just related were supplied by and used with the permission of Robert A. Northrup, Director of Outside Placement of the State Prison of Southern Michigan. 109 The penalty for escape in Michigan is a four and one- half year maximum sentence. The minimum usually given is one and one-half years. In the case of an escapee who has had two or more previous convictions of any felony, the escape penalty is usually compounded and the sentence is from three to six years. This penalty is statutory. The prison also has the authority, and usually exercises it, to take away all of the escapee's accumulated good time and to require him to serve thirty days in solitary confinement. Personal interrogation of many escapees over a two year period by the author tends to influence the thinking that most walkaways are not premeditated to any great degree. It seems to be a situation in which a given amount of immaturity or in- security has added to it an unpleasant incident, of fancied or actual basis, which cannot be restrained by a barrier-less environment. Most of the interviews have followed the pat- tern given below, taken from an actual interrogation of a walkaway. Inmate: John Doe, #00000 Interviewed by: Psychologist Purpose: Returned from Escape Place: 15 Block (Detention) State Prison Date: May 15, 1953 Psychologist: The purpose of this interview is to pro- cure for the record your account of your walkaway last night. 223: Well, that is easy and simple, I got tired of hav- ing them mess with me on my parole. Psych't.: This has nothing to do with your prosecution, it is more of a statistical process for us to deter- mine how and by what means you left. What time did you leave? 22_: 8:00 or 8:30 P.M. 110 Psych't.: Was the movie gee: .Yes sir. in process? sych t.: And how did you leav 0 a? gpeéh'iust gaéked out of the barracks. y .: ou meet R Dogou keft the Zhow? ich (the other escapee) after : O, we both walked out the d ‘ P . . oor. —L--‘“‘I2“.Esadw‘éfifitiééi’éi‘éfi‘éfi 2" m" "“1““ ‘° 1”"? a you sent in a l t asking the assistant de e ter put to m that you borrowed several {1b ove you,and also Dos: Yes sir rary books last night. Ps oh't.: So that rather y gave us th Doghislzas a spontaneous move. e impression that Psych't.:waSid you talk this ove 1 Bee: 'Yes sir, yesterday afternogn? th Rich? psych 3.:t Then how did you go? fielduzndwilIgd out of the barracks, cut across the Ps ch't . Di; ygfi :pwn the railroad tracks. DoéereNgoing? ve any particular place you : o. ggych';.: Did Rich? . heme. don t know for sure. I guess he was going Psych't.: Where were Doe: 'Munith. (small tggg 1505113: northea t Psych t.: How did that happen? S Dr Jackson) g:e:h'We just walked right up on the Officer ygurta; t'gphn, I rather believe that this was a 1.... would £323,253: 2‘" a “$1 ”3"“ “m" year rom Jul with s fishermen strata“ any °r Doe: are on the farm? FarmYesIatgldIhiglg Mgfitggiph out there on the Root . 0 get off the far - Paczgsz theg: were too many colored men there. m be fiutual c you think this walkaway was perfectl n both yours and Rich's part? y Doe: Yes sir, because he was ex ecti Patpg.1ast six weeks. p ng a visit for y .: He is co Dos: .Yes sir. ncerned about his wife? Psych t.: I have seen a lot f for placement and event 0 men that were delayed ual ggeéh'gno comment) 1y they do go home. .: Well if that 1 Dogs sit I want’of you. s all you have to say, that : en are we supposed to Fe ch' . go to court? you :nOw Ipeaefzzsdzyge When you walked away did Doe: Yes sir. ate law for walking away? 111 Psych't.: Do you know what the maximum is? Doe: Four and a half years, I guess. Psych't.: That is right. Locale of Michigan Prison System The State Prison of Southern Michigan is located four miles north of Jackson, Michigan, in Blackman Township. Jackson is a city Of approximately 52,000 persons in south central Michigan, about seventy miles west of Detroit, and 38 miles south of Lansing. The land is relatively flat for Michigan: the wooded areas in the environs are fairly num— erous and are of average density. There are several prison farms within a few miles. They engage in typical Michigan farming activities. Some of the men working these farms live at the farms in barracks, and others live in one of the two cell blocks just outside the main prison wall. Most of these farms have been in Oper- ation for many years. I ‘There are ten prison camps in the Michigan Prison System. Three are in the Upper Peninsula; however, neither these camps nor the prison in the Upper Peninsula were used in this study. Of the seven camps in the Lower Peninsula, six were in use during the period covered by this study.1 The first camp was Opened in Michigan in May, 1948. This was Camp Waterloo, lo- cated 20 miles east of Jackson. Opened in June, 1949, and located seven miles west of Pontiac, is Camp Pontiac. In 1The seventh camp, near Grayling, was Opened in July 1954. 112 October, 1949, Camp Wilderness was Opened; this camp is located 12 miles west of Mackinac City. Camp Lehman located eight miles from Grayling was opened in June, 1950. In February, 1951, Camp Brighton, located five miles southwest of Brighton, was dedi- cated. The Michigan Parole Camp located adjacent to the prison was begun in April, 1953. All of the men at these camps are engaged in camp housekeeping duties, or in working with the Michigan Conservation Department in state park upkeep and simi- lar tasks. CHAPTER IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Problem The determination of what factors are most diagnostic in selecting prisoners to be placed in reduced custody, outside walls of the prison, is a complex and difficult problem. Em- pirical data and observations which have not been systematized constitute the major part of the knowledge available to prison administrations for selection of trusties. The problem of this study was to select and to analyze and refine some of the factors which weigh for or against placement of prisoners outside the walls, and the determination of the relative significance of each of the factors. During the past several years in the United States, there has been a rapid growth in the use of the open type institu- tions. This has, in part, been forced upon the prisons by overcrowding, but the value of these institutions for themselves alone was soon recognized by penal authorities. With this in- crease in the number of men serving their prison sentences as trusties, there has, of course, been an increase in the number of prison escapes, or walkaways as they are called by prison vvorkers. The prOportion of escapes has risen much more rapidly “than the proportion of inmates serving their sentences as trusties. The main hypothesis of this study is that there are re— lationships between certain factors and success or failure 114 as a trusty. The public's concern with the problem of prisoners living in comparative freedom near their homes has become more acute in the past several years. More camps were established each year, more men put outisde the walls to man these camps, and more men escaped. Communities have held mass meetings to protest camps already established or about to be established in their areas. Other communities have petitioned the Michigan Department of Corrections to have camps placed in their locales. Methodology and Procedures The sample chosen for study was selected for its repre- sentativeness of trusties and escapees at the State Prison of Southern Michigan during the eight and one—half year period between January 1, 1945 and June 30, 1953. Half of this group was labeled."successful", since they remained in trusty status two years or longer, the other half labeled "unsuccessful", since they left from their trusty status by escaping. The data utilized consisted of 48 factors obtained from over half of the prisons of the United States. These were submitted by the wardens as the factors employed in trusty selection. Each prisoner's file was examined for each of the 48 variables. Data for each of the prisoners were placed on IBM punch cards, for the purpose of obtaining the necessary summary data by means of IBM tabulating machines. In the analysis of the data the statistical procedure used was the chi-square method. This method enabled the 115 investigator to establish the significance of the relation- ships between the factors studied and success or failure as a trusty. All factors appearing in this study appear in tabular form, in such a manner as to enable the reader to see clearly the variations between the two groups. The Findings The findings resulting from the analysis of the 17 per- sonal factors in relation to trusty placement outcome in- clude the following: 1. At the one per cent level, these factors appeared to differentiate between trusty success and trusty failure: Age, age at the commission of first offense, achievement test rat- ings, race, use of alcohol and/or drugs, size of home commun- ity, length of residence in Michigan, I. Q. scores, military service and type of discharge, and family social class. 2. At the two per cent level, it appeared that natives of Michigan could be differentiated from non-natives of Michigan. 3. At the five per cent level was the factor of education. The pattern here was similar to the pattern of I. Q. and achievement test rating. 4. Factors concerning a prisoner's mental history, homosexuality, physical condition, history of tuberculosis, epilepsy, syphilis, gonorrhea, or his religion seemed to have little bearing on whether a prisoner did or did not make a successful trusty. 116 The findings resulting from the analysis of the 11 family and economic factors in relation to trusty place- ment outcome indicate the following: 1. Three factors were predictive at the one per cent level. These were family ties, number of visits, and the stability Of the prisoner's occupational history. 2. The marital status of the prisoner was predictive of success or failure as a trusty at the two per cent level of confidence. 3. Factors concerning marital history, mail)broken parental homes, familial crime, family locals, number of children, and occupations seemed to have little bearing on trusty success or failure. Findings relative to criminal record in relation to trusty placement outcome revealed the following: 1. Nine items were significant at or beyond the one per cent level of confidence. These were crime, minimum and maximum sentence, method of conviction, number of juvenile commitments, number of previous paroles, number of parole violations, number of commitments to prison, and num- ber of probation violations. 2. The four remaining items of the 13 investigated in this area reveal that information regarding probation, jail commitments, number of accomplices, and previous escapes had statistically little significance in differentiating be- tween those prisonsrs who remain in trusty status and those .11! A 117 who escape. The findings indicated the following with respect to prison record and its relationship to trusty placement out- come. Seven factors were analyzed. 1. Four factors in this group were significant at the one per cent level of confidence. These were length of sentence to serve before parole consideration, the type of action received by the parole board, the supervisor's rating of the prisoner's performance on his job, and the amount of money in the inmate's prison account. 2. At the five per cent level of significance were the factor Of prison behavior record and the factor of the pri- soner's entrance status into the institution. 3. The factor of church attendance appeared to have no predictive efficiency with the sample used in this study. Conclusions and Implications The outcomes of this research, considered in the light of the Objectives of the study, point to several conclusions with implications of significance to prison workers charged with the responsibility of selecting prisoners for prison camps and farms in the trusty division. While it is recog- nized that the following statements must be tempered by the stated limitations Of this study, the evidence commands serious consideration by those interested in prison manage- ment. 1. It can be concluded that there are some factors which 118 differentiate between the two groups studied. It must be realized, however, that very few, if any, of these factors are independent from each other. 2. The search for good predictive factors must be con- tinuous. As theories of crime become more precise, as research knowledge accumulates, and as understanding of the influences at work in trusty success or failure increases, new factors may emerge which may help to improve the accur- acy of prediction. It appears that the greatest increases in predictive accuracy will undoubtedly depend on securing better factors rather than refining the techniques and methods of prediction work. 3. The incidence of escape does not appear to be solely associated with the selection process, since many other factors may be brought to bear upon the individual after his transfer outside the walls, factors which were present at the time Of custody reduction. It may be that economic con- ditions of the times entered the picture. As stated in ear- lier studies, escapes seem to be more frequent in the long summer days than in the winter months. Prisons have come to expect two or so walkaways over a prolonged holiday weekend, such as Memorial Day, Fourth of July, or Labor Day, and se- cape records at Southern Michigan Prison do much to substan- tiate that assumption. The weather itself seems to enter the picture. Few escapes were reported during a blizzard or ‘inclement conditions. Escapees seem to know enough to stay 119 in out of the rain. There may be a discouraging, or a melancholy message, from friends or family. Many person- al factors may develop in the comparatively unrestricted atmosphere of barracks room existence over cellular hous- ing. There may be adverse developments in the inmate's release program, or possibly even in his status in the prison community, which would tip the scales of emotional balance, causing him to start out across lots. Since the warden recommends parole action or no parole action for each prisoner about thirty days before he goes to the board, prisoners in the trusty division may be upset by his recommendations and walk away. If a prisoner's cir- cumstance changes from the time when he was placed in the trusty division, such as his parole status, family status, and the like, it appears that he should be returned inside the walls and reevaluated. 4. Most escapes seem to be a spur-Of-the-moment deci- sion. This is substantiated in both this study and the literature. Some prisoners have walked away with less than one week to serve on the maximum sentence. 5. The selection of prisoners for camp or farm assign- ment should be the function of a committee. A group should produce more reliable results than a single indivdual re- gardless of how capable that person is. This is particulary true if the committee is composed of persons who, through different orientations and training and experience, can see 120 the prisoner from a diverse perspective. The shortage of some types of personnel will make this difficult but it should be a goal. Corsini and Miller cite the shortage of psychologists in prisons (9). 6. From both the literature in the field and the author's personal intervieys with hundred Of prison inmates it seems '- imperative thatypfiisoner must be permitted to refuse to go outside the walls. To do otherwise, may be inviting escape and it should be assumed that some prisoners are wise enough not to expose themselves to temptations which they feel they are unable to resist. In the final judgment, the prisoner's individual welfare is the welfare of the institution and probably a moral obligation exists not to afford the potential escapee an Opportunity for further confinement. 7. It appears that the type of program and the amount and type of supervision to which the man is assigned deter- mines,to some extent, his behavior. There are different es- cape rates for the different trusty installations throughout the state. Current administration appears to affect escape rate. More or less escapes were noted to have taken place during specific months when administrative personnel were shifted. 8. The drastic and sudden demands placed upon the per- sonnel of.the trusty division may have made it difficult for them to keep pace. This demand is shown in the notable rise in percentage of men and number of men placed outside the walls during the period Studied in this investigation. 121 It might be that specific recruitment and training of cor- rectional officers for reduced custody programs be devel- 'oped. Professional orientation is repeatedly called upon in the camp and farm program. 9. It would appear that all areas of a prisoner's life, personal, family, criminal and prison should be stud- ied, since this investigation revealed significant findings with several factors in each area. Regardless of the pro- blems presented, more men in reduced custody are in the "correctional cards" for the future. It is hoped that our institutions can become more like open housing units and our Open housing units could come to have more of the facil- ities of the institutions themselves. Implications for Further Research In the course of carrying out this investigation, a number of issues and questions were raised which were be- yond the scope of this research. Thus, while certain con- clusions were reached in terms of the data of this study, it constitutes only a small beginning into the controlled study of the factors which may determine trusty success or failure. There is some evidence to show that the following points are a few Of the more important avenues of future study: 1. No doubt, the area most obviously in need of further research is the one concerning the interrelationship 122 of these factors upon each other. Future investigators could cross match many of the factors, particularly the ones which purport to predict success significantly or to predict failure significantly. Future investigations may show how dependent all or some of these factors are on race, or crime, or sentence, for example) (a) Is it the murderers who make the lifers success— ful trusties, since all of the former are also the latter, or is the reverse true, or are they independent? (b) Are frequent visits which are related to trusty success dependent for their significance on close family ties which is also related to success? 2. Another persistent issue implying further study is that of trying to weigh the various favorable or unfavor- able factors and set up prediction tables. This would help to show which traits are related and the manner in which one trait might offset another. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. BIBLIOGRAPHY ' A Manual of Correctional Standards, New York: American Press Association, 1954, 432 pp. American Journal of Corrections, Vol. 17, No. 3., May-June, 1955. Armstrong, Carol R.,660 Runaway Boys. Why prs pgsert their Homes, Boston: A. G. Badger, 1932. Bates, Sanford, Prisons and Beyond, New York: The Macmillan 00.. 1936. Belkin, Alice, Why Boys Run Away from Home, "unpub— lished new thesis,":Smith College, 1940. Branham, Vernon C. and S. B. Kutash, Encyclopedia of Criminology, New York: PhilosOphical Library, 19 9. Clemmor, Donald, The Prison Community, New York: The ChristOpher Publishing House, 1940. Cochrane, Nelson N., "Escapes and their Control," Prison World, May, 1948, pp. 3-5, pp. 28-29. Corsini, Raymond J. and G. A. Miller, "Psychology in Prison, 1952," The Ame§;can Psycholpgist, Vol. 9, NO. 5., May'l954, pp. 184-185. Croxton, Fredrick E. and S. J. Cowden, Practical Business Statistics, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1934. Federal Prisons, 1953. United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., 1954, 111 pp. Fox, Vernon 8., Escape Stugy, "unpublished manuscript," 1951 0 written communications, 1954-55. "The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis in Corrections," The Quarterly Journal ofgtpp Florida Academy of Science, Vol. 17, NO. 3., Sept. 1954: pp. 140-146. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 124 Garrett, Henry E., Statistics in Psychology and Education, 2d ed. New York: Longman, Green» and Co. —1937. Glueck, Sheldon and E. Glueck, Criminal Careers in Retrospect, New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1943. 380 pp. Graham, Mary Ruth, These Came Back, Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama, University, Alabama, 1946, 104 pp. Haynes, F. E., The American Prison System, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1939. Hughett, Bryce, Perfprmance of Runaway_Delinquentp, General Delinquents and Normal Children on the Stogdell Behavior Cards, fiunpublished MA thesis", Southern Methodist University, 1944. Johnson, William H. Escape Study, "unpublished manu- script", 1942. Keough, C. R., ”A Study of Runaways at a State Correctional School for Boys, Journal of Juvenile Research, 1935, pp. 45-61. Lowry, Lawson G., "Runaways and Nomads," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Oct. 1941, pp. 771-781. McKendrick, Charles L., "How to Select Prisoners for Outside Assignments", Prison World, Vol.15, No.2, Mar-Apr.. 1953, pp. 6:7. pp. 26- 27. Minehan, Thomas, Boy and Girl Tramps of America, New York: Farrar, 1934. Mode, Elmer, The Elements of Statistics, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946, 378 pp. Ohlin, Lloyd E., Selection for Parole, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1951, 143 pp. Personal communications with 34 Prison Wardens, 1955. Pigeon, H. D., Principles and Methods in Qealing_with Offenders, State College, Pa., Pennsylvania Valley Publisher, 1949. Proceedingp Of the Eightieth Annual Congress of Correction of the American Prison Association, St. Louis: Oct. 8-13, 1950, 302 pp. 30. 31. 32. 125 Scudder, Kenyon J., Prisoners are People, Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1952, 286 pp. Stutsman, Jesse O., Curing‘the Criminal, New York: The Macmillan Co., Chap. 6, pp. 102-119. Testers, Negley K., The Challenge of Delinquency, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1950. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 293, May, 1954, 227 pp. APPENDIX A "WANTED" POSTERS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE TYPE USED IN MICHIGAN OFFERED by STATE $50 REWARD Hit nu ml \\lii ho. Pdid1|!hl(itilCnUr(ili/.CH\ 127 nm- k Hl\g\ tin. l u! ur \shu turm the Prisonernxer i, , I‘m L‘Hiiit'k'LlHetI! utiieml. I’nliee personnel are not L YQIi‘iL int runird nur ix the re\\urd payable if priw- min I\ urn-Med fur 1|”) ntience other than escape. NOTIFY “CARMEN: S'I‘XTIC PRISUN of SUI'THERN MICHIGAN J\('K.\‘()\'. \IH‘IIIGAN KARBO'SKI . ALFRED SPSHBBBOh ALIAS: ALFRED KARE! RACE: WHITE lALKED AIAY no: 16 BLOCK (mum 133mm) mass! 31. 1955. LAST sen AT 6:00 PI. 33mm nssnn ‘T 9800 PI. CRIB: B & 8 IIGH'I Tm REO'Dw-IZ-SB FRO!:R.C.DEI'ROIT ”88-10-53 Miss-15 IRS. A08330 in 1953 813886333! Hons-9 HADNBRWI IGT:137 0003mm BUILD 8818m- IAi'tAIKRIGAl IARKS & SCARS: CLEAR PPCHZI)! 1 U 000 12 “1’81. 1 U 000 10 I. 128 '.—.——r—~—~ miéé‘tl— STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN NMOHN JACKSON MICHIGAN F. P. Alias 3111 ESCAPED Amst 7. 1255 i The row-rd will be paid to (he Citiun or Citizens who unm the Inc“ or :l': 50. R EWA RD who turn. the Prisoner over to I luv enforcement ofliclll. Police penonnel are not eligible for rev-rd nor in the rev-rd ply-ble if prisoner III "rented for Iny ofl'enlc other thin nae-De. Amnt and Wire Warden. STATE PRISON of SOUTHERN MICHIGAN. JACKSON. MICK” or COMMISSIONER. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE. EAST LANSING. MICHIGAN 1. Right Thumb 2. R. Index 3. R. Middle 4. R. Ring 5. R. Little LEFT HAND (i , 6. Left Thumb ‘ 7. 1.. Index ‘ s. L.,Middle u I7... 17 Comp.m1ddy A 2 1n _ Hgt. S'Bk Crime B & E Eyes Brown Night Time Hair Brn&Cur1 Bid Muscular Term 2‘15! I‘m American y From ROCOIEtOConjugal “are (Dam) Occup_ laborer Marks & Scars Clear FATHER: Owen Willard Chase, Correspondents S Petersburg, Florida STEP'FR.: Roland van Vuren. 4555 Division Ave. , Grand Rapids, Michigan WIFE: Dawn Chase, Box 1400, Cedar Sprim 101113321 CIRCULAR #1u — FBI#1+975622 - 148895299181 - ISSUED AUGUST 17, 1955 APPENDIX B FORMS USED IN RECORDING DATA NAME Dept. of Corrections -— Social History Report No. 14 NO. PREV. NOS. INST. DATE . 0 1 2 38 Convtcted by Plea Iudgg Iury 39 No. of accomplices Code on Birthplace -— Cols. 50—51 40 Iuvenile Commitments (For Nari-II: Born) W—__—‘7 1 Alabama 14 Kansa . s 27 N. Hampshire 41 '1‘ 41 Iail Coflmignfieintgg_j 7 .a 2 Anzona 15 Kentucky 28 New Jersey 42 UI::3 12 No. Previous pngon 3 Arkansas 16 Louisiana 29 New Mexico 43 Vermont C0_mm.itments 4 CaliIornia 17 Maine 30 New York 44 Virginia 43 No. of Probations 5 Colorado 18 Maryland 31 North Carolina 45 West Virginia # l 6 Connecticut 19 Massachusetts 32 South Carolina 46 Wisconsin 44 No. OI Probations Viol. 7 Deliwa‘e 2° Mfcmg‘m 33 N°fih 90km 47 Washington __ W __.___ fl 8 Florida 21 Minnesota 34 South Dakota 48 Wyoming 45 No. of Paroles 9 Georgia 22 Mississippi 35 Ohio 49 District of Columbia ~—-fi 10 Idaho 23 Missouri 36 Oklahoma 50 Alaska 48 No. of Paroles Violated 11 Illinois 24 Montana 37 Oregon 51 Hawaiian Islands 12 Indiana 25 Nebraska 38 Pennsylvania 52 Philippines 47 No. of Escapes 13 Iowa 26 Nevada 39 Rhode Island 53 Virgin Islands :3 (Ayg: 0:: 01113851011 40 Tennessee 54 Panama Canal Zone 50 Birthplace (Inmate) 51 Country or State (code) __._r———— 2 3 TTT—S—TGT i T 52 Race White ll Negro Indian Mexican l Chinese I Japanese I Other l l 1 3 53 Citizenship (Inmate) Native l__-____‘ Naturalized lst Papers Alien _— 0 —H 54 Citizenship (Father) Native lchturalized lst Papers Alien TT—T Z 3 55 Citizenship (Mother) Native Naturalized lst Papers Alien > 0 2 3 l 4 5 6 58 Religion Not Any Hebrew Moham. Protestant R. Catholic G. Catholic I Other I 0 l 3 5 7 8 57 Education None Grades l~2 Grades 3-4 Grades 5-6 Grades 7-8 SE S 1— 2 SE S. 3——4 Coll.1—2 Coll. 3—4 \ f o l 2 4 I l x y 58 Average grade rating Illiterate l Second l Third Fourth Fifth Sixth EESeventh l Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh | Twelfth T—OT 1 '72 TTTTlTTlTT TTT 59 Intelligence Quotient 0—49 50—59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90 99 100 109 110— 119 120— 129 130 — ———-—-——-———‘—-——I z 50 Marital Status Single Married fWidowed Divorced Separated_ 5Com Law 0 l 1 or 2 3 or 5 I36 6and over '4 5 6 or more 610)me x 61 NO. of Children Not Any Under 16 Under 16 Under 16 minds over 16 and over 72 and 4 83 and 4 :3 and 5 3 and 6 i ’— 0 1 3 4 Skilled 5 l 6 l x l y Prof, I 32 OCChlpCttion Not Any Com. Labor Elggn; flAW___BEd§A 7 Business Profession 7Housewife 8Domestic Clerk l Student Criminal ] 0 Less Than 1 2 l 3 l '6 T7 33 Time in State 30 Days 1—6 Mos. Mr. 2—3 years 4—6 Years :-7 10 Years 11 yrs., over Life l 0 1 Pop. 2 3 4 l6 34 Environment Rural 1—M—5-M 5-M—IU-M IO—M-SU—M 50-M—100-M I lOU—M—ZSO-M I Over ZSO-M 0 1 Partially Z Seriously-1T, 65 Physical condition Normal Disabledof ZDisabled . 0 1 Hist, 3Syphilis 6: l 4 Hist of 5 Hist. of l 7 8 Hist. 0t 9 . xT B and . 68 Physical diseases Not Any SyphilisOf Syphilis l Gonor he ea 4Gonorrhea I gonorrhea l T. B. T. B. EpllepSY Eleepsy l Epilepsy | 0 Abstinent 1 Temperate 2 Intemperate 5 87 Addiction Ale. Alc. Alc. 4Drugsf-Yes Dr.-F0rmerly l ___’___’______,—.—.—_ __ l—T ARMY | NAVY | MARINES l COAST GUARD _ ’1 3 I 5 t 6 7 8 9 . 1x1 68 Military Service i 0Hon. Disch. Dishon. Other Hon. Disch. Dis hon. l Other Hon; » Disc-h; l__ Dishon. Other Hon. DIsch. Dishon. Other 0 1 Before I 2 Before ‘ 3 Before 4 Before l 5 Before l 6 After I 59 Parental home broken No l Age of 3 Age 6 Age 9 Age 12 Age 16 Age 16 l 0 5 6 Half or l 7 8 9 I x | Y l! 70 Fax Lily Crime Record Not Any Father Mother Step-parents Brother Sister Step Siblingsl l and 2 l l and 4 l 1 and 5 l 4 and 5 I 4 and 6 ___________’l— CODE ON BIRTHPLACE — COLS. 50-51 (For Furtign Earn) Code 1. Africa —- Egypt 2 Australia — New Zealand 3 Austria — Vienna 4 Belgium 5 Canada — Nova Scotia and New- toundlan 6 Central America — Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Guatemala 7 China 8 Czechoslovakia, Bohemia —- Slovakia 9 Cuba 10 Denmark 11 England —— Isle of Man 12 Finland 13 France 14 Germany — Prussia — Bavaria — Balin, Baden Saxony 15 Greece — Inc. Macedonia 16 Holland — Netherlands 17 Hungary —-— Austria —— Hungary 18 India — E. India — Indo China 19 Ireland 20 Iapcm 21 Italy — Sicily, Tiremo 22 Iugo—Slavia -— Inc. Bosnia ——- Croatia Serbia —— Montenegro — Dalmatia 23 Mexico 24 Norway 25 26 Polcmd — Russia Poland —— Austria Pol. Gallicia 27 28 29 31 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 53 54 Portugal (Also Azores and Cape Verde Islands) Rumania — Transylvania Scotland Russia — Ukrania South America Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey in Asia — Inc. Syria — Armenia ——- Palestine Turkey in Europe Wales West Indies (except Cuba) Haiti Iamaica Other Countries (Including Europe and Asia not specified) Isle of Mal- ta, Arabia, Cape Zriton Albania Lithuania Esthonia Latvia Luxemburg Danzig — Saar Basin Atlantic Islands —— Iceland Other Pacific Islands I27-lO-4Ll 35‘: 1 INST. 2 CORRECTIONS COMM. DAILY REGISTER 3 STATISTICAL BUREAU INSTITUTION DATE RR 1 ‘ NUMBER . NAME CO ECTED . COURT ‘ JUDGE . MOVEMENT PAROLE POPULATION MOVEMENT CODE ADDITIONS TO BOOK ADD. NEW COMMITMENT ................................. I NEW COMMITMENT (P.V.) ........................... I NEW COMMITMENT (ESC.) .......................... I TRANS. IN—IACKSON ................................ I TRANS. IN—MARQ ................................... I TRANS. IN—ION'IA .................................... I TRANS. IN—DHC ..................................... I TRANS. IN—C LAKE .................................. I TRANS. IN—ISH ...................................... I TRANS. IN—PAROLEE ................................ I TRANS. IN—AS P.V. ................................... I RET. BY CT. ORDER .................................. I REMOVALS FROM BOOK PARDON ............................................. REL. BYCT. ORDER .................................. DISCH. FR. PAROLE..,. DEATHONPAROLE .................................. TRANS.FR.PAROLE...........................,,...,. TRANS. AS P. V. (N.S) ................................ DEATH AS P.V ....................................... TRANS. AS ESC. (N.S.) ................................ DEATH ON ESCAPE .................................. CHANGES IN STATUS RET. Fl; PAR. IN CUST. ............................... RET.A S.VP ......................................... RET. ASP.V. (N..S). ................................... RETilFRESCA-PE .................................... RET. FR. ESC. (N.S.) .................................. PAROLE .................. PAROLEINCUST. ................ , .................. PAROLETOPN. .............................. H TEMP. REL (REASON) ....... .......... ESCAPE ............................................. ESCAPEFROMTR. .. DISCH. AND RECOMMIT ......... VISITORPEND. TRANS. VISITOR TRANS. ................................... mm<<4 Mexican 99995730 (77 9 3‘ (D >1 CODE ON BIRTHPLACE - COL. lI lithe code numbers as listed be- low are not preceded by “”1, 2 or ”3" the minute is native born. If the code numbers as listed be- low are preceded by the figure "1" the inmate is foreign born and has been naturalized. If 2 the inmate has first papers, If "3" the inmate is an alien. (For Native Rom) Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa 14, Kansas 15, Kentucky 16. Louisiana 17. Maine 18. Maryland 19, Massachusetts 2. Michigan 21. Minnesota 2, Mississippi PSOFDNFT’VP‘FDN“ w§,:T 27. New Hampshire .28. New Jersey 29. New Mexico 30. New York 31. North Carolina 32. South Carolina 33. North Dakota 34. South Dakota 35, Ohio 36, Oklahoma 37. Oregon 38. Pennsylvania 39, Rhode Island 40, Tennessee 41, Texas 42. Utah 43. Vermont 44. Virginia 45, West Virginia 46. Wisconsin 47_ Washington 48. Wyoming 49. District of Columbia 50. Alaska 51. Hawaiian Islands 52. Philippines 53. Virgin Islands 54. Panama Canal Zone (For Foreign Born) 1 Africa —— Egypt 2 Australia — New Zealand 3. Austria — Vienna 4 5 Belgium Canada ——- Nova Scotia and Newfoundland 6. Central America —— Nicara— gua, Porto Rico, Guatemala 7. China Czechoslovakia, Bohemia — ~-Slovakia .03 (continued) 9. Cuba 10. Denmark 11. England — Isle of Man 12. Finland 13. France 14. Germany — Prussia — Ba— varia ‘— Balin, Baden, Sax— any 15. Greece — Inc. Macedonia 16. Holland — Netherlands 17. Hungary — Austria-Hungary 18. India — E, India — Indo China 19. Ireland 20. Iapan 21. Italy — Sicily, Tiremo 22. Iugo—Slavia — Inc. Bosnia -- Croatia —— Serbia — Mont- enegro —~ Dalmatia 23, Mexico 24, Norway 26. Poland — Russia Poland —— Austria Pol~ Gallicia 28. Portugal (Also Azores and Cape Verdes Islands) 29. Romania — Transylvania 30. Russia — Ukrania 31. Scotland 32. South America 33. Spain 34. Sweden 35. Switzerland 36. Turkey in Asia -— Inc. Syria Armenia — Palestine 37. Turkey in Europe 39 Wales 40. West Indies (except Cuba) 41. Other Countries (Including Europe and Asia not speci— fied) Isle of Malta, Arabia, Cape Briton 42. Unknown 43. Bulgaria 44. Albania 45. Lithuania 46. Esthonia 47. Latvia 48. Luxemburg 50. Danzig — Saar Basin 53. Atlantic Islands —— Iceland 54. Other Pacific Islands MARITAL STATUS CODE — COL. 13 0. Single 1. Married 2. Divorced 4. Separated 5, Com. Law BUDGET BUREAU NO. 43—R 290.1 1, 1 ~ _ DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE " ‘ FORM PR 1 BUREAU (r PRISONS A' TOTAL PRISONERD RECEIVED FROM COURT' APPROVAL EXPIRES DECEMBER 31. 1954 (REV' 16'5” 1. Grand total for period _ _ _._. NAME OF INSTlTUTION NATIONAL PRISONER STATISTICS 2- Total this page ----- a __ B. REPORT FOR PERIOD: ADDRESS ADMISSIONS Beginning . E.,.L___ w” —“ (I'm/t r' u m z.” i'vu/ir.’ .\il.'/1Il(1‘) month day year TO: Burt-air of Prisons, Department of Justice Ending H 6710“”, T H ‘ééyiA Chive; Washington 25, D. C C. Page . L, 7 of .. Pages ' . , c 11 i (12) (13) R. METHOD (:f ADMISSION ‘ OFFENSE i , ‘ A ' 1 , DATE of C l t , . , c INDETERMINATE . E 1 RACE 13,1523: , AGE ’1‘ (5;, $53121; ADMISSION o . 1 COUNTY o MlN. t MAX. 1 x t t I N MO. DA. E ”TAILS ‘ E YR? Ml YR" M l l l L l l 38 39 40 ny’ w nxcumnn STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1|WWWWIWWWWWWWHI 31293102151440