(.Li.

 

 

 

I I

CHARACTERISTITES’

. TO INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT IN _
STATE TRAINING .SCHOOL FOR DELINQIJENT novs

 

THE RELATIONSHIP or CERTAIN

[A'

:Thésis fbr tho-Dom“ of :Ph. - ID. _ ‘

!

r“

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSETY

James M._Crowneflr

{I

1960

 

[H 2518

3 1293 10646 6323

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHD3 OF CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS
TO INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT
IN A STATE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR DELINQUENT BOYS

presented by '

James M. Crowner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

(Special Education)

figs/Ow *

UL ajor professor

Ph.D degree in Teacher Education

Date February 22, 1960

 

0-169

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS
TO INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

IN A STATE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR DELINQUENT BOYS

By

James M. Crowner

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate
Studies of Michigan State University of
Agriculture and.Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

Year 1960

a q u
/ [i ("/7 ZéL
Approved / W ' I’V’L /

 

(f/fl

,/ 1/

r f
I] f
\

l
" L'- o .
I ! \
‘ . h. .
. . .
I .-
J l
. .
') . . .
' . u. - .
.- - .L
. , .
. .

.._._-___-..-__-- .....—~——----—--_—_P..._—-.--..

 

JAMES M. CROWNER ABSTRACT

This study is concerned with establishing the degree of relationship
which exists between certain physical, personality, social, clinical and
environmental characteristics and the institutional adjustment of 135
inmates at Boys Vocational School, a state training school for delinquent
boys located at Lansing, Michigan.

The precise characteristics studied were: 1. chronological age,

2. height for age, 3. weight for age, h.‘ complexion, 5. intelligence,
6. reading achievement, 7. arithmetic achievement, 8. tool dexterity,
9. peer status, 10. size of teen-age population in county of committment,
and 11. clinical classification.

Institutional adjustment was determined on the basis of l. citizenship
grade average, 2. number of appearances before a staff committee for
disciplinary action, and 3. amount of additional time added to the inmate's
stay in the institution which was incurred through such disciplinary action.

As a related problem, the validity of the classification system
currently in use at Boys Vocational School to predict institutional adjust-
ment was tested against the post-institutional criteria for adjustment
used in this study.

The study group was composed of the total population of four living
units (cottages) selected as representative of the institution in the year
1957.

Having collected the necessary data from the inmates' records, the
investigator assigned a standard adjustment score to each member of the
study group. The members were then ranked in order of adjustment. The
upper quartile (high adjustors) and the bottom quartile (low adjusters)

were isolated and.were given standard scores on each of the characteristics

JAMES M . CROWNER ABSTRACT

chosen for study.

Using the "student's t" as a test method, the means of the scores
of the high adjusters were tested against the means of the scores of the
low adjusters to determine, at a five per cent level of confidence, sig-
nificance in difference.

The major findings showed that these who adjusted.most favorably to
the training school were: 1. more intelligent, 2. of higher arithmetic
achievement, 3. older, h. clinically classified as less serious types
of delinquents, 5. of better tool dexterity, 6. more popular with
their peers, and 7. of higher reading achievement than these who adjusted
least favorably to the training school. All other characteristics under
study were found to be non-significant when the five per cent level of
confidence was employed.

The classification system which was currently in use at Boys Vocational
School to predict institutional adjustment was found to be statistically

significant for this purpose.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS TO
INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT IN A STATE TRAINING
SCHOOL FOR DELINQUENT BOYS

by

James M. Crowner

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1960

James M. Crowner
candidate for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Final Examination: February 22, 1960, 10:00 a.m.,
Room 319, College of Education, Michigan State University

Dissertation: The Relationship of Certain Factors to
Institutional Adjustment in a Training
School for Delinquent Boys

Outline of Studies:

Major Subject: Teacher Education (Special Education)
Minor Subjects: Guidance and Counseling, Sociology

Biographical Items:
Born, April A, 1923, Akron, Ohio

Undergraduate Studies, University of Detroit,

1944-1948

Graduate Studies, Michigan State University,
1948-1954
continued 1956—1960

Experience: Recreation Supervisor and Instructor, Boys
Vocational School, 1948—1958; Instructor in
Special Education, Michigan State University,
February, 1958, to present.

Member of: Council for Exceptional Children, Michigan
Association for Retarded Children, Michigan
Association for Emotionally Disturbed Children

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank Dr. Gregory Miller who, as
his Major Professor and Guidance Committee Chairman, provided
counsel and encouragement throughout the course of this
project. In addition, he desires to express his appreciation
to the other members of his Guidance Committee, Dr. William
Durr, Dr. Charles Hoffer, Dro James Costar, Dr. Buford
Stefflre, and the late Dr. Cecil Millard for their helpful
criticism and suggestions relating to the thesis.

Grateful acknowledgment is also due to Mr. John
Patterson of the Bureau of Educational Research, Michigan
State University, for his invaluable help, suggestions, and
assistance with the statistical aspects of this investigation
and to Mr. James Lorenz for the use of IBM equipment.

The investigator extends his sincere appreciation to
Mro Robert Wisner, Superintendent of Boys Vocational School,
to his staff and to the boys of his school who, following
many years of pleasant association, aided so generously in
the completion of this project.

Finally, to his wife, Alice Jean Crowner, the author
remains in loving debt for her assistance in tabulating data
and for her patience without which this project would have

been impossible.

CHAPTER

I.

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM. .
Introduction . . . . .
Statement of the problem . . .

Statement of the sub-problem. .

Purpose and importance of the study

Limitations and scope of the study.

Definition of terms. . . . .

Terms used in the title . .

Important terms used throughout text

Assumptions . . . . . . .
Hypotheses to be tested . . .
Organization of the study. . .
CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

Introduction . . . . . . .

Traning school versus treatment center

Private and semi—private treatment centers

Public training schools

Programs for institutional adjustment in

the training school . . . .

Characteristics relating to institutional

adjustment . . . . . . .

PAGE

\OCDCDNONUJU‘I

12
12
14
16
16
16
18

2O

23

24

 

CHAPTER

III.

IV.

V.

‘METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE. . . .
Design of the study. . . . . .

Instrumentation . . . . . . .

Criteria for institutional adjustment.

Variables . . . . . . .
Sources of data . . . . . .
Test Method . . . . . . . .
Definition of population studied .
Organization of the data . . . .
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO
INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . .
The analysis of means of adjuStment
scores for high and low adjustors
Age . . . . . . . . . . .
Height . . . . . . . . . .
Weight . . . . . . . . . .
Complexion. . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . ’. . . . . .
PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION
INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . .
Intelligence . . . . . . .
Reading Achievement. . . . . .

Arithmetic Achievement. . . . .

TO

PAGE
27
27
28
28
31
31+
34
35
35

Al
Al

L14
45
45
1+5
46
46

47
47
5o
50
50

 

 

 

vi

CHAPTER PAGE
Combined achievement scores. . . . . 51
Tool dexterity . . . . . . . . . 51
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 52

VI. SOCIAL, CLINICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO INSTITUTIONAL
ADJUSI'NIENT o o o o o o o o o o o 53

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . 53

Peer status . . . . . . . . . . 58
Clinical classification . . . . . . 59
Population in county of commitment . . 59
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 60

VII. PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT . . . 61

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . 61

Accuracy of B.V.S. adjustment prognosis. 65
Levels of significance for all variables

related to institutional adjustment . 65

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 67

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . 67

The results of the study. . . . . . 68
Inferences drawn from the results of the

study . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Age. . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Physical maturity for age . . . . 71

Complexion . . . . . . . . . 71

Intelligence. . . . . . . . . 73

 

 

vii

CHAPTER PAGE
Academic achievement. . . . . . . 73

Tool dexterity. . . . . . . . . 74

Peer status. . . . . . . . . . 75

Clinical classification. . . . . . 76

Population in county of commitment . . 77

Prognosis . . . . . . . . . . 77

Implications for Boys Vocational School . 78
Implications for all training schools . . 81
Implications for further research . . . 83
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

APPENDIX 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 91

 

 

TABLE
I.
II.
III.

IV.

.<‘

LIST OF TABLES

Tabulation of Raw Scores of Study Group.

Scores of 35 High Adjustors on 12 Variables

Scores of 55 Low Adjustors on 12 Variables.

Physical Characteristics. . . .

Personality Characteristics. . .

Social, Clinical, and Environmental
Characteristics . . . . . .

Variables in Order of Significance

PAGE
36
39
40
44
19

57
66

LIST OF GRAPHS

GRAPH PAGE

1. Distribution of Adjustment Scores. . . . . 38

 

 

 

CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

J. Edgar Hoover, Chief of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, notes that there has been an upsurge in youth
crime with an increase of 55 per cent since 1952 among
persons under 18. (29:7)

Primary concern is, of course, directed toward halting
these alarming trends. As a consequence, professional
journals and popular media—-the press, motion pictures, and
television——have emphasized causative factors or prevention,
and the treatment of delinquency has been relegated to a
few articles in professional publications, or, on occasion,
a public declamation criticizing police or institution
laxity. This paucity of treatment information is unfortunate
in several respects. (1) The public seems unaware that the
increase of delinquency has imposed a tremendous burden on
existing treatment facilities. (2) This apparent lack of
concern for treatment indicates public apathy for the
rehabilitation of declared delinquents. (3) Institutions,
bereft of public support, are forced to operate within
facilities which are largely overcrowded and antiquated.

(4) Finally, the public is led to ignore important treatment

 

 

 

2
innovations that are taking place in some of their training
schools.

Thus it is that, in the eyes of all but a few, the
image of the "reform school” remains one of sterility and
despair.

The roots of such stereotypes are not hard to find.
American training schools for delinquents have, for the
most part, somewhat sordid beginnings. Paralleling the
advance of adult penology, many have grown from harsh,
violently repressive juvenile prisons to institutions which,
with varying degrees of success, are committed to the most
enlightened principles of child growth and development.

Boys Vocational School, a state training school for
delinquent boys located at Lansing, Michigan, is a case in
point. This institution was first established as the‘"House
of Correction for Juvenile Offenders" under a legislative
statute approved in 1855. The law stipulated that,

Every person who,-at the time of his or her convictinn
of a prison offense shall be under the age of 15 years,
and such other persons so convicted between the ages
of 15 and 20 years as the circuit court and other
courts having jurisdiction . . . may deem fit subjects
therefor, shall be sentenced to said House of Correction
for Juvenile Offenders, for the term of their imprison—
ment. (27:1)
Prior to the founding of this institution, juvenile offenders
were incarcerated in adult penitentiaries. Stories of

sexual abuse, as much as anything,led to the development of

a separate institution.

 

 

3

The school has undergone numerous legislative changes,
particularly in regard to commitment and discharge policies.
Originally, the lower age limit for prisoners was seven
and for many years a child committed at this age could
remain in the institution until he reached his twenty-first
birthday. Only during the first few years were girls
received. A law of 1861 specified that only "male prisoners"
were to be committed. The official title (if not the treat-
ment system) was changed three times. In 1859, the name
of the institution was changed to "Reform School," in 1893
to "Industrial School for Boys” and, in 1925, to the present
'"Boys Vocational School.”

A series of investigations have been conducted at
Boys Vocational School, notably a survey by Austin H. Mac-
Cormick in 1942.(27) These have usually had a healthy
effect on treatment policy and have served to discourage
abuses in management and control. The school ranks today
as one of the best of such institutions in the United
States.(ll)

In the development of more effective treatment pro-
grams, Boys Vocational School and other institutions of its
kind are in constant need of evaluative tools with which to
assess their present methods and to plan for the care of
an ever increasing inmate population. The clinical staffs
of these institutions collect data which, in addition to

their value to individual treatment, will assist them in

these purposes. If certain data are of use in understanding

 

the individual and prescribing individual treatment, it
would seem that much of these same data could be used
collectively as an aid to understanding the institution's
total program. The Gleucks in their famous follow-up
studies (15, 16, 17, 18) have told us something about the
institutional and post-institutional adjustment of youthful
offenders, but beyond this there is little that has been
done to utilize existing data in drawing inferences regard—
ing the adjustment of youthful offenders to custody. What
significant differences, if any, exist between those inmates
who adjust well to a training school program and those
inmates who adjust poorly? Is there a type of delinquent
boy who is more amenable to treatment in one type of
training school than in others? Boys Vocational School is
an "open type“1 institution. That is, it has no walls about
the grounds, and it uses minimum security measures (e.g.,
there are no guards, nor bars on the windows). Controls
are fairly flexible and training, for the most part, is
treatment oriented. Which inmates seem to reSpond most
favorably to this type of setting? And, although one can-
not determine which type of program they THERE have responded
to, which inmates seem most unable to adjust to this type
of setting?

Granted that, in a strict sense, they can apply to
only one such institution, answers to questions of this

sort,hopefully, can be useful in evaluating the existing

 

 

programs of all correctional institutions for juveniles.
The study which follows is a tentative step in this

direction.

Statement of the Problem

 

The primary purpose of this study is to analyze
various factors which appear to relate positively and
negatively to the institutional adjustment of 135 delinquent
boys who have been committed to Boys Vocational School, a

state training school located at Lansing, Michigan.

Statement of the Sub-Problem

 

As a related problem, the validity of the classific—
ation system currently in use at Boys Vocational School to
predict institutional adjustment will be tested.

Soon after their commitment, inmates at the Lansing
training school are classified in terms of probable insti—
tutional adjustment. These classifications, although
utilizing interviews, tests, and court data, are judgmental
in nature. A composite classification is derived from
those of the psychologist, a social worker, the director
of social service, and the director of training. Using
this study's scores for institutional adjustment-~scores
which are determined for each inmate after he has been
released from the school-~this classification system will

be tested for validity.

Purpose and Importance of the Study

 

The study is intended to add to a small body of knowl-
edge regarding institutional adjustment in state training
schools. It is hoped that by determining relationships
between the physical, personal, social, environmental, and
clinical characteristics of inmates and their degree of
institutional adjustment a contribution will have been made
to an understanding of training school adjustment in general
and training school adjustment at Boys VOcational School,
Lansing, Michigan, in particular.

As a classification aid, this study might lead to an
instrument to predict which inmates arenost likely to adjust
in the type of setting provided at Boys Vocational School
and which inmates are most likely to fail. It should be
understood that, if such a prediction instrument is devel-
oped by this study, it would be used discriminately, with
other factors still considered~ in determining placement.

In this respect, the study might have immediate
implications for Boys Vocational School. A new institution
is being built which will offer at least two separate
programs for inmates committed to it-—a traditional training
school program much like the one currently in effect and a
program offering maximum security and more rigorous controls.

It is hoped that the study will assist, to some degree,
in determining which boys are most likely to adjust under

the traditional training school program.

Limitations and Scope of the Study

 

As noted above, it would be dangerous to use the
results of this type of study in predicting institutional
adjustment without considering other factors.

,I This study is suggested as an aid to prediction, and
is not, in itself, to be used for developing a prediction
device. The aim is to analyze relationships with inferences
added which relate to prediction efficiency.

The population to be studied is drawn from a single
state training school for juvenile delinquents. There are
116 such schools in the United States.(2l) In addition,
the sample is restricted to 135 inmates out of a possible
376 at Boys Vocational School. It is recognized that this
sample may not be representative of all such schools nor,
despite efforts to make it so, even representative of the
total population at Boys Vocational School.

The study concerns itself with those inmates in the
age range from thirteen through seventeen, committed to the
institution under Michigan law in and around the year 1957.
Though the Michigan law appears typical, commitment prac-
tices and legal procedures vary somewhat from state to
state.(7) Further, it is recognized that training school
programs and the characteristics of a training school
population are subject to change. It is possible that
both have been altered in the two and one-half years since

the data for this study were recorded.

 

 

8

Finally, the study restricts itself to those factors
which are clearly measurable——which seem pertinent to the
investigator or officials at Boys Vocational School which
are most amenable to statistical treatment, and for which
data are available. The rationale for the selection of
each variable is discussed further as an introduction to
the particular chapter in which each variable is tested
against institutional adjustment. Other factors (e.g.,
psycho-social development) undoubtedly have a bearing on
institutional adjustment. However, data for these factors
were either not available or were too subjective in nature

to warrant inclusion in this study.

Definition of Terms

 

The terms defined in this section include those used
in the title and those most subject to misunderstanding

and not otherwise defined when used throughout the text.

Terms used in the title:

 

1. Relationship. For the purpose of this study,
relationship means a positive or negative affinity between
two isolated factors as determined through statistical
analysis.

2. Certain Characteristics. In the title of this

 

study "Characteristics" includes those factors which are
being tested against institutional adjustment——the inmates‘
(1) age, (2)1'eight, (3) weight, (A) complexion, (5) intelli-

gence, (6) academic achievement, (7) tool dexterity, and

 

(8) sociometric status. Other characteristics are (9)
teen-age population of county from which the inmate was
committed, and (10) clinical classification of the inmate
according to delinquency type.1

3. Institutional Adjustment indicates the success

 

or failure of an inmate to conform to an institution's
standards of conduct. In the sense with which the term is
used in this study, these standards are carefully prescribed
by the administration and release (parole) is dependent
upon the inmate's ability to conform to them.

A. The State Training School for Delinquent Boys

 

referred to in the title is Boys Vocational School located
at Lansing, Michigan. This, and others like it in forty-
nine states,2 is a public minimum security institution
existing under legislative statute for the express purpose
of holding in custody juveniles who have been adjudged

delinquent by the courts of the state.3

Important terms used throughout the text:

 

1. Commitment. Court order placing the delinquent

 

in the custody of the institution.

 

1For a discussion of these classifications, see
Chapter III under subheading "Instrumentation," Also Chapter
VI and Appendix A.

2Utah shares its facilities with Alaska.

3For further description, see "Definition of Population
Studied," Chapter III.

10
2. Cottage. Institutional living unit°

3. Reception Cottage. Living unit reserved for new

 

inmates while in a two—week quarantine and prior to place—
ment in a regular cottage.

A. Intake Summary. Descriptive resume of new inmate

 

containing court and clinical data assembled during the

inmate's stay in the reception cottage.

 

>/5. Parole Violator. Inmate who is returned to the
institution by the court for failure to adjust following
his release to his home community. At Boys Vocational
School, the term'"release" is synonymous with'"parole."
If the inmate is past the legal age for commitment to Boys
Vocational School (seventeen), he iS'"discharged;" A dis—
charged boy, if again arrested, is treated as an adult
offender.

6. ngzg. Legal term implying relinquishment of
custody. The institution may "waive" a boy to Circuit
Court or to another institution. At the Lansing school
this is often done with boys who are fifteen years of age
and have committed an offense (e.g., running away from the
school and stealing an automobile) which, in the estimation
of the superintendent, the police, and the plaintiff, merits
his being tried as an adult offender.

7. Case Conference. At Boys Vocational School, a

 

meeting between the inmate and institutional officials or

their delegates to discuss and act upon an inmate's problem

 

ll
and/Or discipline. The inmate, acting through his counselor
(a social worker assigned to his cottage) may request the
conference to discuss an institutional problem or to ques—
tion a decision of the administration regarding his release
date. On the other hand, the inmate may be called into
the conferenCe for disciplinary action which may or may not,
depending upon the seriousness of the offense, result in
additional time being added to his stay. More often than
not, the latter condition prevails. The amount of added
‘"time” is often fixed for certain offenses. That is, an
inmate can expect two weeks for smoking or one month for
running away. Thus, the amount of actual added time an
inmate receives in case conference is an index of the
persistency (first offense on certain minor infractions
generally merits a warning that twice the normal added time
for the offense will be given if the offense is repeated)
and the seriousness of the misbehavior. Hence, total added
time could be considered as one index of institutional
adjustment--and total number of trips to case conference for
disciplinary action, another.

8. Detail. An inmate‘s work assignment during which
he is under one supervisor and on which he ordinarily spends
one—half of the work day. The other half is devoted to
academic schooling. These assignments range from mainten—
ance chores to vocational training in the institution's

print shop. Assignment to details depends upon the inmate's

 

l2
choice, the inmate‘s aptitude and academic achievement, and
the institution's present needs (not necessarily in that

order of importance).

Assumptions

 

Certain basic assumptions had to be made in organizing
and developing this study.

-/a It was assumed that institutional adjustment is
measurable. In addition, it was assumed that such relation—
ships as mightexist between this adjustment and certain
characteristics are subject to analysis and understanding.

Operationally, it was assumed:

1. That the methods used to measure intelligence,
academic aohievement,tool dexterity, and sociometric status
at Boys Vocational School were valid when used with the
group under study.

2. That the system for clinical classification into
delinquency types as used at Boys Vocational School is,
for the purpose of this study, adequate.

"3. That the data collected from the records of the
group under study is accurate, and finally,

4. That the criterion for institutional adjustment

which was selected for this study is valid and inclusive.

Hypotheses to be Tested

 

In addition to the general hypothesis that there is

a relationship between the institutional adjustment of the

 

l3
inmate at Boys Vocational School and certain characteris-
tics, the following specific hypotheses are to be tested:1

1. Those who adjust more favorably to the training
school will be significantly different in age and height
and weight for their age than those who adjust less
favorably to the training school.

2. Those who adjust more favorably to the training
school will be lighter complexioned than those who adjust
less favorably to the training school.

3. Those who adjust more favorably to the training
school will be of higher intelligence than those who adjust
less favorably to the training school.

<f4. Those who adjust more favorably to the training
school will be of higher academic achievement than those
who adjust less favorably to the training school.

5. Those who adjust more favorably to the training
school will be of higher tool dexterity than those who
adjust less favorably to the training school.

6. Those who adjust more favorably to the training
school will be significantly different in popularity with
their peers (high sociometric status) than those who adjust
less faVOrably to the training school.

7. Those who adjust more favorably to the training

school will be clinically classified as less serious types

1The theoretical base from which these hypotheses are
derived is discussed as an introduction to the particular

chapter in which each hypothesis is tested.

— ._-—_.‘

 

14
of delinquents than those who adjust less favorably to the
training school.

8. Those who adjust more favorably to the training
school will be from counties with smaller teen-age popu-
lations than those who adjust less favorably to the training
school.

9. Scores on the prognosis for institutional adjust-
ment made at the training school will be higher for the

high adjustors than for the low adjustors.

Organization of the Study

 

The present chapter has presented a brief background
and statement of the problem, the need for the study, its
limitations and scope, a definition of terms, a statement
of assumptions, and finally, a presentation of the hypothe-
ses to be tested.

In Chapter II, the review of the literature pertinent
to this study is presented. This consists of reporting
studies on correctional institutions for delinquents, and
the institutional adjustment of juvenile offenders.

Chapter III consists of a discussion of the method-
ology and procedures employed in conducting this study.
This includes: (1) an introductory statement on the over-
all design of the study, (2) the instrumentation employed,
(3) the selection of the test method, (A) a definition of

the population, and (5) the procedures used for organizing

the data.

 

 

 

15

Chapters IV, V, VI, and VII are, essentially, the
'"findings" chapters. However, the test results for each
group of variables are introduced by a discussion and the
theoretical concepts by which each of the variables were
selected. Chapter IV is concerned with testing institu—
tional adjustment against physical characteristics; V,
against personality characteristics; and VI, against social,
clinical, and environmental characteristics. In Chapter
VII, the validity of the Boys Vocational School predictions
for institutional adjustment will be tested and the levels
of significance for all variables related to institutional
adjustment will be ranked in order.

The last chapter, VIII, is devoted to a summary and
discussion of the findings. It includes an over—all
description of obtained results and the inference that
might be obtained from them. Indicated areas for further

research are also discussed.

 

CHAPTER II

CRITTCAI.REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Studies of institutional adjustment in training
schools are difficult to find. Most "research" that has
been done in this area has been conducted somewhat
informally by the clinical staffs of the institutions
involved and is distributed privately as "classified”
material. The reluctance of the authorities to part with
this material is understandable. Cursory studies of this
sort are rarely precise. Few training schools have the
time or the financial resources to engage in "precise"
types of research.

In this chapter, the scope of the literature on'
institutional adjustment is broadened to include published
descriptions of various treatment programs for delinquents
and, whenever possible, the inferences that might be drawn

regarding the adjustment of inmates to these programs.

Training School versus Treatment Center
In general, programs for the rehabilitation of juvenile
delinquents can be classified in one of two groups. They

are found in either public supported institutions-—local

 

l7
short-term ”detention homes" and state'”training schools“--
or in private or semi-private ”treatment centers." As a
rule, though it is certainly not part of any defined
philosophy, the program of the public institution is more
punitive--more restrictive than that of the treatment
Center.

Harmon (20) in a lively article, deplores this dichot—
omy and suggests that the ambiguous term "training school"
be abandoned once and for all. He asks that state insti-
tutions adopt the title of "treatment center” in name and
in spirit.

The psychiatrist, Richard Jenkins, (23) Gontends that
delinquents can be classified as either "adaptive" or
'"maladaptive” in their behavior. Adaptive delinquents are
more or less socialized. '". . . they rebel, but their
rebellion is a social rebellion, group supported.” Treat-
ment programs for these youngsters would be centered around
healthy adult contacts and constructive group experiences——
in keeping, it would seem, with the programs of the better
training schools. The maladaptive delinquent, on the other
hand, sees the world as a hostile, frightening place. He
is a child with a "deeply distorted" personality. The more
severe cases might need "institutional (hOSpital) training"
but most of these children are in need of psychotherapy in
one form or another and, it is inferred, the sort of program

the child is most likely to receive in the permissive—type

institution defined earlier as a "treatment center."

 

 

18
These articles express a typical attitude found in
literature describing rehabilitation programs for delin—
quents. AS training schools become more "treatment cen—
tered," both training school and treatment center personnel
seem eager to form an alliance.
AS a last, somewhat stoic, note to this discussion,

Genn, writing in the Encyclopedia of Criminology, lists the

 

 

the various treatment methods that have been applied to
delinquents and adds:

The total effect of all treatment programs is not
leading to a marked decrease in the number of delin-
quent juveniles, or in recidivism. Only a small
proportion of these young people are affected by
treatment that is deemed adequate by social workers,
psychologists, educators, religious leaders and
psychiatrists.(14:2l5)

Private and Semi—Private Treatment Centers

 

Since the first publication of Aichhorn's classic
‘"Wayward Youth" (1), psychiatrists, psychologists, and
psychiatricially oriented personnel have applied their
theories to the treatment of delinquents in small, experi—
mental centers. The publication of their experiences and
treatment philosophy supplies the bulk of the professional
literature in delinquency treatment.

Aichhorn, a disciple of Sigmund Freud,pioneered in
the treatment of delinquents through the application of
Freudian concepts. At a small, European center, he provided
a permissive setting in which delinquent and disturbed

children could deveIOp :inner'(ego—enforcing) controls.

19

As Freudian thought won its early acceptance in
America, so also did Aichhorn‘s principles of delinquency
treatment. Delinquency became a primary concern of the
psychiatrist. Expanding and delineating the Aichhorn
theories, psychiatrists established experimental centers
throughout the country.

Bruno Bettleheim (3), working at a midwestern center,
developed a program of what he termed "milieu therapy."
Cohan won public support for his program at New York City's
“Youth House" and developed a comprehensive training
program for preparing workers in the treatment of delin-
quents. A paragraph from his Chiflren in Trouble, based on
his lectures and exemplifying the treatment center philoso—
phy, follows:

The nonpunitive handling of youngsters given to

antisocial behavior is no vain humanitarian wish.

It becomes common sense as soon as we stop to think
what it is we are trying to achieve. Once we are
committed to the notion that our deepest concern

is not with temporary measures of control but with
searching out and strengthening those forces

within the child which will help him control him—
self, then traditional patterns of threat and punish-
ment are bound to give way before patient and non-
authoritarian handling, that is, permissiveness.(8:l5)

In Detroit, Redl and Wineman, in conjunction with
Wayne University, operated an experimental center, "Pioneer

House,"

where their careful observations of a small group
of disturbed and delinquent youngsters (31) led to the

publication of Controls from Within, a book—length elabor-

 

ation of the paragraph quoted above.(32)

2O
Slavson applied his renowned methods of group therapy
in his role as director of the upstate New York institution,
Hawthorne Cedar Knolls. This institution, operated by the
Jewish Board of Guardians of New York City, formerly
offered a program similar to that of the traditional state
training school. An account of the transformation Slavson

brought to it is contained in his Reeducating Delinquents.(35)

 

Public Training Schools

 

The agencies for the treatment of delinquency best
known to the general public are the state training schools.
Through popular fiction, movies, and the legitimate
theatre (2), the public has been given a rather distorted
View of what transpires there. Usually the picture one
gets of such institutions through the popular media is
clouded by sensationalism and archaic stereotypes.

.As a rule, journalists are slow in acknowledging
the changes that have taken place in training schools over
the past dozen years. Some of these changes may well have
been inspired by members of their own profession.

Albert Deutsch, in writing a series for the Woman's

Home Companion, exposed a number of abuses in specific

 

state training schools. Later the series was expanded and
published as a book. In summing up his experiences,
Deutsch says:

At the end of my survey I was convinced that the
state reform schools were schools indeed——but in most

21

instances most effective crime schools, organized on
a mass level. In many instances, it seemed as though
they could not have been improved upon as training
centers if Fagin himself had controlled the program.
(11:145)

Seven years later another journalist, Benjamin Fine

(13), Education Editor of the New York Times, took a much

 

more sympathetic view of training schools. Having surveyed
several such institutions, he places the blame for their
inadequacies not so much on their personnel as on public
apathy and poor legislative support. He feels that the
training school inmate fails in his institution and post-
institution adjustment because the training schools are
underequipped, overcrowded, and understaffed.

Long before journalists had discovered it, professional
workers wrote of the futility of rehabilitation when training
schools were nothing more than lost-stop "dumping grounds."
Bowler and Bloodgood (4), writing in 1935 for the United
States Children's Bureau, reported on five state training
schools and estimated that these schools failed in 68 per
cent of the cases referred to them.

The MacCormick study of the Boys Vocational School in
Lansing, Michigan (1942), found regimentation and discipli-
nary practices there deplorafie. MacCormick condemned
corporal punishment as damaging to morale and doing more
harm than good in the long run. -". . . Even if they (the
inmates)conform outwardly to the rules which the punishment

enforces."(27:73)

22

Evidence of the reformation of treatment methods that
has taken place since these early surveys can be found in
the set of standards (”goals and guides") that were devel-
oped by training school personnel and published by the
Childrens Bureau in 1957. These standards were composed
for, and by, the National Association of Training Schools
and Juvenile Agencies, a professional organization of
training school and detention home workers. The tenor of
the recommendations is contained in the following excerpt:

Training schools should have as permissive an

atmOSphere as is consistent with the children under
care. This does not mean a lack of controls. It
means the application of positive methods to bring
about positive results instead of reliance on custody
or punitive practices to bring about conformity.(22:6)

This concern for individual treatment rather than the
externally imposed controls which once seemed to preoccupy
training school personnel, is reflected in all of the
current literature on training school programs.

The California Youth Authority stresses careful
screening and diagnosis before placement in one of their
several facilities for delinquents.(36)

In New Jersey, a whole new concept of treatment is
winning national recognition. '"The Highfields Project"//i
centers about informal group discussions on adjustment
problems. (42:34) The program was recently featured on a
nation-wide telecast.

Perhaps most significant of all, there is an indi—

cation that, as new programs develop, they are being

23
evaluated in terms of what changes take place in the
institutional adjustment of the inmates involved. Long
range follow-up studies are difficult because of a lack
of funds. The Glueck's, in their follow—up studies of /(
five hundred criminals (l6, l7, 18), have disclosed the
positive relationship between institutional and post
institutional adjustment. The ultimate effectiveness of a
training school program might well be proved in the changes
that take place in the here—and-now institutional behavior
of the inmate.

Programs for Institutional Adjustment in the
Tfaining SChool

 

 

Sucgang (38), a group worker at Children's Village
in Dobbs Ferry, New York, relates the case for group work
in helping the new boy adjust to his institution.

Keith (24) finds that the institutional adjustment
of the inmate is best accomplished through the skill of a
training school's most important group worker—~the cottage
parent.

Weber (41) adds that group work in Boy Scout programs
is a strong incentive to institutional adjustment.

Lenroot (26) reports success in the use of a one—
month therapeutic program during the inmate‘s stay in the
reception cottage. She tested the institutional adjustment
of a group of boys who had been exposed to such a program

against a control group which had not and found that her

 

 

24
test group averaged much better behavior records.

Breed (5), in commenting on the California Youth
Authority's forestry camp program, maintains that boys who
would fail to adjust in a regular training school often
respond favorably to an out-of—doors type program.

Most of these accounts of program modification which
purport to effect institutional adjustment are judgmental
in nature. They imply that external conditions have an im—
portant effect on the behavior of the delinquent in custody.
Certainly such a premise would be hard to refute. But what

are the internal conditions which effect adjustment-~con—

 

ditions which, in the training school environment, would

indicate success or failure? This chapter concludes with
two studies which have approached the problem of training
school adjustment from this direction. The present study

is intended as another such approach.

Characteristics Relating to Institutional Adjustment

 

In Keogh's investigation of the characteristics of
runaways at-a state training School for boys (5), it was
found that runaways (and, presumably, non-adjustors) were:
‘(1) less intelligent, (2) younger, (3) from poorer home
environments, and (4) were less emotionally stable than
their institutional peers.

The most pertinent work that has been done in un-
earthing characteristics relating to training school

adjustment is that of Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck (l5).

25
Comparing 236 youths who were known to have been successful
throughout their stay in an institution with 142 who were
known to have failed, they emerged with the following
conclusions:

The groups resembled one another in: (1) same
average number of brothers and sisters and same birth rank
in their respective families, (2) same proportions in
similar ethnic and religious background, (3) for the most
part same kinds of rearing, (4) same early abnormal environ-
mental experienceS, (5) same degree of school retardation,
(6) same degree of health (fair to good), and (7) same in
the extent to which they belonged to gangs in boyhood.

Areas of slight differences were these: better
adjusted boys (1) came from somewhat better physical environ-
ments, and (2) were somewhat older at the onset of their
misbehavior (prior to arrest), (3) came from less disorgan—
ized homes, (4) were of better intelligenceff(5) had better
habits, and (6) demonstrated better emotional health.

In only two factors were there marked differences in
the institutional successes and failures: (1) Better
adjusted inmates averaged a year younger on the occasion
of their first arrest and (2) better adjusted inmates were,
to a significantly greater extent, boys who had committed
their offenses in the company of others. ‘"They were
evidently of the companionable, suggestible type, capable

of being influenced by their associates." (15:181)

 

26

The Glueks study suffers somewhat by the long period
that elapsed, (fifteen to twenty years) before they returned
to the training school records from which they drew their
criteria for poor or superior ”intramural adjustment." It
appears that the study was actually an afterthought. They
had collected extensive follow—up data on 500 criminals.
It was not until they had exhausted this material that they
delved into early correctional experiences and their rela—
tionship to adult success. The accuracy of the data used
in the study, especially that which established criteria

for institutional adjustment, is open to serious question.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

Design of the Study

 

In this study an attempt is made to determine the
relationship between certain characteristics of training
school inmates and their adjustment to the institution.
Basically, it is a study of the differences between good
and bad adjustors.

Within a certain theoretical framework and in con-
sultation with the clinical staff of a training school,
variables are selected which seem related, positively or
negatively, to institutional adjustment. A criteria for
institutional adjustment is developed and a test method is
arrived at which might best serve to measure the variables
against this criteria. A judgmental sample of the training
school population is selected. For each of the inmates in
this group, data are collected on institutional adjustment
(using the previously selected criteria) and the variables
chosen for study. To maintain consistency, all of these
data are transformed into standard scores with a mean of
fifty and a standard deviation of ten.

- On the basis of the adjustment data a total‘"adjust-

ment score" is assigned to each inmate.

28
Inmates are ranked in order of adjustment and the top
and bottom quartiles are isolated for testing, one against
the other, on each of the variables.
The results of these tests reject or confirm the

hypotheses under study.

Instrumentation

 

Criteria for institutional adjustment. Three factors

 

are equally weighted in arriving at anadjustment score--
total citizenship grade average, number of appearances
before case conference for disciplinary action, and the
amount of added time received through such disciplinary
action. These factors were found to be the most objective
and comprehensive of those available for this purpose at
the Lansing school.

Boys Vocational School (hereafter referred to as
B.V.S.) grades each boy for citizenship once a month. These
grades, ranging from "1" for ”superior" tO'"5" for "very

poor,"

are the composite of grades received from each of
those staff members who have charge of the inmate through-
out the day--the cottage parents, the detail supervisor,

and his classroom teachers. This monthly grade is extremely
important to the inmate for it helps determine the date

he is ready for release. If he receives a better than "B"
("2") average and has no added time, he can be released in

1

five, rather than the standard six months. In addition,

 

1In 1957, the average length of stay was 7.4 months.(37)

29
citizenship grades are heavily weighted in determining
added time and/Or a release date after five months. Staff
members are under constant pressure from the inmate to give
high grades. Often, to save argument, they acquiece. Thus,
grades are dISproportionately high at B.V.S. and are not,
in themselves, an accurate measure of institutional adjust—
ment.

The number of appearances before case conference for
disciplinary action is an indication of the inmate's adjust-
ment but, because the seriousness of the charge varies
greatly, fl; too, is not an adequate measure of adjustment
when considered alone.

As the amount of added time an inmate receives through
disciplinary action is indicative of the seriousness and/Or
persistency of his misbehavior, this criterion is significant
in determining institutional adjustment. Further, since
the members of the case conference group are alone respon-
sible for determining the amount of such added time and are
possibly in the best position to determine the seriousness
of the misbehavior, this particular criterion needs to be
added to the others in determining adjustment.

It might be mentioned here that added time is the
primary method of disciplining inmates at B.V.S. Corporal
punishment is forbidden and denial of privilege or temporary
quarantine in the institution's isolation rooms are

eventually reflected in one and/or all of the three

3O
criterion selected. In the opinion of the clinical and
administrative staffs at the Lansing school, it was felt
that no further criterion, open to objective measurement,
would be necessary.

Some inmates cannot be released from the institution
despite their adjustment to it. These so-called "stranded
boys" are not allowed to return to their homes because the
courts of the referring county will not sanction their
homes as suitable or do not believe that the community is
ready to receive them. The latter case is particularly
true of inmates who have been involved in delinquency of
a sensational nature (e.g., murder). Two such inmates
were included in the study group. Since they were in the
institution for an inequitable period of time, and would
therefore have more opportunity to become involved in
trouble, one could expect these inmates to have a greater
chance to score low on all three of the adjustment criterion.
Therefore, it was decided to discard all data on them
beginning with the date that they would normally be released.
As neither staff nor inmates were aware that they were
'"stranded" until this date, that fact would not have had
any bearing on their institutional adjustment priortp it.
'"Home Reports" (court approval for an inmate to return home)
are not received until a week before the inmate is ready to

be released.

31

Variables. Originally, nineteen variables were

 

identified as significant in testing the theories and'

hypotheses to be studied. After extensive discussion with

the administrative and clinical staff at B.V.S., these

nineteen were reduced to twelve. All variables which

required data that were not considered reliable or which

were extraneous in testing the hypotheses were rejected.

The following variables remained: 1

l.

2.

Chronological Age (in months).

Standard Scores for Height Based Upon National
Norms for Age.2
Standard Scores for Weight Based Upon National
Norms for Age.2
Complexion. Complexion was judged by the
counselor on the inmates intake summary and

ranged from light and dark white to light and

dark colored with Indians, Mexicans, and Orientals
in the median position.

Intelligence Quotient. I.Q. was determined by
Wechsler—Bellevue Intelligence Test.

Reading Achievement.

Arithmetic Achievement. The Stanford Achievement

Test (Intermediate) was used to determine achieve—

ment scores.

 

UAll testing was completed in the Reception Cottage
'Norms were derived by Watson and Lowrey (40).

IO.

11..

32
Tool Dexterity. This factor was tested by the
Bennett Hand Tool Test.
Sociometric Rating. Sociograms were prepared by
asking each inmate to name, in order of importance,
his three best friends. His selection was to be
confined to his cottagegroup. These surveys were
taken each month throughout the inmate's stay in
the institution. In this study, the average of
choices received by the inmate is used as his
sociometric rating score.
Size of Teen-Age Population in County from WhiCh
Inmate Was Committed. Information in this area
was received from reports prepared by the
Children's Division of the Michigan Department of
Social Welfare.(28)
Clinical Classification According to Delinquency
Type. While he is in the reception cottage, a
psychologist, a social worker, the Director of
Social Service, and the Director of Training
classify each new inmate in one of seven categor-
ies of delinquency. These categories (originated
at B.V.S. for the school‘s own purpose) are as
follows: '"1A," Moderate Environmental (Social);
'"lB," Pronounced Environmentalg'"2A,“ MOderately
Disturbedg'V2B," seriouSly Disturbed; "3A,"

Moderate Character Disorder (Asocial);'"3B,"

12.

33

Serious Character Disordered; “4,“ Mental
Defective (waved from reception cottage to state
home for the feeble—minded). A more extensive
description of these types can be found in
Appendix A. Insofar as the clinical staff at
B.V.S. is concerned, the seriousness of the
delinquency is rated in the following order with
the least serious type as "1A" and the most
serious type as "3B": 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A, 2B, and
3B. Type 4, mentally defectives, are not con-
sidered as true delinquents. Because there were
no lA's or 4's in the study group (no inmate
admitted to B.V.S. in either 1956 or 1957 was
classified as 1A), this study ranks the inmates
from 1B through 3B in the order mentioned.
B.V.S. Prognosis for Institutional Adjustment.
The clinical team that classifies new inmates
according to delinquency type also adds a
prognosis for institutional adjustment. This
prognosis, with ratings on a simple, five—point
scale, "A" through "U," (A,"'"B,"'"C,"'"D,"‘"U")
is determined on much the same basis as is the
delinquency classification—~by interviews,
through tests, and examination of the commitment.

1
papers.

 

1See Appendix B, "Commitment Forms."

34

f Sources. of data. Information for use in determining

 

an adjustment score was gathered from the cumulative records
of those inmates composing the study group.1

Data for each of the variables was collected from
the inmate's intake summaries which include the results of
psychological tests, interviews, pertinent information
from the commitment papers, clinical classification, and

prognosis.

Test Method

 

In consultation with statisticians of the Michigan
' State University Bureau of Educational Research, it was
.decided that the method which best served to test the
hypotheses was the t test for significance of difference
in means. The formula chosen was Fisher's "student t;"
Through this method the mean score for the high adjustors
is tested against the mean score fer the low adjustors on
each of the variables.

Since the direction of the difference in means is
indicated by the alternate hypothesis in all except two
cases, a one-tailed t test will be used on all except
these two.

Critical t is set at the five per cent level of

confidence.

 

1See Appendix C, "Case Conference and Behavior Logs."

 

fl

 

35
Definition of Population Studied

 

One hundred and thirty—seven inmates, the total
population of four B.V.S. cottages in the year 1957, com-
prised the original study group. As two of these inmates
were waived after only a short period in the institution,
they were excluded and the final study group was set at 135.

There are a total of fourteen cottages at B.V.S. In
the year 1957, each averaged, at any one time, a population
of 27. The combined institutional average, at any one time,
was 378.(37)

In the judgment of the B.V.S. administrative staff,
the four cottages selected to comprise the study group
were most typical of what the total institutional program
was designed to be, in terms of supervision and population
characteristics.

At first glance, a possible limitation in the sample
is the absence of any twelve year olds. B.V.S. accepts
boys in an age range of twelve through seventeen. However,
of the 735 boys committed in 1957, only eleven were less
than thirteen years of age.(37) Thus, this deviation was

not considered significant.

 

Organization of the Data
Using the information contained in Table I,'"Tabulation

of Raw Scores of Study Group," data were converted into

 

coded standard scores using the formula (10 Kg? ) i 50.

36

 

mam. mo.m mama. . oo.mmm.H oo.sss
sms.omo.s Hm.wme.m oooo.moo.msm.ms oo.mss.cmm.smm.m oo.mms.ems
wm. mm.m mmcm. oo.mme.s oo.owm
a m.m sw.m memo.m oo.H:m.H oo.mwm
mom. so.a mean. oo.maa.a oo.ecm
mwm.e ms.c mmom.m ms.mmm.m os.wom
was.H o:.m mmsm.m sm.mmm.m om.:wm
oam.m soc.» mms:.m Hm.©mm.s om.msm
mam.m mm.sm ooss.os oo.smm.cem.e oo.mmm.me
cme.s mm.m mwmm.m oo.cmm oo.oom
oss.m Hm.om mew:.s oo.aes.moo oo.mmo.m
oss.me Hm.mmH ooms.osm oo.smw.mmm.m oo.mmc.me
mmm.m ms.mms oHom.mo oo.mmm.smo.m oo.emo.cm
mH.mc os.sam oscc.esm.s oo.msm.mss.c oo.Hmm.mm
ms.m mo.m msmm.H: oo.msm.w oo.wsm
mm. mw.H same. so.mm: ms.emm
noapma>om 11
osmogpm 9mm: coconuts; «NW NW

mma u z

 

 

mflmonmosm .m.>.m
.Qom some muQSOo
.mflmmmao Hmoflnfiao
mcflpmm OflspoEOHoom
.nosfl>nm S ..QHHQ..oom
hpflsouxoa HooB
mosoom.no< ponnsoo
pi>OH£o< osposnpflsd
pnoso>OHno< wcflomom
QGOH
hpflfimnomnom
COHNOHQEOQ
pnmfiom
pnwfioz
om<
Hoosnssm
moanmfism>

masonnmmpm go npmnoq
.anoo ommonu.smoaad
oomsw QHEmEONHpHo

 

 

membrane nsosnmseog

 

mbomw Mmpam mo mmmoom 3am mo ZOHB<QDm<B

H mum<9

 

37

Each inmate in the study group was then assigned a
number and given an adjustment score which was the total
of his coded scores on eaCh of the three adjustment criterion.
These figures can be found in Appendix D, "Adjustment Scores
of Study Group."

Case numbers were then distributed over a scale which
represented the interval between a maximum adjustment score
of 39 and a minimum adjustment score of 76. The results of
this tabulation can be found in Graph 1, "Distribution of
Adjustment Scores." The range of distribution indicated
that there were significant differences present in the
institutional adjustment of the study group.

From this range, the upper quartile (25 per cent) and
the bottom quartile (25 per cent) were isolated. It can
be observed that cases with adjustment 330335.0f.39 through

‘44 are thus classified as high adjustors and cases with
mwadjustment scores Of 53 through 76 are classified as low
adjustors.

Discarding the median group, the "highs" and the "lows"
were listed separately. Coded standard scores on each of
the variables were assigned to all of the cases in these
two test groups. These tabulations, including those for
adjustment scores, are contained in Table II,'"Tabulation
of High Adjustors on Twelve Variables," and Table III,
'"Tabulation of Low Adjustors on Twelve Variables;"

The data from these two tables were used in the

analyses of means to test the nine hypotheses.

 

 

 

 

 

W

 

whopmzmo< Boa
snaps:
mm0pm5n6< swam

monoom

 

mmhoom pnospmdmo<

mm

 

"NMM

phospmznoa no soanansspnsm

.H names

m:

0:

  

ONKJNQm—II'MNH a

\OLfi—IfMCUr—IO
I-ln—Ir-lr-iu—lv—iH

seseo jo aeqmnN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39
Case Total Clinical County Pop. BVS Prog.
(No. Adj. Classif. under 19 A-éuperior
n (hundreds) U-unsat.
no. God. Unc. Cod. Unc. Cod.
2 42 . 2b 62 395 43 c 51
3 39 1 2a 42 152 42 c 51
5 39 : 3a 52 62 42 c 51
6 42 : 3a 52 2417 48 B 66
7 42 : 2a 42 395 43 B 66
13 43 13a 52 523 43 c 51
14 44 :2a 42 77 42 C 51
16 42 ‘2a 42 9136 65 B 66 >oy
18 43 . 3a 52 9136 65 C 51
24 42 ‘ 2a 42 61 42 c 51 Lf
25 42 13a 52 9136 65 C 51 )ers
27 41 : 3a 52 167 42 C 51
37 42 : 3a 52 61 42 C 51 1 he
38 42 . 2a 42 25 42 B 66
4o 39 2a 42 296 43 C 51 Le
42 43 * 2a 42 98 42 B 66
44 44 1 2a 42 152 42 c 51
46 43 .2a 42 88 42 C 51 3e,
48 42 : 2a 42 1245 45 B 66
52 42 1 2a 42 9136 65 B 66 ger
62 41 : 3a 52 9136 65 C 51
7o 41 : 3a 52 14 42 D 37
76 4o flb 31 9136 65 B 66 (the
478 39 : 2a 42 30 42 B 66
79 39 13a 52 61 42 C 51 llenge.
84 44 22a 42 9136 65 C 51 ask
87 42 : 2a 42 112 42 c 51
92 42 33b 72 9136 65 D 37 ement.
96 39 : 2a 42 9136 65 B 66
99 42 2 2a 42 1336 45 c 51 ad
100 42 1 2a 42 1336 45 c 51
102 41 h 3a 52 9136 65 B 66
106 42 1 3a 52 696 44 B 66
110 41 3 lb 31 15 42 B 66
128 42 ‘ 3a 52 1245 45 C 51
ixz 1455 1628 1724 1952 ,
(X 58795 77854 88446 111386 ' 31“
M(Cd)41 57 46.50 49.25 55.77
M(Uncd) 2.46 2926 2.68 ’)
L

CHAPTER IV

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO
INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

Introduction

 

Entering a training school for the first time, a boy
faces the ofttimes difficult task of establishing himself
with a new group of peers in a new setting. Unless members
of his gang have been committed with him, the reputation he
may have achieved in a street corner society is of little
value to him. He is acutely aware of the fact that the
society he has entered is made up of boys who may well be,
as the training school inmate might describe them, "bigger
and badder” than he is.

The delinquent who has had little gang experience (the
'"lone wolf") is faced with an even greater personal challenge.
The social delinquentl may, conceivably, approach the task
of contesting for status with a certain amount of excitement.
The'"lone wolf," on the other hand, has nothing but dread

for what lies before him.

 

1See Appendix A, "Clinical Classifications;"

2For a further discussion of the social phenomena in-
volved here, see the author's ”The Social System of the
'In-Group' in a Training School for Delinquent Boys."(9)

42

The first critical impression the boy makes in the
reception cottage is, of course, related to his physical
appearance. His appearance—~size and color--may contribute
to initial peer status and affect the initial estimation of
him made by those staff persons responsible for his intake
summary.

If one might theorize that the first general impres—
sion an inmate makes upon his peers and upon the staff is
related to his ultimate institutional adjustment, then,
conceivably, the inmate‘s physical characteristics, a part
of this general impression, are related to his institutional
adjustment. The same rationale might also be applied to the
impression made by the inmate's physical appearance on staff
and peers throughout his stay in the institution. The fears
and bhe biases of those with whom the inmate is in daily,
intimate contact cannot help but influence his monthly grades.

Though the factor of age is considered among physical
characteristics, it has possibly greater implications on the
individuals' social and emotional maturity than on his phy—
sical appearance--or the impression he makes on his peers due
to his physical appearance. Social insights are acquired as
a part of the normal developmental process. It is generally
conceded that older children adapt more readily to complex
social situations than do younger children. Secondary public
schools represent a social situation more complex than an

elementary school. The elementary school is, in turn, more

complex than a nursery school.

43

Where in this continuum does the training school fit?
Does it represent a social situation to which a thirteen
year old might most easily adapt-—or is it geared to the
social maturity of a seventeen year old? Does it individ-
ualize its program so as to meet the social needs of several
levels of maturity-~0r, in one program for all, does it
strike a satisfactory compromise?

Assuming that an inmate adjusts more favorably to a
social situation commensurate with his social maturity, one
might theorize conversely that the institution's success or
failure in meeting social needs is reflected in the age
level at which inmates are mere likely to make a favorable
institutional adjustment.

In addition, emotional maturity loosely parallels
growth in years. The logic of the preceeding paragraphs
applies equally well here. If the institution is meeting
emotional needs at all levels, thirteen through seventeen,
age is less likely to have a direct bearing on institutional
adjustment.

The results of an investigation, developed within this
theoretical framework, to discover the relationship of
physical characteristics-~height, weight, complexion, and

age-—to institutional adjustment are reported in this chapter.

44

The Analysis of Means of Adjustment Scores for
High and Low Adjustors

 

Preliminary to the analysis of means of the variables
included in this and following chapters, the means of
adjustment scores for high and low adjustors are compared
so as to clearly establish the significant difference
between the adjustment scores of both groups. The observed
value of t for adjustment scores was 10.92, whereas
critical t1 was set at 1.67. The level of significance2
computed for 1.67 is .0005. It can thus be established
that the adjustment scores of the high group differ markedly

from those of the low group.

TABLE IV

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
(Coded'Values)

 

 

 

High Group Low Group

 

 

.X)1 (32) (fig) 32) Pooled Observed Level

Mean Var.l Mean Var,2 Var2 Val. of of
(S p) t Sig.

Age 53.28 69.85 45.66 96.76 83.76 3.48 .0010

Weight 47.37 83.94 48.88 68.47 76.20 1.72 .1000
Height 41.14-LTL47’ 45.40 129.32 118.40 1.64 .2000

Complex. 48.06 88.47 54.43 123.26 105.86 2.59 .0100

 

 

 

 

lCritical t and levels of significance used throughout
this study were computed by Fisher and Yates and recorded in
Walker and Lev.(39).

2Ibid.

45
Hypothesis 1. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLY TO THE
TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN AGE
OR HEIGHT AND WEIGHT FOR THEIR AGE THAN THOSE WHO ADJUST

LESS FAVORABLY TO THE TRAINING SCHOOL.

553

The observed value of t for age is 3.48. AS no direc~
tion of the difference in means is indicated in the null
hypothesis being tested here, a two—tailed t test is used
which, at the five per cent level of confidence, requires<
a t of 2.00. The level of significance is .001. It is then
estimated that in only one out of a thousand cases could a
difference by chance alone have taken place.

It appears that older boys adjust more favorably to
the training school than younger boys do. Thus, the

hypothesis, at least in respect to the age factor, must be

rejected.

Height

Since the critical t has been established at 2.00 and
the observed value of t for height is 1.64, the height for
low adjustors is not significantly different from that of

the high adjustors.

Weight
Here, too, the observed t falls below the critical t
(1.72 - 2.00) and there is inadequate ' significance in the

relationship of weight to institutional adjustment.

46
In adhering to the established t, it must be stated
that, though that part of the hypothesis relating to age is
rejected, that part of the hypothesis relating to height

and weight for age is confirmed.

Hypothesis 2. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLY TO THE
TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE LIGHTER COMPLEXIONED THAN THOSE

WHO ADJUST LESS FAVORABLY TO THE TRAINING SCHOOL.

Complexion

 

The figures applying to the complexion variable on
Table IV do not confirm this hypothesis. As the scale which
measured complexion combined light and dark white inmates at
the upper end and light and dark colored inmates on the lower
end (with Indians, Mexicans, and Orientals in the median
position), it can be inferred that colored inmates are less
likely to be in the favorably adjusted group at B.V.S.

than are white inmates.

Summary

In summary, high adjustors are older and lighter com-
plexioned (white) than low adjustors, but they are not sig-
nificantly different in height for their age and weight for
their age from the low adjustors.

Following is a list of factors in their order of
significance:1

1. Age——significant

2. Complexion—-significant

3. Weight—~not significant
4. Height—~not significant

i Again, significance is determined at the five per cent
level of confidence.throughout this study.

 

CHAPTER V

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO

INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

Introduction

 

In the several follow-up studies of Sheldon and Eleanor
Glueck (l5, l6, l7, 18) a fairly consistent pattern emerges
which suggests that the offender, juvenikaor adult, is more
likely to succeed on parole and probation if his abilities
and his aptitudes are higher than the average for the
criminal population studied. In their investigation of
“intra-mural” adjustment at a training school, the authors
hinted that this same relationship held true in the adjust-
ment of the young offender in the correctional school.

Mental aptitude, for example, was slightly related to
institutional adjustment.

That success in general, normally requires certain
mental competencies, inherent or acquired, is a forgone con-
clusion. However, it is cnnceivable that in a training
school, factors other than intelligence, academic achieve-
ment, and tool dexterity are of greater importance in
inStitutional adjustment. One could theorize that, since
the value system of the juvenile delinquent differs radically

in some respects from that of the society at large

48

(particularly the society of the school where ability is
highly valued), the inmate who evidenced better—than—average
ability is at a disadvantage with his peers and, conse-
quently, at a disadvantage in institutional adjustment.

0n the other hand, intelligence is said to contribute
heavily to social insight; and achievement and intelligence,
if they do not impress the fellow inmate, they surely
impress the training school staff.

In this study, the investigator believes such person—
ality characteristics as higher intelligence, higher academic
achievement, and higher tool dexterity are assets rather
than liabilities in the institutional adjustment of the
inmate. Several hypotheses are constructed with this in
mind. The present chapter reports those findings which test
these hypotheses.

Interrelationships among the five variables discussed
in this chapter and among all twelve variables discussed
here and throughout the study, undoubtedly exist. AS in
the present chapter, some are quite obvious. The fact that
intelligence and achievement are most often closely related
is well known. However, the interrelationship of tested
variables used throughout the study, singly and in groups,
present many challenging possibilities.

Unless they are self—evident or are concerned with
the variables as such and not as tested against institutional

adjustment, these interrelationships are discussed in

Chapter VIII,'”Summary and Conclusions."

49

 

 

omoo. ss.m mw.omm sm.msw 44.4: cs.sca. om.mm anascrsoo
Hooe
omoo. ©m.m mm.mmH Hm.m@H as.m: mo.nHH :m.mm Dcoso>oflno<
oosflnsoo
mooo. mm.m ma.moa mm.oHH :H.m: mo.OOH Hm.mm psoeo>OHno<
. canossnena
ooHo. w:.m mm.moa :s.mm SH.m: sm.moa SH.Hm DnoEo>6fino<
wcflomom
mooo. mw.m mm.me ©>.Oma sm.o: mm.mma sa.wm .d .H
[w .mno p Ammv .1! .sm> can: .sm> new: .1
mo .me mo Ozam> monmfism> m m. , H. . a
so Ho>mq po>nomno ooaoom Ammv A M91. nwmv AMu
@5096 309 gnosw swam

Amosam> ooooov

moHBmHmmHo¢m<mo NBHA<zomMMm

> mqmgfi

50

Hypothesis 3. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLE TO THE
TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE OF HIGHER INTELLIGENCE THAN
THOSE WHO ADJUST LESS FAVORABLY TO THE TRAINING SCHOOL.

Intelligence

 

Of all the variables studied, intelligence ranked
highest in‘ the observed value of t. Table V lists this
value as 5.83, significantly above the critical t, 1.67.

It appears that the mean intelligence of the high
adjustors is significantly higher than that of the low

adjustors and the hypothesis is rejected.f

Hypothesis 4. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLY TO THE
TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE OF HIGHER ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
THAN THOSE WHO ADJUST LESS FAVORABLY TO THE TRAINING SCHOOL.

Reading Achievement

 

Here the value of t was 2.48, with the critical t at
l.67--as it is for each of the variables in Table V. The
level of significance is .0100, which indicates a consider-
able difference in reading scores for the high and the low
groups. AS a group, the highs are better readers than the

lows.

Arithmetic Achievement

 

In comparing the observed Values of t in reading and
arithmetic, (2.48 and 3.58), it appears that the high

adjustors, when matched with the low adjustors, excel in

51
arithmetic at an even higher level of significance (.0100

and .0005), then they do at reading.

Combinee Achievement Scores

 

In an effort to describe in a more general way, the
academic achievement of the two test groups, reading and
arithmetic scores are combined into a single factor and,
in the same manner as other variables are analyzed, the
means of the scores on this factor are matched to determine
the presence of any significant differences. The results
show that the observed value of t on the means for the
combination reading and arithmetic scores is 3.26 with a
level of significance equal to .0050.

This result, added to those of the two preceding
variables, rejects thehypothesis. Inmates who have achieved
higher institutional adjustment, have, as a group, achieved

higher academic scores as well.

Hypothesis 5. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLY TO THE
TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE OF HIGHER TOOLDEXTERITY THAN

THOSE WHO ADJUST LESS FAVORABLY TO THE TRAINING SCHOOL.

Tool Dexterity

 

It can be observed that, in the statistical analysis
of means of scores on tooldexterity for the two groups, a t
value of 2.74 is computed. With a critical t of 1.67, the
level of significance is the same as that for combined

academic achievement-~that is, .0050.

52
Therefore, hypothesis five is rejected. The high

adjustors have higher tool dexterity scores than the low

adjustors.

Summary
Significant differences were found between high
adjustors and low adjustors in intelligence, academic
achievement, and tool dexterity.
The order of significance is as follows:
\1. Intelligence--Significant
. Arithmetic achievement——sign1f10ant
. Combined Arithmetic and Reading Achievement-_sig-
nificant

2
3
4. Tool Dexterity——Significant
5

. Reading Achievements-significant

CHAPTER VI

SOCIAL, CLINICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

IN RELATION TO INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

Introduction

 

The studies of Schrag (23) and Grusky (19) of the
relationship between an inmate‘s peer status and his adjust—
ment to an adult correctional institution seem to establish
that inmates who are highly regarded by other inmates are
likely to be well adjusted to the prison if it is a minimum
security, rehabilitation—centered institution, but popular
inmates are likely to be poorly adjusted to the prison, if
it is a maximum security, traditional—type institution.
Grusky infers that the effectiveness of an adult correctional
program may well be measured by the relationship between
an inmate'ssociometric rating and his institutional adjust-
ment. Theoretically, when the prisoners support the truly
correctional program, they admire prisoners who have
adjusted well to it and when they resent a prison program
which is essentially punitive, they admire prisoners who
have resisted it.

The author has chosen sociometric status as one of
this study's variables because he wished to test the Grusky

theories as they might apply to a correctional school for

54
boys--specifically a school which operates under a philoso-
phy which is essentially non—punitive and "rehabilitation
centered." The author is not so concerned here with
evaluating the effectiveness of thetraining school's program
through the use of sociometric ratings; as he is concerned
with investigating the theory that, when correctional
programs (extended here to correctional programs for
juveniles) are rehabilitation centered, inmates who are
high adjustors enjoy high sociometric status. The author
believes that training school boys do not have the maturity
to choose friends on the basis of their favorable adjust-
ment to adult standards-~no matter hOW'"rehabilitation
centered" these standards may be.

Perhaps the most subtle differences between high and
low adjustors are to be found in psychological variables.
One can determine many other differences by a single
observation or by easily administered tests. The behavior
modes of delinquents are, however, extremely complex and
clinical observations, though many testing instruments can
be involved, are largely judgmental in nature. Despite their
subtlety, these modes are critical to the understanding of
institutional adjustment. To know that certain clinical
types of delinquents adjust more favorably to this partic-
ular training school setting than do other types is to
have compounded a multitude of elusive factors into one

while planning for individual treatment and/Cr institutional

placement.

55

The author recognizes the limitations of a clinical
classification which is generalized and scaled on a simple
five-point index. Yet this study approaches its problem
from a multidisciplinary point of View. The author is not
prepared for intensive psychological investigation--nor is
the study intended to examine the problem of institutional
adjustment at any great depth from any one particular
direction.

It is further recognized that the clinical classifi-
cation used in this study is limited because of the lack
of a uniform criteria for placement of the inmate in one
of the several categories of delinquency. It is probable
that opinions vary among the four men who provide the
classifications as to why a boy should be described as an
'"environmental" or an "asocial" type delinquent.l Each of
these men, though expert in his field, might interpret cer—
tain behavior in a different light and form judgments
accordingly.

The only assurance that the author has of the uni—
formity of the clinical classifications is the word of the
chief psychologist at B.V.S. that, in compiling an average
rating from the four that are recorded, differences are

rare .

 

1The process of classification and the description
of each delinquency type is described in Chapters III and
VII, as well as Appendix A.

56

For the purpose of this study, the clinical classi-
fications are used as a simple method of determining, on a
continuum, the seriousness of the delinquency involvement.
Individual variations of delinquency and their relation to
institutional adjustment are left for further research.

The theoretical framework for wishing to test the
seriousness of delinquency involvement against institutional
adjustment rests in the question of whether a training
school of the type from which this study's sample is drawn
is suited to the needs of any and all delinquents or to a
certain type of delinquent-~one whose behavior pattern has
not yet warranted intense psychotherapy or more rigid
controls. The author believes that the second position is
more tenable than the first.

A persistent theory in the training school holds that
boys coming from community environments where there is a
large urban population are more likely to adjust poorly to
the institution than those who come from less populous areas.
At B.V.S., Detroit boys are often expected to make the most
trouble for the training school staff. The theory stems
from the fact that the more populous counties are, as a
rule, the more able, financially, to provide preventative
measures and treatment facilities in handling their delin—
quency problems. Consequently, the training school is
likely to get from these counties only their most difficult

cases—~cases that could not reSpond to the many other forms

57
of treatment provided. In addition, some hold that the
large, metropolitan areas are more conducive tosnrious
delinquency than are the rural or semi-rural areas. While
the author rejects this latter premise on the grounds that
it represents an unrealistic view of today's highly
mobilized society, he is impressed by the reasonableness of
the former View and has, accordingly, formed a hypothesis
so as to test the direction of the relatiOnship between

population size and institutional adjustment.

TABLE VI

SOCIAL, CLINICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
(Coded Values)

 

 

High Group Low Group Pooled Level

 

 

2 — 2 Var. Value of
(Y) (S) (X) (S) .
Meanl Var.l Mean Var.2 (S: ) Slg'
Socio-
metric
Ratings 53.74 125.44 46.20 71.41 -- 3.18 .0100
Clinical
Classif. 46.50 62.62 53.71 114.62 —- 3.25 .0050
County
Popula—

tion 49.25 103.74 49.48 100.03 101.88 .09 -—'

.- 1 1" I

Hypothesis 6. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLY TO
THE TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN
POPULARITY WITH THEIR PEERS (HIGH SOCIOMETRIC STATUS) THAN

THOSE WHO ADJUST LESS FAVORABLY TO THE TRAINING SCHOOLS.

I

58

Peer Status

 

In Table VI it can be observed that no figure for
pooled variance is given for either the sociometric
variable or for the clinical classification variable being
tested. Since the differences between the variances

Iééiii and lliiéé is greater than the 1.67 (1.75 and 1.83)
71.41 62.62

which is computed as critical in the F Max Table (39), the
formulafbr unequal variance is used to analyze means on
these variances.l The resultant observed value of t for
sociometric rating is 3.18. As critical t is described at
2.00, a significant (.0100) difference exists in the
variances; hence, inmates in the high adjustors group are
more likely to have higher sociometric ratings than inmates
in the low adjustors group.

The null hypothesis must be rejected.

Hypothesis 7. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLY TO THE
TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE CLINICALLY CLASSIFIED AS LESS
SERIOUS TYPES OF DELINQUENTS THAN THOSE WHO ADJUST LESS
FAVORABLY TO THE TRAINING SCHOOL.

 

1The formula for unequal variance does not require
the use of pooled variance. It does, however, require a
different formula for determining degrees of freedom used
in establishing level of significance. The resulting
degrees of freedom are 65 and 64, respectively. The
degrees of freedom for all the other variables using the
pooled variance formula are 68.

59
Clinical Classification

 

It will be recalled1 that inmates classified as lb
and 2a are considered as less serious type delinquents and
inmates classified as 2b and 3b as more serious types with
3a in the median position. Thus, a continuum is established
which ranks the inmate according to the seriousness of his
delinquency and which, after coding, is amenable to the
test method selected for this study.

The observed value of t for clinical classification
is 3.25. With a critical t of 1.67, it becomes apparent
that high adjustors are classified as lessserious type
delinquents. The level of significance is established as
.0050.

The hypothesis is rejected.

Hypothesis 8. THOSE WHO ADJUST MORE FAVORABLY TO THE
TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE FROM COUNTIES WITH SMALLER TEEN—
AGE POPULATIONS THAN THOSE WHO ADJUST LESS FAVORABLE TO THE

TRAINING SCHOOL.

Population in County of Commitment

 

From the results appearing on Table VI, the factor of
population size for the county from which the inmate was
committed, when it is related statistically to institutional

adjustment, is the least important of all those considered

 

1See Chapter III, under subheading'"Instrumentation,"
pp.28—33.

60
in this study. The observed value of t (.09) is so small
that a level of significance cannot be computed.

The hypothesis is confirmed.

Summary

In order of significance, the variables considered
in this chapter as they relate to institutional adjustment,
rank as follows:

1. Clinical Classification-—significant.

2. Sociometric Rating—~significant.

3. County Teen-Age Population——not significant.

As a group, high adjustors are Classified as the less
serious types of delinquents (1B, "environmental delin-
quents" and 2A, “mildly disturbed delinquents"), and are
more popular with their peers than the low adjustors.

There is no significant difference between the high
adjustors in regard to the size of the teen—age population

in the county from which the inmate is committed.

CHAPTER VII

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

Introduction

 

For the past five years, inmates newly committed to
Boys Vocational School in Lansing, Michigan, are each given
a prognosis for institutional adjustment. This prognosis,
expressed in simple grades with A equal to'"superior," B
equal to "good," C equal to "fair," D equal to "poor,” and

U equal to "unsatisfactory,"

is derived in the same way
and based on the same random observations as is the clinical
classification which accompanies it.

The author questioned each of the men responsible
for this prognosis, asking how he arrived at a grade, and
found that each had similar criteria. In some cases the
prognosis was automatically given to match the clinical
classification—~la and lb boys were graded A, 2a boys were
graded B, 3a boys were graded 0, 2b boys were graded D,
and 3b boys were graded U. In other cases, a complex of
factors was offered--the reason for commitment, the length
of the delinquent history, home and family background, et
cetera. As a rule, the variables considered in this study

were also mentioned. It became apparent that grading for

clinical classification and prognosis were closely related

62
and that the process for arriving at both were highly
judgmental in character.

The results of the author's informal survey revealed
that, in order of frequency, the four men chose the fol-
lowing factors as significant in arriving/at a clinical
classification and a prognosis for institutional adjustment:
(1) Seriousness and persistency of the delinquent acts; (2)
the inmate's entire psychological complex; (3) pre-institu-
tional environmental factors-~the family, the home, and the
community3and (4) miscellaneous factors such as school
record, achievement, and aptitudeef

The author was warned repeatedly of the danger of a
literal interpretation of the records as they are received
from the courts upon the boy‘s commitment to the institution.
It appears that all factors except those derived from the
institution's own investigations are of questionable accuracy
when applied to a sample of inmates. Court papers (Appendix
B) are prepared by all manner of personnel. In one county
these papers are likely to be concise, thorough, and objec-
tive—~the work of a well—trained and competent worker. In
another county they can be so makeshift or so obviously

. . l
biased as to become meaningless.

 

lThis inconsistency also prevented the author's use
of these papers for gathering important informahon on
environment and delinquent history as they might relate
to institutional adjustment.

63

The use of interviews with the inmate to fill in
vital data is even less rewarding in terms of objectivity.
The newly committed boy cannot be expected to be objective
about his past, even if he were aware of all the pertinent
facts.

The training school staff, then, base their judgment
of such important factors as "seriousness and persistency
of delinquent acts" on commitment papers which are individ-
ually assessed according to the staff‘s experience in
working with these papers.

The inmate‘s total psychological assessment is based
upon the interviews of the school's psychiatrist and one
of its psychologists along with the results of the tests
used in study as scores for certain variables and the
Machover Draw—a—Person Test. The Rorschach Inkblot Test
is administered when further assessment is indicated.

Additional information for use by the social worker,
the Director of Social Service and the Director of Training
is procured by these men in their interviews with the
inmate during the inmate's two week quarantine period in
the reception cottage. V

Despite the efforts of the diagnostic team to base
their judgments on every available form of evidence, this
group is quick to admit the tentative nature of their
classifications and prognoses. These scores are given only

to the administrative and professional staff to guide them

64
in the institutional placement of the inmate and to provide
an index of trends in commitments so that the school might
plan for the future development of its program. Every
precaution is taken to avoid the use of the scores as an
indelible "brand" which might unduly influence the staff
in its treatment of the inmate.

At the school's request, the validity of their class—
ification system for predicting institutional adjustment is
tested against this. study's adjustment criteria. If a
significant number of those inmates who were given prognosis
scores of A or B (the upper level of the coded range) fall
in the high adjustors group, and a significant number of
those who were given prognosis scores of D or U (the lower
level of the coded range) fall in the low adjustors group,
it can be assumed that the classification system for pre-
dicting institutional adjustment at Boys Vocational School
is significantly accurate. Using this rationale, the same
test method can be applied to the variable for prognosis
as was applied to the others that precede it.

This chapter reports the results of such an investi-
gation and concludes with a table listing each of the
variables tested in this and previous chapters in order
of significance when estimating their relationship to

institutional adjustment.

65
HypotheSis 9. THE PROGNOSIS FOR INSTITUTIONAL
ADJUSTMENT AT THE TRAINING SCHOOL WILL NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY

DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE LOW ADJUSTORS AND THE HIGH ADJUSTORS.

Accuracy of the B.V.S. Adjustment Prognosis

 

The high adjustors had a mean of 55.77 and a variance
of 74.12 on prognosis scores. The low adjustors had a mean
of 45.08 and a variance of 99.15. The pooled variance was
86.64 and the observed value of t was 4.80. With a critical
t of 1.67, the difference in the variances is significant
at the .0005 level of confidence.

High adjustors have a significantly greater number
of high prognosis scores and low adjustors have a signifi-
cantly greater number of low prognosis scores. Therefore,
the system for predicting institutional adjustment at the
Lansing training school is significantly accurate and
hypothesis nine is rejected.

Levels of Significance for All Variables Related
to Institutional Adjnstment

 

 

__..m.bi. VII, “Variables in Order of Significance,"
indICates that intelligence, prognosis for institutional
adjustment, and arithmetic achievement,AIn that order, are
most significantly related to institutional adjustment and
that teen—age population of the county from which the
inmate was committed, height for age, and weight for age,

in that order, are not significantly related to institutional

adjustment.

TABLE VII

VARIABLES IN ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE

66

 

 

Observed Level of

Variables ‘Value Sig. of

of t Observed t
Intelligence 5.83 .0005 *

Prognosis for Institutional

Adjustment 4.80 .0005 *
Arithmetic Achievement 3.58 .0005 *
Chronological Age 3.48 .0010 *
Combined Achievement Scores 3.26 .0050 *
Clinical Classification 3.25 .0050 *
Tool Dexterity 2.74 .0050 *
Sociometric Rating 3.18 .0100 *
Complexion 2.59 .0100 *
Reading Achievement 2.48 .0100 *

Weight for Age 1.72 .1000 N.S.

Height for Age 1.64 .2000 N.S.

County Teen-Age Population .09 ----- N.S.

 

significant

N.S. not significant

CHAPTER VIII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

 

This study has attempted to determine the relationship
that exists between certain physical, personality, social,
clinical, and environmental characteristics and the insti~
tutional adjustment of 135 inmates at Boys Vocational School,
a state training school for delinquent boys located at
Lansing, Michigan.

First, nine hypotheses were formed; Then, having set
as criteria for institutional adjustment three factors~~
citizenship grade average, number of appearances before a
staff committee (case conference) for disciplinary action,
and amount of additional time incurred through such dis—
ciplinary action--all of the inmates included in the study
group were given standard scores and were ranked in order
of adjustment. The upper quartile (high adjustors), and
the bottom quartile (low adjustors), were selected and given
standard scores on each of the following variables: (1)
Chronological Age, (2) Height for Age, (3) Weight for Age,
(4) Complexion, (5) Intelligence Quotient, (6) Reading
Achievement, (7) Arithmetic Achievement (plus a score which

combined both reading and arithmetic achievement), (8) Tool

. 68
Dexterity, (9) Sociometric Rating, (10) Size of Teen-Age

Population in County from Which Inmate was Committed, (11)
Clinical Classification According to Delinquency Type, and
(12) The Training School's Prognosis for Institutional
Adjustment.

Using the'"Student's t" as a test method, the means
of the high adjustors were tested against the means for
the low adjustors to determine, at a five per cent level
of confidence, significance in differences.

In this manner, the study‘s nine hypotheses were
rejected or confirmed.

The preceding four chapters have been devoted to
discussions of the theoretical base for the selection of
the variables under study, followed, in turn, by the results
of the tests for significance of their variables.

The present chapter presents an over—all description
and discussion of the study's obtained results along with
the inferences that might be drawn from them. Finally,
areas for further research, relative to the problems

investigated in this study, are suggested.

The Results of the Study

 

It was found that those who adjust more favorably to
the training school are (1) older, (2) lighter complexioned,
(3) of higher intelligence, (4) of higher academic achieve-
ment, (5) of higher tool dexterity, (6) more popular with

their peers, (7) classified as less serious types of

69
delinquents,and (8) predicted to adjust well to the
training school when they enter it.

No relationship was discovered between institutional
adjustment and (1) height for age, (2) weight for age, or
(3) size of teen—age population in county from which the
inmate was committed.

Differences which proved to be of highest signifi-
cance in establishing a relationship between the variables
and institutional adjustment were, in order of the levels of
significance of observed t: (1) Intelligence, (2) Prognosis
for Institutional Adjustment, (3) Arithmetic Achieve-
ment, (4) Age, (5) Combined Achievement Scores, (6) Clinical
Classification, (7) Tool Dexterity, (8) Sociometric Rating,
(9) Complexion, and (10) Reading Achievement. There were
no significant differences between low adjustors and high
adjustors in Weight for Age and Height for Age, or Size
of Teen—Age Population of County from Which the Inmate

was Committed.

Inferences Drawn from the Resulte_of the Study

 

The danger of interpreting the results of a study of
this nature lies in the temptation to generalize beyond a
confirmed point and to form conclusions which cannot be
verified by the facts provided. Yet, without becoming too
ingenious, certain inferences relating to the training
school program in general and to institutional adjustment

in particular, can be supported by the results of this study.

70
These inferences are arranged here under the names
of the variables which, when related to institutional

adjustment, seem most supportive of the discussion.

ege. As a significant relationship exists between
age and institutional adjustment, with older boys appearing
to adjust more favorably to the training school than younger
boys, it might be concluded that the school is failing to
meet the needs of boys of all ages. 0n the other hand,
younger boys may be less amenable to treatment under any
program for two reasons. First, according to official
reports (28), the courts are slow in committing younger
boys to the training school. A younger boy may be given
'"another chance" for an offense which would lead to the com-
mitment of an older boy. Second, boys less than twelve
years old cannot be committed. Hence, it is possible that
a young offender may have been in serious difficulty for
several years but not committed because he was below com-
mitment age. An older boy, on the other hand, unless he
is a parole Violaton may not have been in serious trouble
for the years immediately preceding his commitment or he
would have been sent to the training school earlier. There
is, then, some theoretical basis for suggesting that the
younger delinquents may actually be less amenable to treat-
ment.

In persuing further the importance of age in insti—

tutional adjustment, an exploration of the interrelationship

71

of age and clinical classification should be of primary

interest to an investigator.

Physical maturity for age. It is interesting to note

 

that, while no significant relationship exists between
physical maturity for age and institutional adjustment,

an examination of the mean scores for both the high and the
low adjustors reveals that the test groups were slightly
below (41,47 - 45,48) the national norms (50) for height
and weight for age. Further, it appears that, whereas the
highs are significantly older than the lows, they are of
slightly smaller stature and weight for their age than the
lows. It would be difficult to Speculate on these minor
deviations without redesigning the study to include a much'
larger sample group.

For our present purposes, one can assume no more than
what the test has revealed about height and weight for age
as they are related to institutional adjustment—~that is,
if a relationship exists between these factors, it is not

a significant one.

Complexion. One might theorize that a positive rela-

 

tionship exists between the inmate's color and institutional
adjustment because of prejudice on the part of the staff
anybr inmates at the Lansing training school-~but such a
statement would not be an accurate description of this

study's obtained results. All that was discovered was a

72

relationship which indicates that high adjustors are

lighter complexioned (white) than low adjustors. The rela-
tionship may be due to any number of factors. The proportion
of white to colored boys (approximately four to one), however,
was not one of these factors. The mean score for the high
adjustors was 48.06, which immediately indicates that the
majority were white and the mean score for the low adjustors
was 54.43, which immediately indicates that a diSproportion—
ate number were colored.

This racial discrepancy might reflect the attitudes
of the white inmates and staff to colored boys—~or it might
reflect the attitudes of colored inmates to white boys
and staff. It might indicate the failure of the institution
to provide properly for the colored inmate's adjustment
needs or it might indicate the failure of the colored inmate
to adjust to the institution-~regardless of how conscien-
tiously it worked at meeting every inmate's adjustment needs.

The results of this study indicate only that high
adjustors are significantly lighter than low adjustors and,
therefore, the physical factor of complexion is related
positively to institutional adjustment.

The variable of complexion was chosen for testing with-
out regard for theoretical speculation but simply to reject
or confirm a hypothesis which has been built upon the author's
observations following eleven years as an employee at Boys

Vocational Schoolin Lansing.

73

Though the author recognizes a need for further
research in this area, he feels that additional speculation
on race and institutional adjustment is beyond the scope of

this study.

Intelligence. The impressive difference registered

 

for intelligence of high and low adjustors by the observed
value of t (5.83) might emphasize, more than any single
variable, that high institutional adjustment is related to
intelligence rather than physical maturity factors or the
single environmental factor selected for study.

7/It is commonly accepted that intelligence contributes
heavily to social insight. For the inmate, the training
school demands a great deal of this insight, particularly
in the difficult task of satisfying the demands of both
staff and peers without alienating either.

In addition, the more intelligent boys are less likely

to fail on their work assignments and in the classroom.
Though ”citizenship grades" are not intended to measure a

boy‘s capacity, ability may influence the teacher's or

supervisor's assessment of the inmate under his charge.

Academic achievement. The results of the test for

 

relationship between academic achievement and institutional
adjustment serve to underscore the comments of the last

few paragraphs.

74

If any resentment on the part of his peers is directed
toward the high achiever's academic skills, and if this
Iresentment might influence the high achiever's institutional
adjustment, it is offset by the favorable impression the
high achiever makes upon the staff. It is likely, however,
that no such resentment exists. Because the delinquent
appears to reject the idea of school, he is often thought
of as rejecting the idea of learning as well. Actually,
in the author‘s experience,/it appears that the delinquent
places a high value on learning and admires the high
achiever-~as long as he can achieve with little or no
teacher identification.7“

As a rule, academic achievement has kept the brighter
boy, despite his police entanglements, comparatively suc—
cessful in school. There is no reason to believe that this

factor would not do as much for him in the training school.

Tool dexterity. Motor skills may not be as clearly

 

dependent upon intelligence as academic achievement and

yet, here too, the high adjustors appear to be significantly
superior to the low adjustors. The results of the test for
relationship between tool dexterity and institutional adjust—
ment serve to complete the pattern already begun by the

other results of this study. Even in an area less directly
related to their intelligence, superior adjustors appear to

be of superior competency.

75
Peer status. The Grusky (l9) theory that rehabili-

 

tation-centered correctional programs produce high socio—
metric ratings among inmates who are well adjusted to the
institution is strengthened by the results of this study.
When sociometric ratings were related to institutional
adjustment, it was found that a significantly larger number
of high adjustors had achieved high sociometric status.
These results seem to disprove the authOr‘s theory that
boys lack the maturity to choose friends who have adjusted
well to adult standards.

“Maturity" and "adjustment to adult standards" are
expressions which, when used in their present frame of
reference, need clarification. The inmatemay choose his
high adjusted peers as friends, not because he, himself,
is sympathetic with the training school program, but because
it'"looks good" to his supervisors to be associated with
the better adjusted boys or because he admires the clever—
ness of the inmate who has done a good "snow job" (deception)
on the staff. On the other hand, his choice of high adjusted
friends may actually reflect his sympathy with the goals of
the staff. Any of these motives might indicate maturity
of a sort and adjustment (of a sort) to adult standards.

If Grusky‘s inference that the effectiveness of a
correctional program might be measured by the relationship
between an inmate‘s sociometric rating and his institutional

adjustment, can be taken seriously, the results of this

study speak well for the B.V.S. program.

76
Clinical classification. The fact that high adjustors

 

proved to be classified as less serious types of delinquents
might indicate that the B.V.S. program is geared to less
seriously involved delinquents—-or it might indicate only
that less seriously involved delinquents are more amenable
to treatment at B.V.S., as they might be to any correctional
program. Yet, it is likely that the training school program
from which this study is drawn is more effective in the
rehabilitation of the environmental or mildly disturbed
delinquent. By the school's definition of delinquency

types (Appendix A) it would seem that no single program is
equipped to meet the adjustment needs of any and all
juvenile delinquents. At B.V.S., it appears that the school
is meeting the needs of less serious types. As described
previously and in the literature (11), the B.V.S. program
seems to be structured so as to meet the needs of those

boys who fit Jenkins' description of the'"adaptive" delin-
quent. The adaptive delinquents are more or less socialized,
'". . . they rebel but their rebellion is a social rebellion,
(group supported."(23) The healthy adult contacts, and
constructive group experience recommended for these boys,
are primary goals in the program at the Lansing training
school. The author, in an unpublished study (10), found
these goals to be highly realistic in working intensively
with a small group of B.V.S. inmates during a six—month

period.

77

Population in eeunty of commitment. Since county

 

population was not related to institutional adjustment, it
can be inferred that the population size of the community
from which the inmate is committed has little or nothing

to do with the fact that some inmates from larger cities
make troublesomeinstitutional adjustments. Some inmates
from rural or semi-rural communities also make troublesome
institutional adjustments. The proportions are not signifi—
cantly different. It is interesting to note that there were
ten inmates from the Detroit area in the high adjustors
group and exactly ten inmates from the Detroit area in the
low adjustors group.

The theory that larger, wealthier counties might
commit boys to the training school as a last resort fol—
lowing the use of many other agencies and resources does
not appear to hold true, at least in Michigan's commitment
practices. It is probable that the boy from a heavily
urbanized county is committed to B.V.S. not because there
is nothing left to do with him, but because, out of the
several agencies and resources available, it appears to

be the most appropriate place for this particular boy to

 

receive treatment.

Prognosis. It appears that the methods employed at

 

B.V.S. to predict institutional adjustment are effective.
Even though they are essentially judgmental, are based on

inadequate background information, and represent the

78
varying opinion of four men on what constitutes potentially
high or low institutional adjustment, in general, the
prognoses given were accurate.

There are, perhaps, factors other than those given
in Chapter VII which aid in classifying new inmates and
predicting their institutional adjustment. As an example,
the attitude of a boy as he is interviewed must offer
clues to his personality which cannot be clearly identified.
Such factors, if used by men of long experience in observing
the institutionalized delinquent, might be of as much im—
portance in predicting behavior as the more tangible
factors——test results, court papers, and so forth. Unless
one is content to include these factors in evaluating'"the
inmate‘s entire psychological complex" (p. 62), or as

'"miscellaneous factors,"

they evade measurement for predic—
tive efficiency. For present purposes, the standards used
by experienced men at B.V.S.——(l) seriousness and persis—
tency of the delinquent acts, (2) the psychological complex,
(3) pre—institutional environmental factors, and (4) such
miscellaneous factors as school record, achievement, and

aptitude-~are proven to be adequate in predicting insti-

tutional adjustment.

Implications for Boys Vpeational School

 

As Boys Vocational School prepares to open new
classification and maximum security units, some of the

findings of this study may be of assistance to the

79
staff and administration in utilizing these units to their
greatest advantage.

The following implications, drawn from the results
of this study, seem directly pertinent:

l. The new, maximum security unit can be of great
value if its program is used to serve those inmates who
are classified as 3b, seriouS'"character disordered;" The
question remains if the present program has much to offer
these boys, but it should be fairly evident that they, as
a group, have difficulty in adjusting to the program now
offered.

2. Steps should be taken to segregate those boys
who are classified as 2b, seriously "disturbed delinquents,"
They, too, appear unable to adjust readily to the present
B.V.S. program. It is understood that a treatment program
to which an inmate might readily adjust is not necessarily
the most effective treatment program for the inmate, but
the significant difference that exists between the types of
delinquents who do adjust well to the B.V.S. program and
the types that do not would seem to indicate a lack of
balance which is due as much to the program as it is to
the inmate's delinquency characteristics.

It is assumed by this description that separate
programs would be provided for those classified as 2b and
those classified as 3b, but this is not an assumption

which can be suggested by the results of the present study.

80

3. In classifying newly committed inmates, the
clinical team can expect a significant relationships to
occur between their classifications and institutional
adjustment to at least one type of treatment program-~that
which is currently offered at B.V.S.

4. In predicting institutional adjustment to the
current program, the factors of intelligence and achieve-
ment should be more heavily weighted, the factor of size
should be lightly weighted, and the factor of population
size for the county from which the inmate is committed
should not be considered at all.

5. Thought should be given to the possibility of
modifying the present program and, perhaps, future programs,
to provide more opportunities for success for the younger
inmate. Emphasis appears to be placed on activities (e.g.,
varsity sports) which actively engage boys who are in their
late teens. It is difficult to believe that younger boys
are significantly absent from the group which is best
adjusted to the institution only because of their immaturity.
The present program might place too much emphasis on meeting
the needs of boys who are at a level of maturity and inter—
est corresponding to that of senior high school boys—~and
not enough emphasis on the needs of those who are at a
level of maturity corresponding to that of junior high and

later elementary school.

81
6. As there seems to be no loss of peer status

attached to favorable institutional adjustment and, as a
matter of fact, some gain, the training school might well
afford to examine its policy of authoritarian treatment.
Inmates do not appear hostile to the idea of relating well
to the program. A modified cottage council and an inter-
cottage council with limited responsibilities for program
planning might be considered. At least there should be more
group counseling and group guidance practiced at the school.
It appears that many inmates are eager to participate in

the school‘s program for their rehabilitation.

Implications for All Training_§choole

 

Because the sample group was limited to that found in
one state training school, the results of this study cannot,
in a strict sense, be applied to training schools in general.
However, these public institutions are remarkably similar
in many respects. Comparative studies of several training
schools (ll, 13, 22) have indicated that they share similar
inmate population characteristics, program, and facilities.
It is probable, then, that much of what this study contri—
butes to the understanding of institutional adjustment at
the Lansing training school is applicable to other such
training schools throughout the country.

In addition to those which have been suggested for
B{V.S. and might be applicable to other training schools,
the results of this study suggest the following general

implications:

82

1. If the goaltraining schools have set for them—
selves is to train, re-educate, and rehabilitate the
children under care through'"individualized application of
an integrated treatment program—~the recognition of the
individuality of the child and the adaptation of his treat—
ment program accordingly”(22:3), it behooves these schools
to continually evaluate the effectiveness of their programs,
not only through comprehensive follow-up studies but, as
well, through periodic, comprehensive studies of the insti—
tutional adjustment of their inmates.

If the school is to adapt its treatment program to a
'"recognition of the individuality of the child,” it would
seem reasonable that continual analyses of the program
based upon studies of which boys continually succeed and

which boys continually fail within the institution are im—

 

portant in determining the success of this program. The
present study has demonstrated that a training school with
an outstanding treatment program has not met institutional
adjustment needs equitably.

\ 2. It is likely that an'"integrated treatment pro-
gram" which attempts to meet the needs of all types of
juvenile delinquents meets the needs of some types quite
well, but it is questionable as to how well it meets the
needs of other types. Careful examination of the types of
delinquents the single—program training school is expected

to serve might lead to the establishment of more segregated

83
treatment programs. In such an event, the problem of
defining guides and goals for institutions serving delin—
quent children has only begun.

AAK3. The boy who is committed to the training school
will probably adjust to the institution in direct proportion
to his ability, inherent and acquired, to adjust to the
society as a whole. Such factors as intelligence, popu-
larity,and scholastic aptitude are significantly related
to institutional adjustment—~as one could expect they are

related to social adjustment in its broadest sense.

Implications for Further Research

 

Throughout this investigation certain problems and
issues have been raised which were not considered within
the province of the present study. There are also certain
related problems which, in the author‘s opinion, seem
worthy of further research.

Together, these problems and issues are listed as
follows:

1. The interrelationship of variables considered in
this study need further clarification. The factor of
clinical classification might, in itself, deserve intensive
investigation. Studies of the characteristics of each
delinquency type, using variables included in this study,
could serve as a springboard for further research in this

area.

84

2. Again in the area of clinical classification,

each individual delinquency type could be studied in rela-
tionship to institutional adjustment. The present investi-
gation restricted itself to the use of the clinical class—
ifications as a simple method of determining the serious—
ness of delinquency as related to institutional adjustment.
A question remains as to whether the environmental
delinquent adjusts more readily to the training school than
does the mildly disturbed delinquent—~or whether the serious,
character disordered delinquent fails more regularly than
does the seriously disturbed delinquent.

\\\3. Further research is indicated on the problem of
the institutional adjustment of the inmate of comparatively
superior intelligence. What actual ramifications does the
significant relationship of intelligence to high institu-
tional adjustment have on this factor? Are the more
intelligent boys often successful because of the good
impressions they make——or because of Sharpened social
insight?

4. A study of the adjustment problems of the insti-
tutionalized colored boy would be related, in an important
way, to the findings of this research.

Are there serious racial conflicts in the integrated
training School? If so, how close tothe surface are these
conflicts--and what is their relationship to institutional

adjustment? Of what significance is the large number of

colored inmates who fail to adjust in the institution?

 

85
\\.5- The relationship of institutional adjustment to

post-institutional adjustment has been explored incidentally
by the Gluecks (15). A serious investigation of the predic-
tive efficiency of institutional adjustment in determining
ultimate social adjustment might be of considerable value.
If the inmate's success in the training school is signifi-
cantly related to his success on parole, the systematic
study of institutional adjustment will remain of value in
training school management—~but will have, as well, vast

implications for the entire field of delinquency control.

BIBLI OGRAPHY

10.

11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aichhorn, August. Wayward Youth. New York: The
Viking Press, 1935, 236 pp.

 

Bein, Albert. Little 01' Boy. New York: Samuel
French, 1933. 105 pp.

 

Bettleheim, Bruno. Love Is Not Enough: The Treatment
of Emotionally Disturbed Children. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1950. 386 pp.

 

 

Bowler, Alida C. and Ruth S. Bloodgood. Institutiona;
Treatment of Delinquent Boys: Part II--A Spedy
'of 751 Boys. Washington, D. 0.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, No. 230, 1936. 149 pp.

 

 

 

Breed, Allen F. ”"California Youth AUthority ForeStry
Camp Program," Federal Probation, Vol. 17 (June,
1953): Pp. 37~43.

Carr, Lowell J. Delinquency Control. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1940. 447 pp.

 

 

Clayton, Mae P. '"Juvenile Offenders Defined by Law,”
Exceptional Children, Vol. 25 (January, 1959):

 

Cohen, Frank J. Qnildren in Trouble. New York: Norton,
1952. 265 pp.

Crowner, James M. '"The Social System of the 'In-Group‘
in a Training School for Delinquent Boys," Journal
of Correctional Education, Vol. 10 (October, 1958),
pp 0 132-1360

 

 

. '"An Experimental Study of the Reactions of
Institutionalized Delinquent Boys to Guidance
Through Intensified Group Activity in a Six Months
Period." Unpublished MA thesis, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1954.

Deutsch, Albert. Our_Rejected Children. Boston:
Little, Brown, and Company, 1950. 292 pp.

 

12.

13.

\14.

15.

l6.

17.

’18.
19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

88

Fenton, Norman. The Delinquent Boy and the Correctional
School. Pomona, California: Press of the Progress—
BulleEin, 1935. 98 pp.

 

Fine, Benjamin. 1,000,000 Delinquents. New York: The
New American Library, 1957. 285 pp.

 

Genn, George. '"Juvenile Delinquency," in the Encyclo-
pedia of Criminology. Edited by Vernon C. Branham
and S. B. Kutash. New York: Philosophical
Library, 1949. 527 pp.

 

Glueck, Sheldon and E. Glueck. Juvenile Delinquents
Grown Up. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1937,

330 pp.

. 500_griminal Careers. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1930. 365 pp.

. Later Criminal Careers. New York: The Com-
monwealth Fund, 1937. 353 pp.

 

 

 

. Criminal Careers in Retrospeet. New York:
The Commonwealth Fund, 1943. 380 pp.

 

Grusky, Oscar. “Some Factors Promoting Co—operative
Behavior Among Inmate Leaders,‘H American Jourpal
of Correction, Vol. 21 (March-April, 1959), pp.
8—9, 20-21.

 

 

Harmon, Maurice A. '"Are Institutions for Juveniles
Frozen Assets?," Federal_Probation, Vol. 22 (Dec—
ember, 1958), pp. 47—49.

 

Hays, E. Nelson. Directory_for Exceptional Children.
Boston: Porter Sargent, 1958. 320 pp.

 

Institutions Serving Delinqpent Children. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, No. 360,

1957. 119 pp.

Jenking Richard L.'"Problems of Treating Delinquents,”
Federal Probation, Vol. 22 (Dec., 1958), pp. 27—32.

 

 

Keith, Lucus A. ‘"The Role of the House Parent in the
Training School," Federal Probation,Vol. 22
(April. 1958). pp. 35442.

Keough, C. R. '"A Study of Runaways at a State Correc-
tional School for Boys," Journal of Juvenile
Research, 1935, pp.45-61.

 

 

Lenroot, Katherine N. '"Boys Out of Institutions,"
923121; V01. 72 (May. 1936). pp. 39-50.

27.

28.

29.

30.
31.
32.
33.

34.

35.

36.

37.
38.

39.

89

MacCormick, Austin H. The Michigan Boys Vocational

School. Lansing, Michigan: State of Michigan,
1942. 127 pp.

Michigan Department of Social Welfare, Children‘s
Division. Agency and Institutional Care of
Children in Michigan: Annual Statistical Report,
1957. Lansing, Michigan. 23 pp.

 

 

Moore, Bernice M. Juvenile Delinqueney: Research,
Theory, and Comment. Washington, D.C.: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development: A
Department of the National Education Association,
1958. 68 pp.

 

 

Neumeyer, Martin H. Juvenile Delinqueney in Modern
Society. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1949,

335 Pp-

Redl, Fritz and David Wineman. Children Who Hate; The
Disorganization and Breakdown of Behavior Controle.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951. 253 pp.

 

 

 

. Controls from Within: Techniques for the
Treatment of the Aggressive Child. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. 232 pp.

 

 

Schrag, Clarence. '"Leadership Among Prison Inmates,"
American Sociolegical Review, Vol. 19 (February,
1954) 3 pp 0 38—41 o

Siegel, Nathaniel H. and H. Ashley Weeks. '"Factors
Contributing to Success and Failure at the High-
fields Project," Federal Probation, Vol. 21
(September, 1957): pp. 52-56.

Slavson, S. R. Re-educating the Delinquent Through
Gropp_and Community Participation. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1954. 251 pp.

 

 

 

 

Stark, Herman. '"Screening Offenders Through the
Clinical Process," Focus, March, 1954, pp. 43-46.

'"Statistical Information for the Calendar Year 1957——

Boys Vocational School." Unpublished manuscript,
1958.

Sucgang, R. C. ‘"Orienting New Students in a Residential
Treatment Institution,“ Federal Probation, Vol. 19

(December, 1955), pp. 24—33.

Walker, Helen M. and Jospeh Lev. Statistical Inference.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953. 510 pp.

 

 

40.

41.

42.

43.

90

Watson, Ernest H. and George Lowrey. Growth and
Development of Children. Chicago: Year Book
Publishers, 1951. 260 pp.

 

 

 

Weber, G. H. '"The Boy Scout Program as a Group Approach
in Institutional Adjustment," Federal Probation,
Vol. 19 (September, 1955), pp. 34-37.

 

Weeks, H. Ashley. '"Preliminary Evaluation of the High-
fields Project," American Sociological Review,
Vol. 18 (June, 1943), pp. 280—283.

 

'"Yearly Report of the Psychological Clinic--Boys
Vocational School, 1957." Unpublished manuscript,
1958.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

CLINICAL CLASSIFICATIONS

93

CLINICAL CLASSIFICATIONS

la. Environmental Delinquent: These boys will show little
or no personality‘disturbance but have either reacted to a
specific situation or behaved like their peer group. They
may come from homes which have low standards and loose
supervision but usually have fairly intact family situations.

 

lb. Environmental Delinquent: These boys will usually Show
poor emotional controls and operate under anxieties and
tensions. They usually lack stable parental figures and

are defective in their identification. They are often nega—
tive to authority and resent their commitment. They may
appear hostile or depressed at first.

 

2a. Dhturbed Delinquent: These boys have experienced emo—
tional deprivations and loss of adequate support for periods
of time and will have developed asocial patterns of behavior.
Chronic family conflicts and poor capacities for inter-
personal relationships result in their acting outtheir needs
and conflicts. They usually feel inadequate and may with-
draw, over—compensate, or use symptom type defenses.

 

2b. Disturbed Delinquent: These boys have adapted chronic
behavior patterns, which make the neurotic or pre-psychotic
elements of their personalities appear dominant. Their
defenses are random or consistently unadaptive.

 

3a. Character Disorder: These boys have usually been in
many different homes and/or situations and have never been
able to form lasting emotional relationships. They have

a history of continuous delinquent behavior and an apparent
lack of concern or motivation to change. The borderline
personality, very severely retarded, chronic offender, etc.,
types fit here. They will derive little from our program
and usually run into difficulties in any social situation.
Some variability of behavior is expected.

 

3b. Character Disorder: These boys are the hardened, set,
chronic offenders that show primitive, asocial behavior.

They are most likely to continue criminal—like activities.
They could be diagnosed as psychopathic personalities,

chronic aggressivetehavior disorders, or severe personality
defects. They will be most likely to inhabit 5, earn a waiver
to Ionia, and be least likely to profit from our program.

They will seldom settle down to apparent conformity.

 

fiflm‘ -- ._

 

4. Mental Defective: These individuals operate on a level
of inadequacy and, because of a lack of mental ability, need
social care, education, and institutionalization. They may
be characterized not only by a lack of ability to care for

 

 

94

themselves, but also by an incapacity to use effectively
whatever abilities they do have. They will test to func—
tion low on the Wechsler Scale and show severe academic
limitations. They will not be expected to profit from our
program and will be recommended to other institutions.

APPENDIX B

COMMITMENT FORMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96
Juvenile Court Petition—Act 64 of Extra Session of 1944. Ingham County News. Mason
9 9
Stats nf mxrhzgan
Eh: fireball: Cnurt fur the anuntg of Zlngham
JUVENILE DIVISION
Cause No. ..................
INTHE MATTER OF THE
PETITION CONCERNING M
inor
I, , respectfufly represent that
I reside in the of in said County,
and make this petition as
I further represent that said
.................... resident...... of the
in .................................... County, and ................ now residing with and under the custody and control
of
and .......................................... born on
I further represent upon information and belief that said child ................ , on or about, to wit,
the .................... day of A. D. 195 ...... , in said County of Ingham: come (5)

 

within the provisions of Act 54 of the Extra Session of 1944 for the following reasons:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3‘ 97

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION BY COUNTY WELFARE AGENT, Juvenile. 5258—(13R-‘ev. I944)

fitatz nf withigan
lithe firuhate Qquri fur the (Enunty uf Jngham

JUVENILE DIVISION
To the Juvenile Division of the Probate Court for said County:

In the Matter of

 

. \ ‘ V; A Juvenile. "

I, . ' County Welfare Agent for said
County, do hereby certify and report that I have inquired into and made a complete investigation of
the parentage and surroundings of the above named child and the facts and circumstances of said
case and find the same to be as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Address Former Address
Born ............ ('5;ch .................. Place Res. County Since ..................
Complainant Residence
Complaint
SCHOOL: Grade ............. Teacher - . V
Grades
Effort Conduct
Attendance Tardiness
Employment
Church Attendance
FAMILY:
Father Mother
Address Address
REMARKS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

makflw Om. EmoaorPZ
25;: hog...
m2. 9m
OOCZHM. Om. HZQE
EZHFH UgmHOZ

 

HZEMEEON

 

.P 529%?

 

wHHuOWH. Om. gmflflkaoz WM4
00% gbfigm >02

hag

 

LE3 .................................... >. U. Hm ........

 

a. 5.06.98

'maBV amnem Ammo

 

9N1 93190

J0 Rap an..................... ....

 

""61 ca av '

Order for Commitment—Juvenile Court 98
State at withigan
Eh: flrnhah‘. QInnrt fur the Emmi}; at Jnghnm

juvenile Einizimt

 

Cause No. ................................

IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION CONCERNING Minors
At a session of said Court, held at the Court House in the City of on the

 

...................... day of A. D. 195........
PRESENT: HON. JOHN McCLELLAN, Judge of Probate

Complaint having been made to this Court wherein it is alleged that the said child .............................. should
be award ................ of this Court, and the Court having made a full examination and investigation of all the
facts and circumstances in this case, and due notice of the hearing of the matters alleged in said petition having
been given as directed by the Court, and the said child appearing in Court in person and with parents and no
jury being demanded, and the Court having taken the testimony of witnesses in open Court, upon due considera-
tion finds and adjudges that the material allegations of the petition are true, and that the said child was born
on , and,‘

 

It appearing to the Court that the public interests and the interests of the said child will be best subserved
thereby, and

It appearing to this Court that the Orders affecting adults hereinafter set forth are necessary for the
physical, mental and moral well-being of said child .................. and are incidental to the jurisdiction of the Court
over such child .......................

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That the said be and ............................ he is

hereby made a" ward of this Court and is hereby committed to the
it.

until discharged by law.

 

 

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Superintendent of "“

 

be and is hereby appointed special guardian to receive any benefits now due
or to become due said minor from the government of the United States.

 

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That or any

County Agent, Officer 01’ the Court or Peace Officer remove the said child ...................... to said institution, with
full power and authority for that purpose.

__ _____... .L‘nunxtlmrmm ' 0 be Hired to)

 

 

 

 

 
        

 

 

 

l
I
‘1' .' ' 3‘.
h'. ' !«'~
“[1. . Eu
.,- ,_, ;- ..tt- i.
J. ’Jl’:—. ...451.'-._,_ —
..... - x- -..-";.i
. .Ii-- .4 .r'iH‘I.’ 4.1:- til
K r:..’ _ ,. r ... ., .
................. .. .. ........... . .- - - - -- fils)vl'l'- ' '12" ' I
or” flu .. . ..... i0 ‘(11'3 :fi: :15 —. -'l{ .—. i . -.l. a .-.'5; .‘m Jb-‘Ir -- ‘7'IIZH‘JE L '.
...... El”. .(l .l-‘-. ... ............... .. .10 'Inb
m: . it. . _ ' l'l ' TIT-.4”. .VJLI: ”/1383 4.- ‘7‘]
bl" ‘r ' I . .0 -. . .2: e; 19'.“ Em I::.«="(i"-';--'_‘-
.,5 y ,. r r . - ‘
'J \ - an . I. ' 1. i: ‘ I"' ”J -°.' IF ..‘-'.'.' b --“
I " . ‘
,, ,. . -,.- r'E'.-'.-'3Jr:' -.'-).=x ...:
’ I? w") . -- -. .-'- Ir; hilt") h. .-. -.,-.' -:r:. .rd h- ,., _,,.-,,;,,, .__.l_
4L ..'I~- . -- _. :9: 9n? ..-J.'|:=l :..t:‘ '.-I- :-..) 91' ".‘l"‘- ...I-r'x .-..r. L- '11." -- '---t
‘. . . , ,3. .-.~. .:. - .- o 21.. -i r:- .J .. mm :2- .31.. on; Jan: zoniiui-‘s 1:11.. 3:21;} mm:
3.7: 7:3 . . .. . .... .. . m;
. . :r: 7:. .I. -' - - l m' :i-"-i' -~ '«r u”! in” "-'"--" Bli' -- " - ' '-
. _ . .. .. . .u. ._.un. .gqn .1
hm; .1491":
l. . -, ,. .., v ' ' n '
...-_ yum.- - . .- - .u' *-:-l‘ -.-.I. ‘ \-'-. ‘- '.:.‘ i . )- e‘h- -- l""fl_!:2 .
_..J >- - . . =- .- ’ t .- -'- .2" In '4'.- -' 5' ~':: '5 -

u .,-\-.
.a- l .-u

-..I ..

ND! 89 ‘900 Rh

"ouonnzuau; pm” 10 “[ooqos [tuonuooA slog" axe-uh...

"eminent I “Ni-WHO “8mm" I0 .. [cellos Sums-u. 31139.. “TNJWM [mos 3° snow-twee ems" mun...

“out; uuuuo (1:10 gained 01,, maul“,
.1 un not :33 u 10 10 .10 ,, mama; so Joutamapmn qsm u patuuunoo "q" “IO-”'lafllafli . Ipuammon [n pa 1
pm alquuongyea‘zuoq aggraipaqotgp Klipongdaz uaaq Hill" '10 u'asnvc anatomy“ worm» omoq ------------ pa uasop sequo some pain; oxen,

mac-Id IO aspnr

also 10 150:) am .10; (muouz .tad mnop

'PIW'J PM “[3
:0 mnoure aim uefitqom 10 seats am aamqmtal
W
M

 

....- mu: 147:5?an unn- W.

 

APPENDIX C

CASE CONFERENCE AND BEHAVIOR LOGS

By C 0mm.

REGULAR REVIEWS

 

By C ouns '-

100

REC OMMENDATIONS

 

FIRS T

1-..- A

 

STICOND

 

THIRD

 

FOURTH

 

 

FIFTH

DATE

REAS ON

BEliAVIOR LOG

 

 

r-

AC TION TAKEN

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

ADJUSTMENT SCORES OF STUDY GROUP

 

ADJUSTMENT SCORES OF STUDY GROUP

 

102

 

 

 

 

 

m

 

 

Case Length of Stay 'Visits to
No. Total Mark in Days Case Conf. Total
Unc. Cod. Unc. Cod. U‘nco Cod.
1 1.62 44 270 58 3 53 155 51.6
2 1.56 43 152 40 0 42 125 41.6
3 1.23 34 154 41 0 42 117 39.0
4 1.91 51 221 51 9 56 158 52.6
5 1.25 34 150 40 0 42 116 38.6
6 1.34 37 180 45 1 44 126 42.0
7 1.37 37 180 45 1 44 126 42.0
8 2.40 64 189 46 1 44 154 51.3
9 2.10 56 214 50 3 47 153 51.0
10 1.95 52 194 47 4 48 147 49.0
11 2.15 57 352 71 0 42 170 56.6
12 1.84 49 252 56 7 53 158 52.6
13 1.44 39 161 42 4 48 129 43.0
14 1.58 43 154 41 3 47 131 43.6
15 1.93 52 277 6O 3 47 159 53.0
16 1.60 43 152 40 0 42 125 41.6
17 2.13 57 181 45 4 48 150 50.0
18 1.63 44 152 40 1 44 128 42.6
19 1.76 -47 334 68 9 56 171 57.0
20 1.81 49 180 45 3 47 141 47.0
21 306 81 327 67 15 65 213 71.0
22 1.69 46 174 44 4 48 138 46.0
23 1.92 52 174 44 4 48 144 48.0
24 1.45 40 159 41 1 44 125 41.6
25 1.67 45 150 40 0 42 127 42.3
26 1.85 50 215 50 3 47 147 49.0
27 1.20 33 182 45 1 44 122 40.6
28 1.53 42 181 45 2 45 132 44.0
29 2.03 54 162 42 7 53 149 49.6
30 1.61 44 184 45 2 45 134 44.6
31 2.53 67 313 65 19 72 204 68.0
32 1.75 47 186 46 2 45 138 46.0
33 1.98 53 167 43 1 44 140 46.6
34 1.97 53 171 43 6 52 148 49.3
35 2.12 57 169 43 10 58 158 52.6
36 2.06 55 304 64 9 56 175 58.3
37 1.52 42 158 41 0 42 125 41.6
38 1.33 36 180 45 2 45 126 42.0
39 1.82 49 284 61 9 56 166 55.3
40 1.28 35 152 40 0 42 117 39.0
41 2.18 58 181 45 4 48 151 50.3
42 1.57 43 151 40 2 45 128 42.6
43 2.00 54 215 50 8 55 159 53.0

 

ADJUSTMENT SCORES OF STUDY GROUP-~Continued

103

 

 

 

 

Case Length of Stay Visits to
No. Total Mark in Days Case Conf. Total
Unc. Cod. Unc. Cod. Unc. God.
44 1.76 47 180 45 1 44 136 44.0
45 1.90 51 177 44 0 42 137 44.3
46 1.73 47 155 41 0 42 136 43.3
47 2.05 55 188 46 2 45 146 48.
48 1.50 41 153 41 2 45 127 42.3
49 2.15 57 165 42 7 53 152 50.6
50 1.73 47 197 47 2 45 139 46.3
51 1.87 50 210 49 2 45 144 48.0
52 1.60 43 154 41 0 42 126 42.0
53 1.83 49 181 45 2 45 139 46.3
54 2.20 59 156 41 4 48 148 49.3
55 1.48 40 212 50 5 50 140 46.6
56 1.81 49 162 42 1 44 135 45.0
57 2.11 56 180 45 2 45 146 48.6
58 1.82 49 265 58 9 56 163 54.3
59 2.00 53 162 42 1 44 139 46.3
60 1.98 53 182 45 5 50 148 49.3
61 2.18 58 208 49 4 48 155 51.6
62 1.46 40 161 42 0 42 124 41.3
63 1.76 47 151 40 3 47 134 44.6
64 1.73 47 155 41 4 48 136 45.3
65 2.08 56 357 72 20 73 204 67.0
66 2.09 56 279 60 9 56 172 57.3
67 2.46 65 485 92 13 62 219 73.0
68 2.61 69 227 52 3 47 168 56.0
69 2.18 58 226 42 7 53 163 54-3
70 1.48 40 150 40 1 44 124 41-3
71 1.79 48 180 45 2 45 138 46.0
72 1.83 49 190 46 1 44 139 46.3
73 1.78 48 301 63 1 44 155 5l.6
74 1.74 47 208 49 7 53 149 49.6
75 1.27 35 220 51 2 45 131 43.6
76 1.33 36 150 40 2 45 121 40.3
77 2.96 78 311 65 26 83 226 75.3
78 1.21 33 155 41 1 44 118 39.3
79 1.19 33 151 40 1 44 117 39.0
80 1.89 51 383 76 9 56 183 61.0
81 2.30 61 314 65 33 94 220 73.3
82 1.30 36 214 50 4 48 134 44.6
83 2.27 6%) 270 58 9 56 174 58.0
84 1.64 44 180 45 1. 44 133 44.3
85 1.84 49 189 46 1 44 139 46.3
86 1.93 52 242 54 5 5O 156 52.0
87 1.67 45 152 40 0 42 127 42.3

 

 

 

 

104

ADJUSTMENT SCORES OF STUDY GROUP--Continued

 

 

Lu
Tw

 

 

i

 

 

 

Case Length of Stay Visits to
No. Total Mark in Days Case Conf. Total
Unc. Cod. Unc. Cod. Unc. Cod.
88 2.33 62 207 49 5 50 161 53.6
89 1.91 51 179 44 2 45 140 46.6
90 1.92 52 214 50 3 47 149 49.6
91 2.29 61 228 52 4 48 161 53.6
92 1.08 30 239 54 0 42 126 42.0
93 1.83 49 251 56 5 50 155 51.6
94 1.43 39 214 50 2 45 134 44.6
95 2.59 69 372 74 l9 72 215 71.6
96 1.22 34 154 40 0 42 116 38.6
97 2.27 60 204 48 3 47 155 51.6
98 2.46 65 455 87 22 76 228 76.0
99 1.60 43 152 40 0 42 125 41.6
100 1.53 42 151 40 1 44 126 42.0
101 . 2.07 55 270 58 6 52 165 55.0
102 1.42 39 154 41 1 44 124 41.3
103 1.75 47 210 49 1 44 140 46.6
104 1.98 53 261 57 6 52 162 54.0
105 1.77 48 182 45 2 45 138 46.0
106 1.55 42 150 40 1 44 126 42.0
107 1.93 52 150 40 2 45 137 45.6
109 2.03 54 199 48 7 53 155 51.6
110 1.45 40 152 40 0 42 122 40.6
111 2.88 76 223 51 12 61 188 62.6
112 1.54 42 181 45 3 47 134 43.6
113 2.45 65 271 59 10 , 58 182 60.6
114 1.67 45 176 44 1 44 133 44.3
115 1.46 40 211 49 3 47 136 45.3
116 2.51 67 365 73 26 83 223 74.3
117 1.73 47 255 56 6 52 155 51.6
118 2.19 58 181 45 8 55 158 52.6
119 1.67 45 204 48 1 44 137 45.6
120 2.03 54 284 61 9 56 177 57.0
121 2.60 69 331 68 29 87 224 74.6
122 2.00 54 160 42 2 45 141 47.0
123 1.82 49 195 47 2 45 141 47.0
124 1.73 47 180 45 3 47 139 46.3
125 2.03 54 216 50 4 48 152 50.6
126 2.03 54 193 47 3 47 148 49.3
127 2.65 70 290 62 18 70 202 67.3
128 1.60 43 150 40 0 42 125 41.6
130 2.27 60 379 75 25 81 216 72.0
131 1.82 49 193 47 3 47 143 47.6
132 1.57 43 180 45 3 47 135 45.0
133 2.92 77 365 73 21 75 225 75.0

 

105
ADJUSTMENT SCORES OF STUDY GROUP-~Continued

 

 

 

 

Case Length of Stay Visits to

No. Total Mark in Days Case Conf. Total
Unc. Cod. Unc. Cod. Unc. Cod.

134 2.04 54 232 53 6 52 159 53.0

135 2.28 61 161 42 5 50 152 51.0

136 1.67 45 185 45 2 45 135 45.0

137 1.67 45 290 62 3 47 154 51.3
M - 1.86 M - 214.4 M - 5.02

s - .39 s - 65.1 s — 6.43

 

 

UNIV
1 '

IllVIHWIHHIIWIWHIWWIW
31 2931 0

LIBRQR
\llHHlllilHH

323

. IES
mi I

646