.A THFSYS f?“ - ' ’ -.- vr..-'v_-;f~‘g“ ' Till/W illfill/1111111111!!! LIEHAKY 312649310 fiftehigan State l University This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Examination of the Grievance Mechanism Available to Michigan Correctional Clients presented by Wayne Ross Liddell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science degreein Criminal Justice $4,,“ Mic; professor Date 2-15-80 0-7 639 ovsnoug FINE§: 25¢ Mr W per ita- nggymguc LIBRARY wMTEklALS: Place in bookne mto move charge from circulation records AN EXAMINATION OF THE GRIEVANCE MECHANISM AVAILABLE TO MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL CLIENTS By Wayne Ross Liddell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1980 ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF THE GRIEVANCE MECHANISM AVAILABLE TO MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL CLIENTS By Wayne Ross Liddell The purpose of this study is to provide a detailed examination of the grievance mechanism implemented within the Michigan correctional system which consists of a departmental administrative procedure as well as external review provided by the Ombudsman's Office. In this examina- tion, the primary areas of focus concerned the following; (1) the characteristics of the grievances and entire griev- ance process, (2) the characteristics of those inmates who submitted grievances, and (3) the impact of grievant characteristics upon the grievance resolution process. The basic design utilized in this study was descriptive with a secondary emphasis upon the exploratory research de- sign. The sample consisted of 963 grievances submitted by 649 individuals confined under the auspices of the State Prison of Southern Michigan between July 1, 1977, and December 31, 1977. Data was collected by content analysis and secondary analysis. The findings indicate that although the grievance mechanism allows inmates to voice grievances, it could be improved upon in several areas to address these complaints in an increas— ingly responsive manner. DEDICATION Alison Marie Liddell My daughter, who never had the opportunity to experience life. She nevertheless managed to teach her parents so much about the value of life and how precious a gift it truly is. She will live forever in our hearts. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS At last, after two years of seemingly endless re- searching and writing, the arduous task is accomplished. This thesis could not have been completed without the ex- tensive support and services which were provided by a large number of individuals and agencies. I would now like to formally recognize some of those individuals for their assistance in this endeavor. I would like to thank my advisory committee, Dr. Timothy Bynum (Chairman), Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, and Dr. David Kalinich for their assistance and insight through- out this research project. As chairman of my committee, Dr. Bynum kept the ship afloat by receiving numerous phone calls and office visits from an individual who knew little about performing research and was easily and frequently frustrated by the task. Mr. David Grant, fellow graduate student and close friend, is recognized and thanked for providing a great deal of encouragement and assistance in the formulation of this project as well as the data collection and analysis. The Department of Corrections is thanked for al- lowing access to facilities and records for this research. Particular individuals who were instrumental in the completion iii of this project include, Mr. William Kime, Mr. Thomas Patten, Mr. Donald Matthews, Mr. Charles Anderson and Mr. James Pogats. The Office of the Legislative Corrections Ombudsman should also be recognized for its cooperation and assistance in this project. Mr. Leonard Esquina and Ms. Lonnie Morris were of great help. Thanks should also be extended to the School of Criminal Justice for its financial assistance in this pro- ject. Three undergraduate criminal justice students, Don Dougherty, Dave Barons and Dave Mitchell are also thanked for their direct assistance in the collection and coding of the data. A special thanks must go to my wife and primary supporter, Dorothy, who spent endless hours at the type- writer and along with my daughter, Amy, sacrificed many evenings and weekends which could have been spent in family activities. I would also like to thank my parents, Arch and Doris Liddell, for instilling in me the value of education and encouraging me in this project. Finally, I would like to thank the remaining family, friends, and colleagues for their words of encouragement and assistance which facilitated the completion of this thesis. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Philosophy of Grievance Mechanisms Types of Contemporary Grievance Mechanisms Internal administrative procedures Inmate councils The Ombudsman concept Secondary grievance mechanisms Summary Need For Evaluation Research Questions Summary and Overview . Footnotes - Chapter I II. DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction Description of the Michigan Grievance Procedure. The Legislative Corrections Ombudsman's Office Research Design Sample Data Collection Research Questions Summary Footnotes - Chapter II .4 O\ +4 :4 16 2o 28 31 33 35 38 41 an an an A7 50 51 53 57 61 6A Chapter III. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The Grievance and the Grievance Process Grievance categories and months filed Grievance resolution process Quality of the response and the grievance The Grievant Characteristics Demographic characteristics Previous contact with criminal justice system. Current grievant information The Impact of Grievant Characteristics Upon the Grievance Resolution Process The grievant characteristics and the last step resolved . . . . . . . The grievant characteristics and the type of resolution The Impact of Grievance Type Upon the Step and Type of Resolution Summary Footnotes - Chapter III SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Future Research vi 65 65 65 66 75 86 96 97 101 107 118 118 128 136 1A3 151 152 152 160 165 170 APPENDIX A - Client Grievance Form . . . . . . . . . . . 174 APPENDIX B - Grievance Coding Form . . . . . . . . . . . 175 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 vii \0m'\]O\U1-I='UU 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. LIST OF TABLES Grievances and Appeals Filed Prisoner Complaints Type of Grievance (Total) Consolidated Grievance Categories Month in Which Grievances Were Filed Resolution of Grievances Decisions by Steps Decisions by Ombudsman Step at Which Grievance Terminates Total Time Used to Resolve Grievance Grievances Resolved Within Time Limits Reasons Provided to Grievant Reasons Backed by Policy Rubber Stamp Clarity of the Response Frivolous Grievances Clarity of Grievances Age of Grievants . . . . . . . . . . Race of Grievants Education Level Age at First Attention of Authorities Adult Probation History viii l2 23 68 71 74 77 78 8O 82 8A 85 87 89 91 93 9A 95 97 99 100 102 104 23. 2A. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33- 3A. 35. 36. 37. 38. Commitment Code Committing Offense Parole Board Classification Minimum Sentence Time Served Number of Impact of Impact of Resolved Impact of Impact of Impact of Impact of Resolution Impact of Impact of Impact of Impact of Grievances Per Inmate Race Upon Step Resolved Type of Committing Offense on Step Commitment Code Upon Step Resolved Education Level Upon Step Resolved Race Upon Final Resolution Type of Committing Offense Upon Final Commitment Code Upon Final Resolution Education Level Upon Final Resolution Grievance Type Upon Step Resolved Grievance Type Upon Final Resolution ix 106 108 110 112 113 116 119 121 123 126 129 131 133 135 138 1A1 Chapter I The Problem: Review of the Literature \\ Philosophy of Grievance Mechanisms The recognition of the need for specific grievance pro- cedures for inmates confined in correctional institutions did not materialize until the early 1970's. The tragic loss of human life and property destruction which occurred at Attica and other prisons throughout the country during this time brought public attention to the demands and complaints of the imprisoned population. It has frequently been asserted by various authors that these riots occurred primarily due to a lack of adequate admiministrative responsiveness toward inmates' ' . 2f) grievances within the institution.l£The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals has stated, "A formal procedure to insure that offen- ders' grievances are fairly resolved should alleviate much of the existing tension within institutions.... Peaceful avenues for redress of grievances are a prereq- uisite if violent means are to be avoided. Thus all correctional agencies have not only a responsibility but an institutional interest in maintaining procedures that are, and appear to offenders to be designed to resolve their complaints fairly." This primary basis for the development and implementation of grievance mechanisms can best be described as a "cooling off" mechanism in which the inmate is able to present his complaints to prison officials and receive responses without resorting to violent measures. As Singer and Keating have observed, "Inmates have resorted frequently to violence or litigation to express their complaints because other means3to do so have not been made available." <§fi . “in It has also been contended that the emerging intervention by the courts in cases concerning prisoners' rights has also contributed significantly to the development and implementation of prisoner grievance mechanisms. In order to decrease the amount of cases brought to court, the majority of the complaints could be resolved within the institution, thereby leaving only a smallfifraction of cases serious enough to require judicial re— \38/ view. Judge Donald P. Lay, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, has commented on this issue. "The second and perhaps more immediate solution to many of our problems is to create within the prison system an admin- istrative grievance adjustment policy which will be attractive to the prison population. As prisoners come to realize that their complaints will be processed in an administrative level in a fair, expeditious and imparitial manner, and that relief will be afforded where justified, inmates will begin to select their admin- istrative remedy ratheruthan the delayed process of the courts." f§(?\ This basis for the implementation of grievance mechanisms sug- gests that by utilizing the grievance procedure an inmate would likely receive a more timely response than would be possible through litigation in the legal system. However, should alleged civil rights violations remain uncorrected, then the inmate would be in the position to petition the courts, but only in these more serious cases. The final major argument which favors the implementa- tions of adequate prisoner grievance mechanisms concerns the impact of a fair and equitable "system" on an inmate, some— times referred to as the "justice model" concept. This argument contends that by providing an inmate an environment which is fair and just, anatmospherevdJJ.be created which will be more conducive to attitudinal change than the tradi- tional authoritarian correctional structure. David Fogel, a pioneer of the justice model concept for corrections, presents the basic foundation and premises of this concept in his work, We Are the Living Proof.5 Fogel asserts that "justice as fairness" should be the primary aim within the field of cor- rections if positive changes are desired from the imprisoned population. He succinctly describes the basic theory of the justice model as follows, "The period of incarceration can be con- ceptualized as a time in which we try to reorient a prisoner to the lawful use of power. One of the more fruitful ways the prison can teach non-law abiders to be law—abiding is to treat them in a lawful manner. The entire effort of the prison should be seen as an influence attempt based upon operationalizing justice." One of the major goals of the justice model which Fogel identifies and believes is realizable is that of peaceful con- flict resolution or redress of prisoner grievances. He clearly prefers the inmate council grievance mechanism and states, "Men who can negotiate their fates do not have to turn to violence as a method of achieving change."7 Allen F. Breed, former dir- ector of the California Youth Authority, has also commented on this justice model concept; "Kids who turn delinquent have a very keen sense of fairness, maybe because they've learned to recognize the lack of justice in how they've been handled before they got to us. Young offenders ask themselves, "why should they act in a law abiding manner when they are con- stantly treated in a way that doesn't seem fair."8 This final justification for the development of grievance procedures dif- fers somewhat from the two mentioned previously. The "justice model" approach stresses the importance of treating the inmate in a humanistic manner which may not only help to resolve complaints within the prison system but may also develop an understanding of appropriate methods of conflict resolution which may be utilized in the community.. The other reasons are not concerned with the "human rights" issue but primarily stress the orderly maintenance of the prisons and efficient operation of the judicial system. The fourth rationale which has contributed to the development and implementation of grievance mechanisms can best be described as a "preserve the status quo" approach. This rationale contends that a grievance mechanism can serve as an effective administrative tool designed specifically to assist in maintaining order and stability within a correctional environment. Virginia McArthur, in her article describing a survey of the grievance mechanisms implemented in state correctional systems, commented on the prison administration's reasons for utilizing these procedures. She reported that, 5 "The most common reasons in order of frequency were 'to provide all in- mates opportunities to voice grievances and receive an official response' (143 respondents), 'to assist management by identifying institutional problems' (136), 'to reduce inmate frustration' (132), 'to aid in rehabilitation of inmates' (126). Reduction of violence and litiga- tion were given far less often - only 60 and 50 times respectively."9 These results suggest that the primary motivation for the creation of grievance procedures is to provide a more stable atmospherewdthin the correctional facility. The only possible exception to this may be the "rehabilitation" response which may be in the interest of the inmate or of the efficient opera- tion of the prison. The correctional philosophy of a prison administrator would likely have a large impact upon whether a grievance mechanisms is implemented for administrative reasons or the best interest of the inmate population. Bruce Bernstein in his article regarding the grievance mechanism in operation within the federal correctional system, recognizes that prison violence and court intervention are largely responsible for the development of grievance procedures. However, Bernstein suggests that administrators implement such procedures for different reasons. He contends that "progressive officials have welcomed the opportunity to reduce inmate frustrations and to ensure that inmate rights are not violated."10 He maintains that more conservative officials utilize grievance procedures for selfish motives such as, the reduction of court 6 surveillance, "defusing potentially explosive situations" and providing for better public relations. Bernstein con- cludes that, "It is a combination of these self- less and selfish motives of prison officials, the internal pressure ex- erted by inmates, and the external pressures applied by the public which has created an environment of formal grievance procedures."ll Based upon the information presented in this section, the basic philosophy behind the development and implementation of cor- rectional grievance mechanisms appears to be twofold. First, fundamental fairness or recognition of the inmates need to have an avenue open to present complaints to the administration and receive appropriate responses. Second, from an administra- tive standpoint, a grievance procedure could assist in main- taining a stable atmosphere and minimize interference from the judicial system as well as conveying a positive image to the pub- lic. For both groups, the underlying purpose is to provide a "cooling off" mechanism in which problems or complaints can be dealt with in a peaceful manner. Types of Contemporary Grievance Mechanisms There are three major grievance mechanisms utilized in correctional environments; internal administrative procedures, ombudsman programs, and inmate councils. In addition, there are other grievance mechanisms which are less frequently im- plemented and include inmate unions, direct mail systems, and legal services - judical review. 7 In describing the various grievance mechanisms, the majority of the information will be obtained from a review of the existing literature pertaining to inmate grievance procedures. It should be noted that this literature is comprised of very few empirical studies which evaluate grievance procedures but rather, consists of recommendations for, or explanations of specific mechanisms which the authors favor. Internal Administrative Procedures The formal or internal grievance procedure concept con- sists of those procedures which are implemented and monitored by individual institutional superientendents or, in most cases, administrators of state or federal correctional systems. This mechanism is usually comprised of a graduated "step" process in which an inmate must first voice his complaint to lower level correctional personnel and appeal the grievance to upper echelon officials should the desired relief be denied. The internal administrative procedure is perhaps the most commonly utilized grievance mechanism in corrections. Virginia McArthur commented in her article reporting the results of a survey of this nation's prisons that 77 percent of the institutions surveyed reported that they incorporated this type of grievance mechanism.12 The manner in which the inmate population views the administrations support or utilization of a given procedure is an important factor which determines whether the procedure is seen as a viable method of conflict resolution. In their 8 article on prisoner grievance mechanisms, Singer and Keatingl3 commented specifically on what they termed formal or administra- tive grievance procedures. The authors cite Illinois, Kansas, and Wisconsin as recently implementing grievance procedures which allow an inmate the opportunity to submit a written grievance through a predetermined series of steps with written responses from those who occupy increasing levels of responsibility until it reaches the prison administrator or director of cor- . _ rections, if need be. While acknowledging that this type of system may have some merit or usefulness, the authors contend that like other internally monitored grievance mechanisms, this procedure is vulnerable to administrators who would manipu— late the system by screening out or squelching potentially legitimate embarrassing complaints. Singer and Keating con- clude that the viability of these procedures are severely limited because of the high degree of inmate skepticism which results from the belief that "the administrator retains absolute discretion over whether he will respond to a com- plaint and what his response will be."114 The point is made that for a grievance procedure to be viable, the inmate popula- tion must believe that their grievances will be examined and acted upon in a fair and just manner by those in power. In their article on inmate grievance mechanism, Keating and Kolze15 describe the implementation and the effects of a grievance procedure at the Karl Holton School. This school is under the auspices of the California Youth Authority and has a population of approximately “00 juvenile offenders with an average age of 19 years. 9 After considering several different types of grievance procedures, the officials at Karl Holton decided to implement a mechanism based upon a participatory model. The participa- tory model calls for a committee comprised of inmates and line staff which receives complaints and makes recommendations to administrators. In addition, an independent mediator was also selected to assist in decision making policy. The authors report the completed design implemented as: "l. A first level mediation committee comprised of inmates and staff and chaired by a non-voting media- tor from the institutional adminis- tration. 2. Review on appeal of the committee's decision or recommendation by the superintendent (or, where a depart- mental issue was involved by the director of the Youth Authority). 3. Appeal to a tripartite, outside review panel chaired by a volunteer professional arbitrator with other members selected by the superin- 16 tendent and the complaining inmate." The authors comment on an evaluation of the program after one year in operation which indicates positive results in its early stages. They indicate that of 277 grievances processed, 107 dealt with individual problems whereas 139 concerned institu- tional or departmental policy. The remaining 31 cases were com- plaints concerning specific staff behavior or actions. They note that in 64 percent of the grievances filed, the relief requested by the inmate was granted, either totally or in part. The authors contend that the mediation process utilized in this 10 mechanism is indeed effective and state that only six grievances usually concerning major policy required external review and arbitration. Staff attitudes toward the grievance procedure were also measured and the results indicated that "85 percent of those interviewed were either favorable or neutral toward the spe- cific procedure operating in the institution."17 The authors state that, based upon the positive results obtained at the Karl Holton School, this mechanism was ex- tended to all other institutional facilities within the California Youth Authority. The authors assert that by in— volving inmates in the grievance resolution process, it is likely that they will become confident in the basic fairness of the institutional programs and thereby attempt bring about institutional change in a more acceptable manner. The Federal Bureau of Prisons also utilizes this form of correctional grievance procedure. The implementation and operation of this grievance procedure within the federal correctional system has been described by Bruce Bernstein.18 He cites recent prison disturbances and increased prisoner litigation as being the prime motivators of the new policy. It is also pointed out by the author that the previous system for redress of prisoner grievances used with the Bureau was inadequate and merely provided for ventilation of inmate feelings rather than a system which could grant satis- factory relief to the complainant. 11 The administrative grievance procedure with the Bureau of Prisons was implemented for the entire system in November, 197“, following a trial period of approximately one year. The author states that the new procedure was designed in such a manner that the inmate would understand its funda- mentals and be able to utilize it without difficulty. The new procedure offers a grievant three stages in which he may pursue the complaint and seek relief. The Bureau stresses the importance of staff and inmate attempting to re- solve problems but in those cases in which this attempt fails, the inmate may then file a formal complaint with the prison administrator's office. The warden or his assistant must then respond to the grievance in the form of a written statement to the grievant within fifteen days. The second step in the grievance procedure occurs when an inmate is not satisfied with the administration's decision. If this occurs, the in- mate may file an appeal with the Regional Director who supervises federal prisons in this area. After examining the original grievance and decision, the Regional Director is required to respond to the complaint and forward, in writing, this response to the inmate within twenty days. The third, and final step available to the inmate for admin- istrative relief, notwithstanding litigation, occurs when he or she is not satisfied with the Regional Director's re- sponse. The inmate may then appeal to the General Counsel's Office Of the Bureau of Prisons in Washington D.C. The General 12 Counsel's Office is required to file a formal reply to the inmate within twenty days and is also responsible for gather- ing all documents relating to the grievance for judicial re— view if requested. The author provided statistics gathered from records and logs kept by the office of the General Counsel which give some indication to what extent the procedure is utilized by the inmates. The following table gives the reader an idea of how the system functioned during the initial 15 months.19 TABLE 1 Grievances and Appeals Filed Prison Regional ' National Level (15 Level (8 Level (15 months) months) months) Total Grievances . . . 5712 784 951 Number Granted . , Relief 1111 84 109 Percent Granted 19 Relief . . . 19 12 Percent of De- cisions Appealed , , , 20 35 NA The author suggests that the low number of appeals re- sulting from decisions made at the prison level may indicate several possibilities. IFirst, the inmates may be satisfied with the responses that are provided. Second, that there exist suitable explanations for the actions of staff. Third, the 13 nature of the original complaint may have been trivial in nature. Fourth, it is possible that the inmates do not pursue the grievances (appeal) due to fear of retaliation by prison authorities. A fifth issue which the author does not mention but may have merit may be that the inmate can adopt a pessimis- tic attitude and decide, "What's the use?" thereby terminating the process. Bernstein also contends that this appeal system is not a "rubber stamp" for the actions of prison personnel by citing that approximately 10 percent of the inmates who appeal de- cisions made at lower levels are ultimately granted relief in the procedure. However, 10 percent does not appear to be a substantial amount of successful appeals for the inmate. In addition, this statistic may reflect a tendency of lower echelon corrections personnel to force others to make the "hard" decisions as well as preserving in-group loyalty of line per- sonnel. In other words, corrections personnel with little policy making authority may simply inform a grievant that his com- plaint cannot be addressed at that level and should be con- sidered at a higher level within the correctional organization. In addition, the low number of successful appeals may indicate an administrative effort to support lower level decisions in an effort to preserve or enhance morale at the lower levels of the organization. Bernstein concludes that the Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative Grievance Procedure has demonstrated that it has effectively reduced inmate litigation, provided a system 14 which allows an inmate to gain satisfactory redress of grievances and has resulted in an improvement in prison policy. Despite the supportive comments in favor of the im- plementation of internal administrative procedures, there also exists in the literature specific objections to this type of grievance mechanism. These objections vary widely in strength from those who contend that internal procedures are not viable mechanisms to those who regard them potentially useful when utilized in conjunction with other types of mechanisms. The critical factor involved in these objections revolves around the degree of trust the inmate population has in this procedure. One major drawback to this form was expresed by Brian Taugher,2O who attacked the credibility of administrative grievance procedures as well as judicial review. In describing the administrative procedures, the author asserts that this system is basically inadequate due to the belief that cor- rections officials are reluctant to take an inmate's word over that of a guard, or in the case of higher levels of re- view, overrule a colleague's decision. The inmates distrust of the system may ultimately mean that the majority of complaints are not brought forth. The author asserts that in order for a grievance mechanism to be effective, the inmate population must View it as objective and impartial. 15 Another author who has advocated the implementation of ombudsman programs in correctional systems is Lance Tibbles. In his article, "Ombudsman for American Prisons",21 Tibbles acknowledges that administrative grievance procedures are needed in this nation's prisons. Despite advocating internal grievance mechanisms, the author points out several limitations of such procedures when used alone. The first argument concerns the integrity of the responses from the parties responsible and subequently the degree of inmate confidence in the procedure. It is maintained that the response will be viewed with suspicion by the inmates because those people who answer the grievance are frequently the same individuals who are in charge of running the prison. Another limitation that was pointed out was that this type of mechanism rarely is able to examine matters with an objective viewpoint. Instead, reviewers who are prison officials will View the grievance from the perspective of a prison official rather than in impartial critic. Another limitation or hindering factor concerns the morale or loyalty of line staff. It is suggested by Tibbles that a prison official will find it difficult to criticize or investigate the actions of subordinates for fear of lost morale, loyalty and pro— ductivity. The final limitation of the internal process con- cerns the inmates' fear of reprisal from staff after submit- ting a grievance. Reprisals can include verbal or physical acts of aggression or something more subtle such as consid- eration of the grievance at parole hearings, or suspension of "good time", etc. l6 Tibbles stipulates that the internal procedure is not sufficient by itself and should be used in conjunction with an external review process as found in most ombudsman programs in order to adequately respond to inmate complaints. It is suggested that with this system, the ombudsman's role is to review the function or appropriateness of the admini- strative procedure rather than becoming involved in grievances most easily handled at the institutional or department level. Further, it is asserted that an administrative grievance procedure could benefit from an external review by responding to suggestions for change. The previous articles reviewed concerning administra- tive grievance procedures indicate that this type of mech- anism is frequently utilized and serves an important function in contemporary corrections. It's proponents maintain that complaints should logically be voiced and resolved within the institution or departmental structure. Others, however, in— dicate that a strictly internal review of grievances results in adverse effects, not the least of which is a lack of credibility with the inmate population. Therefore, it has been asserted that administrative procedures could be sup- plemented with an external review process to enhance inmate participation and faith in the procedure. Inmate Councils The second major grievance mechanism is the inmate council approach. The oldest of the three major grievance mechanisms, inmate councils have been in existence since the 17 early 1900's. According to Keating, et al.,22 the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk possesses the oldest continuing inmate council program in existence, being imple- mented in 1927. Currently, there appears to be many such programs in operation. In her survey of 209 American prison systems, Virginia McArthur23 found that inmate council pro- grams were present in 117 or 56 percent of the institutions surveyed. In 107 of these institutions, inmate representatives are elected by the general inmate population and are responsible for meeting with the administration and presenting the in- mates' point of view. These statistics indicate that the inmate council approach is a frequently utilized grievance mechanism in corrections. McArthur found that they were more prevalent than the ombudsman approach but less common than formal administrative procedures. Inmate councils have evolved primarily as a result of the theory that if prisoners are able to have input into the administration of the facility then the morale and behavior of the inmate population will be more positive in nature. As a result, some prison administrators may view the inmate council concept in the same vein as internal administrative procedures, important in maintaining order within the in- stitution. Inmate councils are comprised of individuals elected from the general institutional population and chosen by their peers to represent the inmate viewpoint to prison administrators. The function of inmate councils in corrections is purely 18 advisory in nature. Inmate councils are similar to the ombudsman programs which incorporate an external review pro- cess in that they have no real "power" to effect change within the institution. However, the inmate councils are able to make formal recommendations and negotiate with ad- ministrators in regard to institutional policy or actions. Keating, et al., have commented on the inmate council con— cept and the criticism that these councils are powerless. The authors have stated, "In fact, the "power" of an inmate council, again like that of an om- budsman, depends largely on the responsiveness of administration to its recommendations. When an ad- ministration is committed to and supports a council, it can be a useful means of providing inmate input (i.e. point of Kiew) into institutional 'policy."2 So it would appear that the success or impact of inmate councils depend largely upon the prevailing administrative attitude. Just as the administrations acceptance of the inmate council is important, it is also imperative that the inmate population View the process as viable. Many of the negative perceptions regarding the inmate council concern the "powerless" concept discussed earlier. Unless recommendations are acted upon favorably by administrators, the inmate population can become easily disillusioned with both the council and ad- ministration and refrain from using the procedure. This disillusionment can be exacerbated when council members are 19 provided special privileges or inclusion in special programs by the administration thereby suggesting that the inmate representatives have joined the administration. 25 have commented that in most in- Singer and Keating stances inmate councils lack credibility with the inmate population and often receive less than total support by the administration, thereby rendering them ineffective as a grievance procedure. In his article describing the Federal Bureau of Prisons grievance procedure, Bruce Bernstein26 seemed to favor the concept of inmate participation in the form of an inmate council as a supplement to the existing grievance mechanism. However, Bernstein cites the composition of inmate councils as a major area of concern. He contends that the success of the council depends upon the individual characteris- tics of the inmate representatives specifically in terms of their competency to negotiate in good faith. He warns that because of the election process strong inmate leaders may gain this position largely because of their power in the prison subculture rather than for expertise in negotiation. Keating, et al., have also commented on the inadequacies of inmate councils even though they support the basic concept. They have commented, "An overall assessment of the effective- ness of inmate councils currently in operation as grievance mechanisms has to be negative. Essential elements for an effective grievance mechanism, such as written, timely responses and out- side review nowhere have been built into a council."27 20 However, these authors also contend that in one respect, in— mate councils far outshine other correctional grievance pro- cedures. Their research indicated that because the council is comprised of other inmates, there is increased confidence in submitting grievances. Responses to their questionnaire in- dicated that, "inmates were more willing to use inmate councils (as a class or type of mechanism) to resolve grievances than other basic type of mechanism."28 This discussion of inmate councils has indicated that there are convincing arguments for advocating as well as criticizing this form of grievance mechanism. Although there appears to be problems in terms of administrative responsive- ness as well as inmate qualifications and the selection pro- cess, it also seems that if properly implemented, the inmate council approach may be utilized by a larger percentage of inmates thereby reducing the number of "pent-up" grievances. It is contended that inmate councils could be a desirable supplement to formal administrative procedures and ombudsman programs. The Ombudsman Concept The Ombudsman concept was developed in Sweden in 1809 with its basic purpose to receive and investigate citizen complaints regarding governmental or bureaucratic indiscre- tions and make official recommendations to the governmental agency for change. Other Scandinavian countries duplicated Sweden's efforts to establish an ombudsman in an effort to 21 oversee governmental actions. This Scandinavian model of ombudsman programs stresses the independence and impartiality of the ombudsman. Keating et al., have commented, "The Scandinavian ombudsmen are ap- pointed by the legislature; all are entirely independent of the executive; all can make information public at any time; and all must report annually to the 1egislature."29 The ombudsman is also provided with broad investigatory powers which include access to all files, reports, and records per- taining to the grievance. In addition, the ombudsman is af- forded the ability to make public his recommendations. The Scandinavian ombudsman model gained notoriety in this country during the late 1960's and early 1970's. One of the early proponents for the incorporation of this concept into American society and correctional systems was Walter Gellhorn.3O Years before the riots which occurred at Attica and other prisons, Gellhorn warned that existing channels for grievance resolution were inadequate and could lead to con- tinued violence in correctional institutions. In 1966, Gellhorn stated, "Very possibly riots and "strikes" in state prisons, where they occur far more frquently than in similar federal institutions, may reflect the inadequacy of the available grievance mechanisms; they seem chiefly designed to draw out— side attention to inside problems."32 Indeed, several years after Gellhorn advocated the adoption of ombudsman programs in correctional systems, a handful of states moved to develop and implement this form of 22 grievance mechanism. Some of the first states to do so in- cluded; Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, Connecticut, Ohio and South Carolina. However, many states which have thus far implemented ombudsman programs have not assured independence and impar- tiality by placing them under the supervision of the executive branch of government which also supervises corrections rather 33 than the legislative branch. Keating et al., have com- mented on these programs and maintain that for the inmate population to View the ombudsman as a credible resource for conflict resolution, there must not be any dependency by that office upon the corrections department or executive branch. The authors indicate that Minnesota, Iowa, and Connecticut are a few of the states that have attempted to assure such independence in their systems. They further indicate that ombudsman programs can be very useful when used as a sup- plemental external review of an internal administrative pro- cedure. The implementation of an ombudsman program for the California correctional system was discussed in an article by Brian Taugher.3l4 In this article Taugher describes the ombudsman concept of conflict resolution and why it should have been implemented in California. Also discussed is a bill (A.B. 1181) which was introduced before the California Legislature that would have created such a position but was ultimately vetoed by the Governor. In defending the ombuds- man concept as valuable in the field of corrections, the 23 author criticizes the existing administrative and judicial remedies available to inmates who seek redress of their grievances. Taugher presents data which indicates that issues in- mates frequenlty view as grievable. The data was collected by the California Department of Corrections and represents complaints made by inmates during the month of January, 1971. The data is presented in the table below: TABLE 2 Prisoner Complaints Parole Complaints 89 Religion and Race 23 Transfer and Classification 77 Property 17 Legal 73 Mail and Visits 15 Medical 30 Staff Abuse 6 Program Treatment 29 Protections 1 The author states that it is difficult to determine whether the above statistics accurately represent a normal number of complaints. He maintains, however, that based upon personal interviews with inmates, it is likely that the figures would increase if the inmates fear of retaliation (real or imagined) was reduced. Before describing the ombudsman concept, the author presents a brief discussion of the existing remedies which are available to inmates seeking relief. The two that are 2A emphasized are, administrative grievance procedures and judicial review. Regarding the administrative procedures, the author asserts that this system is basically inadequate due to the belief that corrections officials are reluctant to take an inmate's word over a guards or in the case of higher levels of review, overrule a colleague's decision. Whether or not this actually takes place is really not the issue. What is important is that this is the way the inmate views the procedure which may ultimately mean that a majority of complaints are not brought forth. The matter of judicial review is also attacked as a viable method for obtaining satisfactory redress of grievances. In this case the primary argument is that only major incidents such as violations of an individual's constitutional rights will find their way to courts. The more numerous and less serious complaints (though perhaps important to the inmate) will, therefore, be dealt with in the traditional administra- tive procedure described above. The author asserts that another alternative, the ombudsman, could be implemented which might reduce the negative effect of the above grievance mechanisms and offer a more viable option for the grievant. In this article, an ombudsman is defined as "an official who investigates complaints about government administra- tion."35 The ombudsman must be independent of the agency which he investigates, he must be given full power of investigation and his power is limited to making recommendations to the 25 administrator making public announcements. Generally, in- vestigation can result from two sources, a citizen's com- plaint, or the ombudsman's own initiative. The concept of a prison ombudsman evolved from the concept of citizen's ombudsman and shares many of the same priniciples and objectives. Taugher maintains that the prison ombudsman could provide an inmate a central source of information and provide prompt and independent investiga- tion of the inmate's grievances. He concludes that the prison ombudsman could provide three major services to the correctional system. "First, it could be argued that he could aid in the rehabilitative pro— cess by demonstrating society's con- cern for the inmate.... Secondly, the ombudsman could help to reduce the isolation of the correctional system from the public view.... And finally, the ombudsman would help to protect the administrators of the corr ctional system from unfound charges."3 In his law review article concerning inmate grievance 37 mechanisms, Lance Tibbles describes in some detail the "ombudsman" concept and its applicability to the field of corrections. This specific grievance mechanism is compared with other avenues open to inmates such as judicial review and internal grievance procedures within the corrections department or institution. The author takes the strong positon that the prison ombudsman system can be a viable and effective vehicle for redress of prisoner grievances. 26 Numerous ombudsman programs in this and other countries are examined which provide services to the general citizenry and/or inmates of correctional institutions. The author defines the term ombudsman as follows: "An ombudsman is an independent,external, impartial, and expert handler of citizens' complaints against governmental agencies "38 who is easily accessible by the citizenry. He notes that the concept of an ombudsman originated in the Scandinavian countries, as early as 1809 in Sweden. In this model, the ombudsman was responsible for providing service to prisoners as well as the general public when a state administrative pro- cedure or decision was questioned. Several other countries which utilize this model were also noted including, Finland (1919), Denmark (195“), New Zealand (1962), Norway (1963), and the Canadian Provinces of Canada, Alberta and New Brunswick (1967). In all the above mentioned countries, the ombudsman programs were indicated as being effective in bringing complaints to the proper authorities and providing satisfactory relief for the citizen or inmate. In commenting on the use of judicial intervention as a redress of inmate grievances, the author appears to take a strong stance indicating displeasure with this avenue of complaint resolution. He suggests that judicial intervention is costly, tends to clog the court dockets, and is likely to take an overly long period of time before resolution. However, it is proposed in this article that the courts could be 27 utilized as an appeal process when the administrative pro- cedure fails to respond to an individual inmate's complaint satisfactorily. As mention earlier in the section entitled "Internal Administrative Procedures", Tibbles has asserted that ombudsman programs can compliment an existing departmental procedure by providing an external review of that procedure thereby providing a more balanced avenue for the redress of grievances. It is also contended that the ombudsman should become involved in only those cases which have not been satisfactorily resolved within that procedure. Finally, Tibbles also maintained that as a result of the ombudsman's input and recommendations, the existing administrative pro- cedure could be improved upon and further developed. Other authors have also commented on specific ombudsman programs and their appropriateness in the field of correc- tions.39 In general, most authors who have written about grievance mechanisms seem to favor their implementation either as a supplement to an administrative procedure or as the primary vehicle for grievance resolution. The arguments frequently voiced in opposition to om- budsman programs relate to several factors. First, the argument is made that since the ombudsman may not directly modify departmental policy or grant individual relief and in fact is limited to making recommendations to administrators, his impact is lacking. The second major argument is the ombudsman's inability to effectively handle a large workload 28 and respond to grievances in a timely manner. This can be minimized if the ombudsman is utilized only after an un- successful attempt within an internal procedure. The third argument contends that since many existing ombudsman pro- grams are not independent of the executive branch which also supervises corrections, there remains a lack of inmate con- fidence that complaints reach an impartial ear. So, although ombudsman programs are viewed by many as potentially beneficial grievance mechanisms, there remain some concerns regarding their apparent handicaps as well. Secondary Grievance Mechanisms In addition to the three primary grievance mechanisms described earlier, there also exist other forms of grievance resolution devices which are less frequently found in cor- rectional environments. These secondary grievance mechanisms include, inmate unions, direct mail systems, legal services, and the judicial review approach. Closely identified with the inmate council approach in the resolution of inmate grievances is the inmate union con- cept. In this model, the primary focus is to pattern itself after the labor movement in American society during the past century. The proponents of this avenue contend that through the "organization" of the inmate population conflict resolu- tion can be obtained through nonviolent means, such as negotiation, external arbitration, strikes, etc. As a result, 29 the inmate population would not only have increased partici- pation in the correctional environment but most importantly considerably more power. As can be expected, this form of grievance mechanism has met with stiff resistance from correction officials and would likely encounter the same hostility from the general public should it be seriously proposed or implemented. In Virginia McArthur's study of grievance mechanisms in 209 American prisons, no existing inmate union was noted but an institutions had reported some attempts to organize the in- mate population. This study also found that inmate union attempts were the most frequent in prisons with large popula- tions and with a long median length of stay per inmate.“O Another form of secondary grievance mechanisms is the direct mail system. The direct mail system has been imple- mented in several jurisdictions and has been in existence for a considerable length of time. The primary concept of this system is that the prison administrator or director of corrections can be contacted by an inmate with a complaint in the form of a written grievance. In some cases the in- stitution has a special mail system or channel for this pur- pose. Singer and Keating have commented on the inadequacy of the direct mail system and have stated, "For one thing, most systems farm out complaints to the officials directly responsible for the condition com— plained of; the response returned to the inmate usually is a s irited de- fense of the status quo." l 30 The authors also assert that this type of mechanism does not usually contain restrictions on the amount of time taken to respond to complaints or that a response must be provided. Thus, this type of mechanism frequently lacks credibility with inmates. The final secondary grievance mechanism is the legal services or the judicial review approach to complaint resolu- tion. Legal service programs were included by McArthurLl2 in the nationwide study of grievance mechanisms and were reported in 71 percent of the institutions responding. She found that legal services were provided by law students, paralegals, attorneys, and at times, inmates well versed in the law and deal with miscellaneous legal problems of the inmate as well as specific grievances against the prison administration. McArthur commented that the latter emphasis is infrequent and that these programs are primarily concerned with more general legal problems rather than grievance resolution between inmates and prison administrators. "Problems with the administration of the department or institution are handled by the smallest number of programs, perhaps because these pro- grams are considered outside the domain of legal services programs, fitting more properly into the work of an omBudsman or a grievance pro- cedure." 3 The judicial review process as a grievance resolution mechanism is at least partially responsible for the develop- ment of grievance mechanisms in corrections. As noted earlier in this chapter, one of the purposes of grievance 31 mechanisms was to decrease prisoner litigation. Although inmates continue to have access to judicial review, this system has evolved into primarily a last step appeal process. Earlier in this chapter, Lance Tibbles' remarks regarding judicial review as a grievance mechanism were reviewed. His primary contention was that this process was costly, clogged the court dockets and usually required a lengthy period of time before resolution. This process was seen as certainly having the power to implement its findings, unlike ombuds- man or inmate council programs, but it should be acknowledged that the courts remain somewhat reluctant to intervene in prison affairs unless there are obvious civil rights violations. Summary This major section of Chapter I entitled "Description of Contemporary Grievance Mechansisms" has presented an in depth explanation of the various avenues currently utilized in the resolution of grievances in correctional environments. A review of the existing literature provided information on the specific types of grievance mechanisms and unanimously indicated the need for such procedures in correctional systems. The primary mechanisms reviewed included internal administra- tive procedures, inmate councils, and ombudsman programs. Internal administrative procedures represented a large portion of the grievance mechanisms currently in operation. This procedure was explained as consisting of a graduated step or appeal process in which personnel of the corrections 32 agency or department would respond to inmate complaints. Several authors were found to support this type of procedure and commented on specific programs in operation. However, other authors argued that internal administrative procedures frequently lack credibility with the inmate population. The overall concensus appeared to be that this type of procedure should be implemented but should also be used in conjunction with an external review process or participatory model. The inmate council approach was also described in this section as a major grievance mechanism. The major premise of the inmate council approach was stated in terms of the inmates having an investment in the system through their input which would, therefore, improve the morale and behavior of the in- mate population. Some criticisms of this mechanism concerned the council's ability to merely make recommendations as well as establishing or legitimizing the formation of an inmate hierarchy. This mechanism was seen as being useful as a supplement to formal administrative procedures. The final major grievance mechanism discussed was the ombudsman concept which had its origins in nineteenth century Sweden and is becoming increasingly popular in the United States. The true ombudsman program revolves around the con- cept of independent, impartial review of inmate complaints. This external review process is limited to investigation of the complaint and the submitting of recommendations to the corrections officials by someone not affiliated with the corrections department. Some of the arguments against 33 ombudsman programs consist of, the inability to effectuate direct change; inability to handle large workloads and the tendency to lose credibility with inmates when supervised by the executive rather than legislative branch. The om- budsman program concept was discussed as a needed supplement to administrative procedures as a final review process. Other grievance mechanisms were discussed to a lesser degree and included, direct mail systems, inmate unions, legal services, and judicial review. What seems readily ap- parent from the review of the literature is that there is no single grievance mechanism which is a panacea for inmate grievance resolution. Need for Evaluation A review of the literature concerning previous or currently existing grievance procedures indicates that em- pirical research in this area is virtually non-existent. In fact, very few studies have been conducted which have dealt with specific procedures and their utilization by correctional clients. The majority of the literature in this area takes the form of rhetoric and recommendations advocating grievance procedures rather than methodologically sound evaluation re- sults. Several authors have commented on the obvious lack of research conducted on the topic of grievance procedures in corrections and encourage such attempts in the future. Virginia McArthur,uu in her article which surveyed 209 3A correctional facilities concluded that although the implemen- tation of inmate grievance mechanisms is in vogue, very many administrators are unsure what exactly these programs should accomplish or how they should be operated. She contends that evaluative research should be conducted in order to assist in the development or refinement of viable grievance procedures which could be made available to the inmate popu- lation. In their article on prisoner grievance mechanisms, 45 Singer and Keating advocate that external review of grievances by an individual or agency not affiliated with the correctional system or inmates is essential to a viable grievance mechanism. They also assert that empirical studies on the viability of certain grievance procedures have not been performed and that researchers will likely continue to neglect this area. The impact of this omission becomes acute when an administrator selects a grievance procedure without significant assurance that it has been empirically shown to be effective in other correctional environments. This study will provide an examination of the grievance mechanisms implemented within the Michigan correctional system in terms of its design and utilization as an avenue for clients to effectively voice their complaints or concerns to prison administrators and obtain satisfactory relief when justified. More specifically, this project will critically examine the functioning of the entire process itself, the characteristics of the grievances as well as the characteristics 35 of those clients who have submitted grievances. By doing so, this research project will attempt to partially fill the gap in the literature concerning correctional grievance mechanisms. Research Questions This research project concerns itself with the opera- tion of the grievance mechanisms currently available to in- mates within the Michigan Department of Corrections. Addi- tional emphasis is also placed upon examining the individual characteristics of those who utilize the grievance process and the impact of those characteristics upon the grievance resolution system and ultimately the grievance itself. While the majority of the articles reviewed in the previous section were primarily philosophical or theoretical in nature, some incorporated research results in the dis- cussion. These studies have dealt primarily with the first issue investigated in the present study, how a grievance mechanism functions. The major emphasis of these studies concerned the type of grievances presented as well as the eventual disposition of the grievances. This study will also examine these issues but will additionally concentrate on various other factors relative to the grievance and total grievance process which have thus far been neglected in the research in this area. Unlike the concentration on characteristics relating to the specific grievances and processes in general, previous research has not examined the characteristics of inmates who 36 submit grievances in the various procedures. This writer contends that omitting such information detracts from a thorough examination of the grievance resolution process. Prior criminal justice research relating to issues other than correctional grievance procedures has recognized the importance of an inclusion and examination of certain individual characteristics of the selected sample. In this study the inclusion of this type of information is designed to provide a more "personal" examination of the entire pro- cess. More specifically, the incorporation of these characteristics may indicate whether an individual's per- sonal characteristics influence official decisions upon grievances. In order to make an adequate examination or assessment of the Michigan procedure, the focus of this research pro— ject will revolve around three broad research questions. These research questions will be presented below in general form and elaborated upon in Chapter Elwhich deals specifically with the design or method utilized in this study. The re- search questions are as follows: Research Question 1 - What are the characteristics of the entire griev- ance procedure and the individual grievances submitted within that procedure. This question examines the grievance itself and its movement throughout the entire system. More specifically, each grievance is examined in terms of the type of category of grievance, when it was filed, whether the time limits were 37 followed, eventual resolution, and at which step a griev— ance is usually filtered out. In addition, the quality of the presented grievance as well as the quality of the ad- ministrations' response will also be addressed by this question. Research Question 2 - What are the demographic and background charac- teristics of those individuals who submitted grievances examined in this study? The intended focus of this question will be to glean information regarding each inmates demographic characteristics such as age, race, occupation, educational and reading level, etc. In addition, information will be gathered concerning prior contact with criminal justice agencies specifically in terms of, age at first attention of authorities, adult pro- bation contacts, etc. Finally, this question will seek more recent information concerning the inmate since committing the offense which led to eventual sentencing. Examples of this latter emphasis include type of offense committed, com- mitment code, minimum amount of time to serve, actual amount of time served to date, parole board classification, and the number of grievances submitted by each individual during the time frame of the study. Research Question 3 - What, if any, is the impact of the individual charac- teristics upon the eventual outcome or disposition of the submitted grievance? The primary focus of this question will attempt to ad- dress whether demographic and background factors such as race, education level, commitment code, committing offense, etc., 38 have an appreciable effect on the eventual resolution of a grievance and the step at which the grievance was resolved. In addition, the impact of the type of grievance upon the type and step of resolution will also be assessed. Summary and Overview This chapter has presented a detailed explanation of the concept of grievance mechanisms in correctional environ- ments. In addition to presenting a broad, philosophical ex- planation of the precipitating factors instrumental in the development and implementation of these mechanisms this chapter also attempted to present, through the existing literature, a description of those grievance mechanisms cur- rently being utilized in correctional environments. Finally, this chapter presented a description of the focus of this research project specifically in terms of the need for such research, its purpose, and basic research questions to be addressed in the study. The basic philosophy behind the development of griev- ance mechanisms was stated as the need to resolve complaints in a peaceful manner or provide a "cooling off" mechanism. Prison officials were described as being motivated by pri- marily administrative concerns revolving around the smooth operation of the institutions. Although inmates also benefit from stability in the living environment, their primary con- cern was fundamental fairness and the opportunity to have complaints heard and responded to. 39 A review of the literature found numerous articles which commented on the desirability of grievance mechanisms in general or provided a description of a specific grievance procedure. Various grievance mechanisms which could bring about the objectives stated above were discussed in the re- view and included; 1) ombudsman programs, 2) internal ad- ministrative procedures, 3) inmate councils and unions, A) legal services, 5) judicial review, and 6) direct mail com- munication. Although several authors seemed to favor a specific grievance mechanism to be implemented within a cor- rectional setting, others commented that various mechanisms can be used in conjunction with each other for increased effectiveness. It appears to this writer that this latter viewpoint has considerable merit when suggesting that not one specific procedure should be considered a panacea for all grievances or correctional situations. The purpose of this study was stated in this chapter as attempting to provide an examination of the grievance mechanism implemented within the Michigan Correctional system. In this examination three areas of focus or basic research questions were defined, 1) the characteristics of the grievance and total process, 2) the characteristics of those inmates who submit grievances, and 3) the relationship between individual characteristics and the grievance process. It was asserted that previous research has failed to examine or assess the potential impact of individual characteristics upon the filing or resolution of grievance and this study will attempt to fill the gap in the literature. 40 In the next chapter, "Design of the Study" a thorough description of the grievance mechanism currently in operation within the Michigan correction system will be provided. In addition, this chapter will consist of a presentation of the overall design of the study and the methods utilized in the collection of the data. In Chapter III an analysis of the data will be presented in narrative and tabular form in which the research questions will be addressed. Finally, Chapter IV will consist of a summary of the findings or con- clusions of this study as well as a discussion of this study's limitations and recommendations for future research endeavors in this area. 10. 11. 12. Footnotes - Chapter I L. R. Singer, J. M. Keating, "Prisoner Grievance Mechanisms," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 19, July, 1973. Virginia McArthur, "Inmate Grievance Mechanisms: A Survey of 209 American Prisons," Federal Probation, Vol. 38, December, 197A. B. Bernstein, "The Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative Grievance Procedure: An Effective Alternative to Prisoner Litigation?", American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 13, Spring, 1976. J. M. Keating, et a1, Grievance Mechanisms in Correctional Institutions, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1975. L. R. Singer, J. M. Keating, "Prisoner Grievance Mech- anisms," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 19, July, 1973, p. 376. J. M. Keating, et a1, Grievance Mechanisms in Correctional Institutions, p. A. David Fogel, We Are the Living Proof: The Justice Model for Corrections, (Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., Second Printing, 1975). Ibid., p. 20a. Ibid., p. 206. J. M. Keating, et a1, Grievance Mechanisms in Correctional Institutions, p. 5. Virginia McArthur, "Inmate Grievance Mechanisms: A Survey of 209 American Prisons," Federal Probation, Vol. 38, December, 197A, p. AA. Bruce Bernstein, "The Federal Bureau of Prisons Administra- tive Grievance Procedure: An Effective Alternative to Prisoner Litigation?" American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 13, Spring, 1976, p. 782. Ibid., p. 783. Virginia McArthur, "Inmate Grievance Mechanisms," p. AA. 41 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 42 L. R. Singer, J. M. Keating, Prisoner Grievance Mech- anisms," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 19, July, 1973. Ibid., p. 375- J. M. Keating, R. C. Kolze, "Inmate Grievance Mechanisms: From Design to Practice," Federal Probation, Vol. 39, Spring, 1975. Ibid., p. 45. Ibid., p. 45. Bruce Bernstein, "The Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative Grievance Procedure: An Effective Alternative to Prisoner Litigation?", p. 779-799. Ibid., p. 790. Brian Taugher, "The Penal Ombudsman: A Step Toward Penal Reform," Pacific Law Journal, Vol. 3, January, 1972, p. 166-189. Lance Tibbles, "Ombudsmen for American Prisons," North Dakota Law Review, Vol. 48, Spring, 1972, p. 383-441. ,J. M. Keating, et a1, Grievance Mechanisms in Correctional Institutions, p. 22. Virginia McArthur, "Inmate Grievance Mechanisms," p. 44. J. M. Keating, et a1, Grievance Mechanisms in Correctional Institutions, p. 23. L. R. Singer, J. M. Keating, "Prisoner Grievance Mecha- nisms," p. 357- Bruce Bernstein, "The Federal Bureau of Prisons Administra- tive Grievance Procedure: An Effective Alternative to Prisoner Litigation?", p. 779-799. J. M. Keating, et a1, Grievance Mechanisms in Correctional Institutions, p. 23. Ibid., p. 23. Ibid., p. 16. Walter Gellhorn, When Americans Complain: Governmental Grievance Procedures, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1966. Ombudsman and Others: Citizens' Protectors in Nine Countries, 1966. D. C. Rowat, ed., The Ombudsman, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1965, p. 348. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 43 Walter Gellhorn, When Americans Complain: Governmental Grievance Procedures, p. 150. Ibid., p. 151. J. M. Keating, et a1, Grievance Mechanisms in Correctional Institutions, p. 15-19. Brian Taugher, "The Penal Ombudsman: A Step Toward Penal Reform," p. 183. Ibid., p. 184. Ibid., p. 184. Lance Tibbles, "Ombudsmen for American Prisons," p. 383. Ibid., p. 386. Theartrice Williams, "The Minnesota Corrections Ombudsman," Social Work, Vol. 20, No. 6, 1975, pp. 488—490. James W. Lewis, G. Rand Smith, "The Corrections Ombudsman - A Legislative Note on the Ohio Plan," Capitol University Law Review, Vol. 3, 1974, pp. 77-104. James D. Silbert, Alan N. Sussman, "The Rights of Juveniles Confined in Training Schools and the Experience of a Training School Ombudsman," Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 40, Winter, 1974, pp. 605—635. Stanley Anderson et al, "The Prison Ombudsman," Center Magazine Vol. 8, November, 1975, pp. 6-10. Virginia McArthur, "Grievance Mechanisms: A Survey of 209 American Prisons," p. 41. L. R. Singer, J. M. Keating, nisms," p. 371. "Prisoner Grievance Mecha- Virginia McArthur, "Grievance Mechanisms: A Survey of 209 American Prisons," p. Ibid., p. 42. Ibid., p. 41. L. R. Singer, J. M. Keating, nisms," p. 371. 41. "Prisoner Grievance Mecha- Chapter II Design of the Study Introduction This chapter will be divided into two major areas of focus. First, in order to provide a basic understanding of the grievance mechanism being investigated in this study, the Michigan grievance procedure will be described. In this over- view, the historical background and procedural information pertaining to the internal departmental procedure and the external review of the Ombudsman's Office will be specified. The second area of focus to be discussed after the explana- tion of the Michigan grievance procedure concerns the basic research methodology utilized in this study, This section will contain specific information on how the research was conducted in terms of basic design, sampling, data collection, and research questions investigated. Description of the Michigan Grievance Procedure Michigan was among the pioneer state governments which realized following the prison violence in the early 70's that there was a definite need for a mechanism through which prisoners could present complaints without resorting to vio- lent means. The present grievance procedure which is 44 45 available to inmates within the Michigan correctional system consists of a combination of the internal administrative pro- cedure (Departmental) and an external review procedure in the form of the Legislative Corrections Ombudsman Office. The internal grievance procedure was first introduced by the Department of Corrections on March 2, 1973. After some revision and reorganization, the Department of Corrections issued a superseding policy directive on July 1, 1975, establishing the "Administrative Grievance Procedure for Corrections Clients." This policy directive stated the basic objective of the procedure as follows: "To provide each client with a timely and effective remedy for alleged viola- tion of rights or unsatisfactory con- ditions of confinement, and to provide .the agency with a rational and orderly system for the equitable resolution of client grievances."l ' In addition, the directive specified its application in terms of who it pertained to as well as what issues could be grieved. "All clients under the care and con- trol of the Department of Corrections with regard to any condition of confine- ment or supervision, official act or failure to act, or denial of rights ex— cepting institution disciplinary de— cisions for which there exists a sep— arate system for timely appeal. Charges of racial or ethnic discrimination, brutality, or corruption may bypass institutional steps of the grievance procedure and be brought directly to the attention of the Director of Cor- rections." It is also stated in this directive that no inmate will be penalized in any manner by corrections personnel for sub— mitting and pursuing a grievance. By the same token, inmates 46 are expected to present grievances in good faith and with- out untrue statements or allegations. The Michigan correctional grievance procedure utilized within the state of Michigan is divided into five major steps, the first four being within the departmental structure and the last being an external review independent of the Department of Corrections performed by the Legislative Corrections Ombudsman. The four steps within the depart- ment procedure are as follows: Step 1 - The inmate must complete the standard grievance form (see Appendix A) within ten (10) days of the incident in question. After completing this form he must submit it to his Institu- tion Team Supervisor, Camp Supervisor or District Supervisor in the field. That person must conduct an investigation of the grievance and respond in writing (on the form) within five days inform- ing the inmate of the decision. The inmate may accept the decision or appeal the decision within five days at the second step. Step 2 - Should the inmate appeal the grievance past Step 1, the individuals responsible for responding to the appeal consist of the head of the institution or deputy director of Field Services. The inmate must be interviewed by this individual within five days of the re- ceipt of the grievance and be afforded a written response within 2 days of the interview. The decision at this step may sustain, reverse or modify the previous decision at Step 1. If the response to the grievance at this step is unsatisfactory to the inmate, he may then appeal to Step 3 for re— lief, within five days. 47 Step 3 — The Step 3 response was originally provided by the Deputy Director of Correctional Facilities but at the present time is provided by the Regional Administrator. This individual must review the grievance and within five days provide a written response to the grievant indicating the decision. The Step 2 decision can be sustained, reversed or modified at this step. Once again, the inmate may accept this decision or pursue the matter at the next step. Step 4 — This is the final step in the departmental grievance procedure and is reviewed in the Director of Cor- rections office. This individual in- vestigates the grievance and responds in writing to the grievant indicating the final departmental decision. Pre- vious decisions may be concurred with, reversed, or modified. Should the inmate remain unsatisfied with the decision, he may then submit the grievance to the legislative Corrections Ombudsman for furthur investigation and consideration. The Legislative Corrections Ombudsman's Office The Ombudsman's Office was created on May 16, 1975, when the 78th Legislature and Governor of Michigan approved Public Act No. 46 of 1975. This statute established an agency super- vised by the Legislature and independent of the Department of Corrections with its purpose to investigate those grievances‘ which were not resolved to the inmates' satisfaction within the departmental procedure. The Ombudsman's Office was granted broad investigatory powers in regard to the appropri- ateness of departmental actions or policies relating to a specific individual or individuals within the Department of Corrections jurisdiction. The statute proclaims: 48 Sec. 4 (1) "The ombudsman may in- vestigate, upon receipt of a complaint or upon the ombudsman's own initiative, an administrative act which is alleged to be contrary to law, contrary to de- partmental policy, unaccompanied by an adequate statement of reason, or based on irrelevant, immaterial or erroneous grounds"3 The investigatory powers stipulated in the statute pro- vide the ombudsman with access to all information, records, and documents which are deemed necessary in the investigation. The ombudsman must also be allowed to enter and inspect any premises under the control of the Department of Corrections without prior notice being required. In addition, the ombudsman may conduct informal hearings and request any person to give testimony or produce evidence relative to the matter under investigation.“ Despite the broad, far reaching investigatory powers that it possesses, the power of the Ombudsman's Office is limited to making recommendations for change to the Department of Corrections once it has determined that a grievance has merit and should be acted upon. However, the Ombudsman's Office reports that because these recommendations are docu- mented by investigation and research, the Department of Cor— rections has in many cases acted favorably upon those griev— ances. This action has resulted in successful resolution for individual cases as well as revision of departmental policy.5 If, however, the Ombudsman's Office receives strong resistance to it's recommendations from the Department of Corrections, the matter may be brought to the attention of the Legislative council for further investigation, but this is the extent of the agency's power. 49 Procedurally, a grievance must progress through the departmental steps before being entertained by the Ombudsman's Office. If, however, the grievant is not satisfied with the decision provided at the departmental level, he may contact the ombudsman by mail, including an explanation of the com- plaint and all grievance forms or, in emergency situations, telephone the Ombudsman's Office toll free and discuss the grievance in that manner. When a grievance is received, it is evaluated by the staff and a decision is made whether the grievance appears to have merit. At this point, the Ombudsman's Office may in- form the grievant in writing that no action can or will be taken on the grievance or on the other hand decide to pursue the matter further. If the grievance is believed to have merit, the Ombudsman's Office will conduct an in depth in- vestigation of the issue. Should the investigatiOn show the grievance to be valid, the Ombudsman's Office will attempt to resolve the complaint by contacting departmental personnel and discussing the issue. It is important to reiterate that the Ombudsman's Office has the limited power to make recommendations and is unable to force the Department of Corrections to change policy or grant individual relief. Should the Ombudsman be unsuccessful in challenging the Department, the grievant will be given a full written explana- tion of the reasons as well as alternative avenues that may be pursued. 50 Research Design The primary objective of this research project is to gain specific information about the grievance procedure itself as well as those correctional clients who have utilized that procedure. Although the information gained is rather specific, the overall purview of this study is unequivocably broad primarily due to the lack of previous research in this area. The basic design of this study will combine the characteristics and purposes of both descriptive and explora- tory research designs although the primary focus is in the realm of descriptive research. The descriptive aspect of this study concentrates on the presentation of data concerning the characteristics of the grievance procedure in terms of its functions and ef- ficiency. The other primary area of focus concerns the presentation of data describing the characteristics of those individuals who have submitted grievances. Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutch and Cook have described the general research purposes of the descriptive design as, l. "to portray accurately the char- acteristics of a particular individual, situation or group (with or without specific initial hypothesis about the nature of these characteristics); 2. to determine the frequency with which something occurs or with which it is associated with something else (usually but not alwayg, with a specific initial hypothesis)." The focus of this research project clearly fits into the above descriptions by examining both the grievance procedure and the grievants themselves. 51 In addition to being descriptive in nature, it can also be stated that this study meets the criteria for an exploratory study as well and is, therefore, the secondary focus of this study. One of the basic purposes of exploratory studies is to gain a better understanding of a particular topic and thereby provide a foundation for the development of more specific research questions in that area. Selltiz, et al., have described the purpose of the exploratory design as, "to gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to achieve new insights into it, often in order to formulate a more pre- cise research problem or to develop hypotheses."7 These authors also contend that in order to fulfill the ex- ploratory goals, this research design must be more flexible than those other designs utilized in research. Due to the scarcity of research conducted in the area of correctional grievance procedures, this research project will incorporate an exploratory focus. It will seek to present data which will provide a base to develop more specific research questions for future study. Sample This study examined 963 grievances submitted by 649 male residents confined under the auspices of the State Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM) located in Jackson, Michigan. All grievances examined were submitted during the time period extending from July 1, 1977, and December 31, 1977. 52 The State Prison of Southern Michigan was selected as the research site for two basic reaSons. First, since a ran- dom selection of residents on a state wide basis would have been prohibitively costly both financially and in terms of time necessary to travel to the various sites, one central, nearby location for the data collection was needed and SPSM met that criteria. Second, SPSM has the largest inmate population in the Michigan correctional system as well as having diversified types of correctional programs and/or settings. SPSM is comprised of varying degrees of confinement, maximum security, medium security, minimum security, recep- tion and diagnosis, as well as several parole camps. It is highly probable that a cross section of the Michigan cor- rectional population has been achieved through the selection of this site, specifically in terms of age, race, type of offense, sentence, and level of custody. The six month time span between July 1, 1977, and December 31, 1977, was selected as the period of examination for several reasons. First, due to the large number of grievances submitted during the entire year of 1977, cost factors in terms of time and financial limitations required that a significantly smaller number of grievances be examined. Second, the period between July and January represented the most current, complete data available on grievances submitted at SPSM and represented approximately one half of all grievances processed during that year. Third, it was believed 53 that this time period would insure that differing sea- sonal differences would not be a source of bias in the data collection. Data Collection This section will present the various procedures and sources utilized in the collection of the data for this study. In addition, the rationale for using a particular data collection method will be provided as well as a dis- cussion of the limitations or deficiencies of that particular method or procedure. As stated earlier, this study seeks to describe the characteristics of those grievances submitted during the six month time frame in addition to the demographic characteristics of those individuals who submitted grievances during that period of time. The approach utilized for examining the grievances themselves will consist of a content analysis of each individual grievance submitted during the time frame of this study. The approach utilized in obtaining information regarding-the individual grievants will be a secondary analysis of background data routinely collected by the Michigan Department of Corrections on those individuals under its jurisdiction. Content analysis as a technique of data collection was initially developed for examination of mass media in terms of systematically describing the content of communications. However, content analysis has been adapted to other topics 54 of research and essentially allows the researcher to quantitatively examine a variety of issues. Selltiz, et al., explain that: "Although the technique of content analysis has been worked out pri- marily in relation to the mass media, it is applicable to other materials as well. For example, personal docu- ments, unstructured interviews, protocols of responses to projective tests, records of patient therapist interactions, etc., 8 may all be subjected to content analysis." They also comment on the procedural controls which must be taken in order for this technique to be viable or accurate. The controls which enable content analysis to be objective and reliable are, "To increase reliability of content analysis there is no other way but patient experimentation with the refinement of definition and care- ful training of the person entrusted with their use in classifying the data."11 The following section will describe in detail the manner in which the content analysis approach was used for the collec- tion of grievance data in the present study. In this study the content analysis of the grievances was conducted by this researcher with the assistance of two undergraduate students from the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Individual grievances (see Appendix A) submitted during the last six months of 1977, were examined at the State Prison of Southern Michigan in cooperation with the Warden's Office. For those grievances examined, a coding form was developed which was used to 55 present the information in a more usable form (See Appendix B). The information which was sought from the original grievance form concerned; a) specific descriptive information of the grievance itself and the procedure in terms of ad- herance to time limitations and eventual disposition, b) the quality of the written responses presented to the inmate by the Department of Corrections or the Ombudsman's Office, c) the actual quality of the grievance as submitted by the inmate in terms of clarity and apparent importance. Due to the fact that much of the data collected was obtained as a result of judgemental decisions regarding a grievance or response from officials, it was exceedingly important to control for the limitations of content analysis as mentioned earlier in this section. For this reason, a training session was conducted for those individuals who would be responsible for transferring the data from the grievance form to the researcher's coding form. During this training session, the coding form was explained and discussed in terms of what information was being sought by this researcher. In addition, considerable time was spent testing the instrument on a sample of grievances submitted prior to July 1, 1977, in an effort to gain uniformity in coding responses as well as point out definitional problems or similar deficiencies in the form which would require re- vision. As a continuing safeguard after actual coding commended, frequent consultations were held between this researcher and the coding team when questions arose or 56 inconsistent coding became apparent. This training pro- cedure for coders thereby increasing reliability follows the guidelines set forth by Selltiz, et al. In this section, the data collection process utilized in gaining information about individual residents will be explained. Due to the nature of this project, this researcher was dependent upon the Department of Corrections for obtain- ing personal and background data on those individuals who submitted grievances during the specified six month time period. This information was not included on the grievance form for obvious reasons. First, such information would have little relevance to most grievances. Second, and per— haps more importantly, information such as race, age, com- mitting offense, etc., may result in biased decisions provided upon the grievances. Finally, since grievance forms are initially filled out by inmates, some of the information may be intentionally or inadvertantly falsified or misrepresented by the inmate. As stated earlier, the data obtained from the Department of Corrections consists mainly of background and demographic data pertaining to particular residents. Examples of infor- mation of this type include; age, race, committing offense, minimum term, education level, occupation, prior offenses, parole status, etc. These will be presented in more depth in the "Research Question" section. 57 Research Questions In this section, the basic research questions to be investigated in this study will be described in further de- tail. In Chapter I, a broad overview and basis for the re- search questions were presented in conjunction with a review of existing literature. These research questions seek to examine the characteristics of the grievance procedure as well as the characteristics of those who submit grievances. As stated in Chapter I, these questions are crucial if an understanding of the current grievance process is to be obtained. These three basic research questions will be fully stated below and divided into more specific questions or topics of concern. Research Question 1 - What are the characteristics of the entire griev- ance procedure and the individual grievances submitted within that pro- cedure? This research question concerns the specific grievance submitted by the inmate as well as its passage through the grievance mechanism. It will seek to examine the issues which are considered grievable by the inmate population as well as how the grievance process functions in response to those grievances. This research question will be separated into three major areas of concentration. Each area will identify specific questions regarding the grievance resolution process or the grievances themselves. The first area to be examined concerns specific griev- ance characteristics. In this section, a major focus will be to determine whether there are particular types of grievances 58 submitted more frequently than others. In addition to assessing the content matter or type of grievances, this question will also examine when grievances are submitted, i.e., were more grievances submitted in one month than in another. The second major area to be investigated concerns the eventual disposition or resolution of the grievances sub- mitted. This focus will examine four major areas; 1) whether the disposition was in favor of the inmate or the depart- ment, 2) at which step the grievance was resolved, 3) whether there is a relationship between the step resolved and the disposition of the grievance, 4) whether the type of griev- ance influences the eventual disposition. The final focus of this research question will be an assessment of the quality or appropriateness of the grievances submitted as well as the quality of the response and pro- cedural requirements provided and adhered to by the Department of Corrections or Ombudsman. The issue relating to the quality or appropriateness of the grievance will be addressed by an examination of; 1) whether the grievance is written in a clear, understandable manner and 2) whether the grievance appears frivolous or not applicable to the grievance pro- cedure. The official responses from the Department of Cor- rections and Ombudsman will be examined on the following issues; 1) whether reasons are provided for decisions given, 2) whether reasons are supported by references to policy, statutes, etc., 3) whether the response provided simply 59 reiterates the response at the previous step (rubber stamp), 4) whether responses are provided to the inmate in a clear, understandable manner. In addition, this area of concen- tration will examine whether the grievant and the responding individual or agency followed the prescribed time limita- tions. Research Question II - What are the demographic and background characteristics of those individuals who submitted grievances examined in this study? This research question seeks to address issues regarding individual characteristics of those inmates who filed griev- ances under investigation. This question will be divided into three major areas of concentration. The first area of focus will examine various demographic characteristics or social factors of the inmate. This focus will examine the following areas, 1) age of the grievant, 2) racial background of the grievant, 3) stated occupation, and 4) educational level as evidenced by the last grade com- pleted. The second emphasis will be an examination of the grievants background in terms of contact with the various components of the criminal justice system prior to the com- mission of the present committing offense. The factors which will be investigated in this area include, 1) the age at which the individual first came in contact with the authorities, and 2) whether the individual was sentenced to probation for felony or misdemeanor convictions as an adult. 60 The final area of concentration regarding this re- search question will examine information concerning the actions of the grievant following adjudication of the com- mitting offense. The information obtained in this area will consist of the following; 1) type of committing offense, 2) departmental committment code (how the department classi- fied prior record, new commitment, parole violator, etc.) 3) minimum sentence, 4) parole board classification, 5) time served, and 6) number of grievances filed during the time frame of the study. Research Question III - What, if any, is the impact of the individual charac- teristics upon the eventual outcome or disposition of the submitted grievance? This third and final basic research question concerns the relationship between the individual characteristics of the grievant and the characteristics or dynamics of the grievance and procedure itself. More specifically, this question attempts to assess whether demographic factors or background information regarding individuals have an impact upon the passage through the process and ultimate disposition of the grievance. The grievant characteristics which will be examined in these terms are divided into two areas of focus. The first focus consists of demographic information such as the race of the grievant and the educational level of the grievant. These factors deal primarily with the individual's background prior to official contact with the adult correctional system. 61 The second group consists of factors which describe the individual characteristics following the inmates adjudica- tion of the committing offense. The characteristics which will be examined include the type of offense leading to commitment and the commitment code assigned when incar- aerated. The above grievant information will be examined in conjunction with the data obtained on the grievance and procedure in an effort to determine if these grievant characteristics have an impact on the system. The primary factors or relationships which will be examined concern the above characteristics and the following grievance characteristics, the ultimate disposition of the grievance, and the final step at which the grievance was resolved. In addition, the impact of the type of grievance upon the type of resolution and step at which the grievance was resolved will be assessed. In this area, the emphasis will be to determine if different types of grievances are re- sponded to differently than others. Summar This chapter began with a brief description of the grievance mechanism currently being utilized by those in- dividuals under the supervision of the Michigan Department of Corrections. A historical and procedural overview of the Departments' procedure was provided. This internal review of grievances was described as a four step process 62 initiated at the immediate supervisor's level and continuing through the warden's office, regional director and if still unsatisfactorily resolved, to Director of Corrections. The Legislative Corrections Ombudsman's Office was presented as an investigatory agency independent of the Department of Corrections with its purpose described as providing an ex- ternal review of grievances not successfully resolved within the Department's administrative procedure. It was pointed out that although the Ombudsman's Office has broad investiga- tory powers, it is limited to making recommendations to the Department of Corrections regarding individual relief or major policy changes. These recommendations were reported to be increasingly respected and acted upon by the Department of Corrections. This form of grievance mechanism combines the internal review process in which a grievant may appeal to the officials who he feels can provide relief. If that effort fails, however, he may seek an impartial investigation by the Ombudsman and hope that such an external review will result in satisfaction. The remaining portion of this chapter sought to de- scribe the basic design and methodology used in this study. It was stated that the design of this study was descriptive in nature with secondary emphasis on exploratory research characteristics. The sample was identified as those griev- ances submitted by residents of the State Prison of Southern Michigan (Jackson) during the period of time extending from July 1, 1977, and December 31, 1977. The method utilized 63 for the collection of the data was defined as the content analysis approach and was discussed in terms of procedural safeguards and limitations. Finally, the basic research questions were presented and were identified as examining the specific grievances and procedure, the individual characteristics of those who submitted them, and the re- lationship between the individual characteristics and the grievance process. In the following chapter, Analysis of the Data, the research questions will be addressed and the data presented regarding those questions. The data will be presented in tabular form with a narrative explanation to provide a fuller understanding of the data. 10. 11. 12. Footnotes - Chapter II Michigan Department of Corrections, Policy Directive, "Administrative Grievance Procedure for Corrections Clients," No. PD-DWA—62.02, July 1, 1975, p. 1. Ibid., p. 1. State of Michigan, Public Acts of 1975, ACt No. 46, May 16, 1975. Ibid. Office Legislative Corrections Ombudsman, A Report from the Legislative Corrections Ombudsman, February, 1978, p. 7. Claire Selltiz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959), p. 50. Ibid., p. 50. Ibid., p. 335, Footnote 7. Ibid., p. 336. G. C. Helmstadter, Research Concepts in Human Behavior, (New York: Meredith Corporation, 1970), p. 79. Selltiz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, p. 3141-3142. Ibid., p. 405. 64 Chapter III Analysis of the Data Introduction This chapter will consist of a presentation of the results or findings obtained in this study. The statistical analysis of the data collected in this research project was performed by the program developed by Norman H. Nie, et al., entitled, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).l In this analysis, the most basic descriptive statistics were applied to the data. More specifically, the majority of the data are presented in the form of frequency tables and contingency tables indicating measures of central tendency and association. The Grievances and Grievance Process The data presented in this section will describe the characteristics of the grievance process as well as individual grievances (Research Question 1) and can be divided into the following three areas. First, the grievances submitted will be described in terms of what issues are most frequently com- plained about by the inmates. In addition, the months in which grievances were submitted will also be examined to de- termine whether some months produce more grievances than others. The second area will present data concerning the 65 66 resolution of the specific grievance, in terms of the step resolved, disposition, and the amount of time needed to resolve the grievance. The final area will present data concerning the operation of the grievance process in terms of the quality of grievances and responses from officials. In this area, the focus will be to examine whether adequate, clear reasons are provided to the grievant as well as whether the grievant has met the responsibility of submitting sin- cere and understandable complaints. Grievance categories and months filed One of the most obvious areas deserving of attention in a study which investigates an established grievance pro- cedure concerns the type of complaints that are submitted by the inmates for review by the administration. By examining the issues inmates frequently complain about through the grievance system, researchers and administrators have the ability to gain a better understanding of the inmates per- ception of the system in general and more specifically his priorities while incarcerated and problem areas within the prison. Administrators could ultimately utilize this infor- mation by examining departmental policy or conditions and initiating modifications where warranted. The other area which bears attention in this section concerns the time of the year in which grievances are frequently submitted. This also could enable administrators to realize when grievances are likely to arise. 67 One of the first challenges of this research project was to establish categories or types of grievances. After reviewing categories devised by the Department of Corrections and Ombudsman Office for their "in house" research, a sample of grievances (not included in the study) were examined and as a result, a comprehensive list of grievance types was established. As coding progressed on the actual study sample, it became apparent that other categories needed to be in- cluded as well and were added to the list. This comprehensive list of grievance types can be found in Table 3, and will be discussed in detail later in this section. However, to facilitate statistical analysis and a better understanding of the data, the categories on the comprehensive list were consolidated with those which shared a common issue or sub- stance. This procedure enabled the total list of grievance types to be compressed from 28 categories into 12 categories without sacrificing an excessive amount of information. The consolidated list of grievance categories can be observed in Table 4 which will also be described later in this section. As can be seen in Table 3, there were 28 types of grievances initially selected for examination prior to the consolidation described earlier. 68 m.m um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pcnuo m.m :m . . . . . . . . . . HHmz o.H 0H Accoommv :oHuHCHEHnomHQ I mpowoowo Hmso w. m . . . . . . . . mwcfinmm: m. m . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . mHOLHm >.H 0H . . mafiaom HmcoHuSqumcH ~.H wH . . . . . . . . . masocoOLm mocm>cfiho pea .oa . . . . . . . . . mconm m.H NH . . . . . . . . . . mopooom on mmmou< m.HH mad .ucmEmmmcpmz I Hmccomcom o.H 0H . . . . . . . . . . muhsoo op mmooo< m. m . . . . . . . mafia cooe m.H NH . . . . . . . . mcofiumofiaosm\>pmnofiq =.m mm . . . . . . . coHuMuHma> m.m aw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xnoz m.HH :HH . . . . mempwopm Hafiomom m.m mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . ocHHqflomHQ m.m am . . . . mpucH I ncmmcmpe m.m mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . accoz\oapom H.m om . . . . mmch I ncmmcmce m.H ma . . . . . . . . . . . cpfiuu<\w:asoopo H.m om . . soaumOHuammeo xmfim H.H Ha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cofiwfiamm m.mm :Hm . . . . . . . . zupmoocm m.m am . . . . . . . . . . . Hmucmo\HMoHomz m.a ma .coaumOHMHmmmHo zuahsomm H.m om . . . . . . . . muaafiomm no COApHocoo :.m mm . . . . . coaumcHsfinomHQ a .donm cocw>oapo mo came a .vohm cocm>cfipo mo ooze mmmnz AAmHmc mo mmwa m mqm oaopmm :.m H.@ H.NH m.em m.:m . Ammmv geesefissoo zmz H.m H.m m.mH n.mm m.oz . . . . Ammv mocmucom 3o2\3 moCOHpmnopm o H.m m.mz o m.me . . . . AHHV soapmnotm mo poumaoa> Hmoaznome oeuz omuz emauz mmmuz ammuz .mesnso : deem m goum m deem H eeum sz meoo pcoEuHEEoo cofipzaomom no ampm Qm>qommm mmem zomD mmoo BZMZBHEEOU mo Boo was NH moomaw Asmav HH I OH mmcmhm Aammv m I m moompw Awozv w I H mmUMLw o.m >.m H.2H m.m H.m m.ma m.m 0.5 m.ma mwuz mwuz omauz .mUSQEO : Qmpm m ampm samuz m deem mmmuz H ampm soapsaomom mo doom sz Ho>oq coapmodcm Qm>qommm mmem 20m: qm>mq ZOHB oaogmm m.ma m.mm H.Hm . . Amzmv unmEuHEEoo 3oz 5.5H m.mm o.mm . . . . . Ammv mocopcmm 3w2\3 noCOHumnonm m.mH m.:m m.em . . . . . AHHV :OASmeotm Oo poumH0H> Havaczooe mmauz ammuz uamuz omum:HEpoB amazon soapOMMmemm mocm>mfino proe no Hmfiphmm sz ovoo psoEpHESoo soapsaomom mo maze ZOHBDAOmmm A<2Hm 20m: mmoo BZMEBHESOO mo Eoofipw no maze soapsaommm mo noun Qm>aommm mmem 20m: mmwe moz<>mHmu mo Booapc Hmpoe no Hmfiunmm sz mocm>oapc mo make soapsHomom mo maze 20Hfibqommm A¢2Hm zomD mmMB moz<>mHmU mo Bo