... .. .W... . ... ... ..... . . . . . .. . .. _ . . . . . ... .. . I.....4 1 . . . - . . ..... ... . . . . . . . ._ ... . .r u. . . . _._. ... . . . . . _ . . . . . .... . . . ... . . . . .. H ..M . . . . . . . . .m . .0 o g .o r . . . .... .. o . . .~ m . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . _. .u . . :. . : . v _. . . . _ _ d Va. . .. . . . . . _ 4 h . . . _ . a . .. s _. . _ _ H . . ._ . .. w . o . . 1 c u . . Q . ..m w - S . . 3 _ u _ ._.N. .h ; . _ . . . . m. G E _ _ .. ... . . s w. .. . g . _ . .0 . . D u m. c 3 . v . _ U _ S .. m. S T E .. W .. . .. " Ills “II- D M- II... .H . . . . _.. w V... n RU . .. Mn... . . ._ .. ._ , . M A . O E. IL . a . . . . _ N F r... V FL .__ .. 3...” . . , rr. . . e a... M . .5 fl . A A O m N _ . 5...... .. o . _ . U . .. _ . . ..:.f u. .. In . .. ”.3 7W . w S H: . m E. s... 1, _. w T... D, S e A E 9 . . m . M N . h T. N 1 . . .. M. . D... E I..." m N. m H . H 3. . . . - _ . . -. .. ...I. .H . mwm gm _;?L . A NW C . . U. i . .. ..... ./ . . . .J E. m M H .. .. fl . u E... An . ..... .4 M 0 T. . . . . .. .. w . . .... .or . . A . . q p . .. N . _ -. .- . l I , . -... .. . . H. . u. “ . . a , . - .. - L , . . . O . . . . M . . _.. u. . ... . _ g . _ .3... ... u . . u . ... _.. . . .. . . o .. . . v . . -. . a..- I . .. . . o . I... . .. 3.... . t.‘ ..... o. .c.... ”a. u . ..... . . .7. . ...;h ...\\L...' . .. ,‘me .. _. .. ... . (q . .c. . ...H . .._. . . . a... 24. av. 09 or: ..tlaauu§.‘...ovoo.n “mm”...- o . ... . . .. . . _. -: .. I. . ..... . 1.3.3...» o . :t: .3. #1.. .1 . 3 5...... 1.5. . . .Jr . 7.. . . . .1. .3 f... ...__o«.». r... _. .. o . .. . 58".... 7...... .. . L. r. . a ._....r:....uo........_ .3........L .- ...r.... $2,. .. . ..w...c..n..~6..m.:..afi.&or\.bu....sW-...3..o..c‘r..2.19%.aufirgutfl. WWW WW WWW 311293 0099 W WWWW I A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE AND STAFF ATTITUDES IN A STATE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR DELINQUENTS 1337.; Suzanne M. Niel AN ABSTRACT Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1971 APPROVED: K 7W 9 // ' l < - WW/Lcr- Dr. ’Robert C. Trojanbwicz, Cfifiirman flAJm A/ Meyw... ELLE/Ooh: A McNamar V\_. O WMN\ 1r. Winston A. Gibson A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE AND STAFF ATTITUDES IN A STATE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR DELINQUENTS By Suzanne M. Miel Literature in the area of juvenile delinquency indi- cates a need for more adequate information concerning the attitudes and orientations of young people who become in- volved with the criminal justice system. Few specific studies have focused upon the attitudes of juveniles in institutions. The object of the present study is to compare juvenile attitudes and the staff perception of those attitudes within a state training school for delinquents. Also, comparisons of the attitudes of various groupings within the juvenile sample will be made, such as black juvenile attitudes and white juvenile attitudes, those who have been in the insti- tution for shorter periods and those who have been in the institution for longer periods, and those who are the youngest and those who are the oldest in the juvenile popu- lation of the institution. It is hypothesized that: a. the attitudes of a group of institutionalized juveniles will not be similar to staff percep- tions of those attitudes; Suzanne M. Miel b. the staff attitudes will be more variable than the juvenile attitudes; 0. increasing age is positively related to the more negative juvenile attitudes; d. increasing length of stay is positively related to the more negative juvenile attitudes; and e. that there will be no significant difference between the attitudes of black and white insti- tutionalized juveniles. A questionnaire was designed and administered to a random sample of the juvenile population of an institution and to a random sample of the staff of that institution. The attitude categories measured were attitudes toward the juvenile-staff relationship; attitudes reflecting the expectations of the institution and of success upon release; and attitudes toward the institution, including desire to cooperate, program, purpose and self improvement as a result of institutional stay. One of the hypotheses, which stated that there is no significant difference between the attitudes of black and white institutionalized juveniles, was supported by the findings. The remaining hypotheses were not supported ex- cept in one or two aspects of the various attitude dimen- sions under study. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUVENILE AND STAFF ATTITUDES IN A STATE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR DELINQUENTS y,’ Suzanne MfifMiel A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1971 TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION 00000000000000.0000.00000000000000.0000. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS coo.cocoo-oooooooooooooooooooooooo LIST OF TABLES 00.00.000000000000000000000000000... FIGURE 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Chapter I. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ................ . Introduction to the Problem .......... . Statement of the Problem ............. . Importance of the Problem ............ . Statement of the Hypotheses and their Rationale ...................... UOWP II. LITERATURE SURVEY 000000000000000000000000 . The Study of Attitudes ............... Dimensions of Attitudes .............. Measurement Techniques ............... Attitude Studies ..................... Literature Presenting the Need for Attitude Research .................... tdtjfltfi> Ill. METHODOLOGY ooooooooooooooo00000000000000. . Setting 00000000000000.0000.0000000000 . DESign cocoon-00000000099.cocoa-cocoa. @15wa Measurement .................. ...... .. . Sampling ............... ....... ....... . Data Collection ...... ....... ......... IV. ALYSIS OF RESULTS ...................... Description and Comparison of Juvenile and Staff Attitudes ......... B. Description and Comparison of Two Groups of Juveniles by Length of Stay ....................... C. Description and Comparison of ’ Two Groups of Juveniles by Age ....... D. Description and Comparison of Two Groups of Juveniles by Race ...... 5": V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ......................... A. summary 000000oocooooooocooooooooooooo B. Recommendations ...................... BIBLIOGRAPIIY 00000000000000.00000000000000000000.00 APPENDICES 00.000000000000000000 0000000 000000000000 Page i ii iii 24a UL>\NFHJ DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my parents MR. AND MRS. CLIFTON MIEL who have always valued learning and have instilled in their children the value of continual education. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express grateful appreciation to the following peOple, without whom this study would not have been possible: to Dr. Robert C. Trojanowicz, her Major Professor and Committee Chairman, and the Committee, Dr. John H. McNamara and Mr. Winston A. Gibson, for their willing assistance and guidance; to Mr. Roger Steggerda for his support and assistance; to Mr. Mike Igoe, for his helpful advice; to Mr. Dale Shears, Clinical Psychologist, Lansing Boys' Training School, for his many hours of advice, assistance and cups of coffee; to Mr. Donald Church, Assistant Director, the staff, and the boys, Lansing Boys' Training School, for their cooperation; to Mr. Jim Russell, Research Division, Department of Social Services, for his assistance and cooperation; to Miss Michele St. Peter for her editing and typing of the first draft; to Miss Anne Jonse for her assistance in tabulating data; to Mrs. Sheryl Ten Broeke for the preparation of the questionnaires, the typing of the final COpy and all her assistance and patience; to Mr. Clinton Harris for his assistance in tabulating data and for his understanding. ii Table l. 2. 4. LIST OF TABLES Page Categories of juvenile sample by percentages . 35 Staff and juvenile comparison of means, 2 score, significance of difference by length 0f Stay 00000000000000000.0000000000000000.000 56 Two-group juvenile comparison by length of stay of means, 2 score and significance of difference00000000000000000000000.00000000000. 4O Two—group juvenile comparison by age of means, 2 score and significance of difference oooooo'oooOoooooooooooocoo-000000000 4'3 Two-group juvenile comparison by race of means, 2 score and significance of difference 0.000000000000000000000000000.0.00. 45 iii CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction to the Problem The problem of juvenile delinquency has generated growing concern. Statistical evidence has indicated that the incidence of delinquency is consistently increasing and that the seriousness of the forms of delinquency is propor- tionately increasing. The extent of criminal activity is striking: while the juvenile population increased by less than eight percent since 1940 (7.7 percent), the volume of delinquency handled by the courts doubled during this same period; fifty-four percent of automobile thefts are com- mitted by youths under twenty-one years of age.1 The only national statistics on juvenile crime are those of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and the court statistics of the Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: The FBI reports that of all those arrested in 1965, excluding traffic offenders, thirty percent were under twenty-one years of age, and twenty percent were under eighteen years of age. The age group of 11- to l7-year-olds, which represents 13.2 percent 1Herbert A. Bloch. "Juvenile Delinquency: Myth or Threat," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science,-V0I. 4§, No. I, NBvember-DecemEer, 1953, pp. of the population, committed half of the burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft offenses. Between 1960 and 1965, arrests of persons under eighteen years of age, rose fifty-two percent for willful homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny, burglary and motor vehicle theft.2 Statistics of delinquency must be cautiously interpreted. A great variety of behavior is encompassed under the term "delinquency." One must carefully consider the gathering and recording of data and the general conditions which affect the nature of the statistics. But once the determina- tion of the nature and extent of delinquency in a specific area has been determined, it is essential that criteria be provided for the development of programs. Perhaps the great- est difficulty arises at the point where research becomes translated into effective action. In order to make that translation valid, research must produce as much information as possible regarding all aSpects of the issue. Research reported in the Current Sociological Research series includes thirty to forty studies on criminology and sociology of law done each year: most of these deal with the description of practices in criminal procedure, statis- tical description of crime rates and areas of high delin- quency, or analysis of background factors. Of one hundred studies, only ten have anything to do with the evaluation of some way of handling a certain aspect of the problem 2President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Re ort: The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, U.S. overnment Printing Office, WESHingt-OH, o o, 1967, Pp. 55-56. with eight of those ten dealing directly with the evalua- tion of treatment in correctional institutions.3 Few systematic efforts have been made to trace the delinquent's responses to processing or to various treat- ment programs. Unanticipated consequences of programs may be damaging rather than rehabilitative. Many agencies design plans without any knowledge of their target population which may explain why results are the opposite of intended goals. Statement of the Problem A review of the processes of the juvenile justice sys- tem reveals that very little is known about the perceptions of those who are most affected by those processes. Several studies have been made of the formal and informal structure of institutions but few have focused upon the attitudes of individuals who pass through the criminal justice system. In order to design effective treatment programs, the ob- jects of the program must be understood. Therefore, the attitudes and impressions of juveniles who are institutiona- lized should be the main element to be considered in the structuring of treatment programs. Stanton Wheeler writes: "The intended targets of the programs are juvenile delinquents themselves, and it seems reasonable to assume that the 3Eva Rosenfeld. "Social Research and Social Action in Preven- tion of Juvenile Delinquency," in Prevention of Delin- uenc , edited by John R. Stratton anngObert NT Terry, Eondon: The Macmillan Company, 1968, p. 55. anticipations, beliefs, and opinions of the delinquents will have some effect upon the success or failure of the programs ...yet, to date, we know very little about these matters."4 An area of need thusly becomes visible. The criminal justice system has been gravely deficient in this area as revealed by the extensive lack of information concerning the response from those who are institutionalized. Therefore, it is the purpose of this study to investi- gate the attitudes of juveniles in an institution and their relationship to the attitudes of the staff. Importance of the Problem In addition to the need for information regarding a youth's reactions to institutional life there is a need for an essential understanding of the relationship which exists between institutionalized youth and the staff which works most closely with them. Extreme divergencies between the attitudes and orientation of the juveniles and those of the staff are potentially inhibitive of beneficial interaction. Crucial questions such as how does a youth perceive his commitment to an institution, what are his feelings regard- ing the causes of his problems with the law, do they believe that their stay will help or harm them, and what features of the institution have positively or negatively affected their lives, have remained unanswered by most institutions. 4Stanton Wheeler. Controllin Delin uents. New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley ana Eons, Inc., 966. Just as importantly, to what extent does the staff correctly perceive these attitudes? How much comprehension of a juvenile "inmate's" orientation exists among the staff? These are vital questions which must be answered if a mean- ingful relationship aimed toward social rehabilitation shall develop between the juveniles and the staff. They have not been sufficiently answered in the past and herein lies the problem which must be confronted. Statement of the Hypotheses and their Rationale The study is aimed toward the determination of what the attitudes of a sample of institutionalized youth are and to what extent the staff members perceive those responses. Several hypotheses have been formulated in order to in- clude important variables and types of responses. a. It is hypothesized that the attitudes of a group of institutionalized juveniles will not be similar to staff members' perception of those attitudes. The rationale for the foregoing hypotheses is based upon the review of relevant literature dealing with juvenile delinquency. There is a grave deficiency of information regarding the attitudes of institutionalized youth and there- fore, it is hypothesized that the staff will not have an accurate perception of juvenile responses. b. It is hypothesized that the staff attitudes will be more variable than the juvenile attitudes. Several theorists have generalized the "prisonization" effect of adult institutionalization which has been treated anlnfiversally valid, to juvenile institutions. (Ohlin and Lawrence, 1959; Polsky, I962; Wheeler and Garabedian, 1965). The existence of an inmate norm characterized by a high degree of solidarity is alleged to be a consequence of this phenomenon. Therefore, this phenomenon will be in- vestigated by determining the variability of juvenile respon- ses and staff responses. c. It is hypothesized that increasing age is positive- ly related to the unfavorable juvenile attitudes. d. It is hypothesized that increasing length of stay is positively related to the unfavorable juvenile attitudes. e. It is hypothesized that there will be no signifi- cant difference between the attitudes of black and white institutionalized juveniles. Obtaining information regarding how the factors of age, length of stay and race affect the favorability or unfavora- bility of the juvenile's response would prove valuable in the structuring of effective programs. The factors which accompany an unfavorable orientation to the institution and staff may direct the most concentrated efforts to establish vital rehabilitative relationships. Therefore, the factors of age, length of stay and race will serve as independent variables. The three categories of attitudes which are to be studied as dependent variables are attitudes toward the institution, attitudes toward the staff and expectations for success after release from the institution. CHAPTER II LITERATURE SURVEY A review of the literature in the field of juvenile delinquency did not produce any material which specifically dealt with the problem being studied. However, many atti- tude studies have been conducted which include various elements which are similar to some of the elements being analyzed in the present study. A presentation of the tech- niques of attitude measurement will follow, accompanied by a review of those attitude studies which were found to have some relationship to the problem under investigation. The Study of Attitudes Attitude research is a central tool in the field of social psychology. Attitudes are themselves variables which may account for consistency in behavior. It is known that attitudes operate to influence significantly responses to other persons and situations. If the attitudes of a person or group of persons toward a given object or situation are known, they may be used with other variables to predict or explain their reaction toward that given object or situation. Great variation exists in the definition of the term attitude. Much of the variance may be attributed to the 7 epistemological issue of specificity versus generality in the determination of behavior.1 Eysenck and Rokeach make attitudes a generalized disposition of the person (Eysenck, 1947; Rokeach, 1960). Others consider attitudes to have specific referents (Hovland, Janis, Kelley, 1953; Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey, 1962). The latter vieWpoint appears to be the most common. Another source of variation in the definition of atti- tude is based in the tendency to generalize the term to in- clude all predispositions to respond.2 Most theorists con- sider the construct to include only predispositions to re- spond to the social environment. The third source of variation lies in the theoretical conception of the composition of an attitude.3 Krech, Secord and Backman viewed attitudes as consisting of three components: affective, cognitive, and behavioral (Krech, 1962; Secord and Backman, 1964). Other theorists restrict the conception of attitude to an evaluative reaction re- lated to cognitions and behavior. (Osgood, Suci, Fannenbaum, 1957; Anderson and Fishbein, 1965). lMarvin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright. Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes, New York: MoGraw-Hill Book Company. I§677 p. 2. 21bid., p. 2. 3Ibid., p. 2. Dimensions of Attitudes Several theorists have stated that attitudes possess various general characteristics. One such dimension is that attitudes are based upon evaluative concepts regarding characteristics of the referent object and give rise to moti- vated behavior (Anderson and Fishbein, 1965; Doob, 1947; Osgood et a1., 1957).4 Frustration, deprivation, gratifi- cation, lack of goal clarity and anxiety are conditions which accompany the processes of succeeding or failing in the attempt to reach a goal. Attitudes are conceived of as being producers of motives when they are affective in nature. When cognitive in nature, attitudes are variable in the degree to which a person is aware of predisposition based upon his attitudes. The behavioral aspect of attitudes is observed in diverse acts such as blushing, demeanor of the body, or verbalization. Other theorists consider attitudes to be characterized as varying in quality and intensity on a continuum from positive through neutral to negative. (Krech, 1962; McGrath, 1964; Newcomb, Turner and Converse, 1965).5 An attitude is positive or negative with respect to an object in its rela- tion to the seeking of a goal. Problems of interpretation arise at the neutral point on the continuum. It may 41bid., p. 6. 51bid., p. 7. 10 indicate the lack of response or a point of balance in a response conflict reflecting an ambivalent attitude. This dimension of attitude will be one basis of explanation for the characterization of attitudes under study. The attitudes will be assigned positive and negative values and a midpoint value. The problem of interpreting the neutral response at the midpoint value is also found in this investigation, and the realization that it may mean more than one thing is indicated has been recognized. Another group of theorists view attitudes as if they had specific social referents, or specific classes of social referents (Sherif and Sherif, 1956; Newcomb, 1965).6 The referents may be abstract or concrete and reflect the social contexts in which they were learned. Attitudes vary in their degree of definitiveness and in the number and kinds of referents. A fourth group of theorists have stated that attitudes possess varying degrees of relatedness to one another (Krech, 1962; McGrath, 1964).!7 Attitudes are related if they possess similar referents and if they do, they may form subsystems within the attitudinal system. Central attitudes are those attitudes which are highly interrelated, are most important to an individual and are most resistant to change. This 61bid., p. 8. 7Ibid., p. 9. 11 characterization of attitudes was also used in the present study since the writer believed that the attitudes being investigated would be most central to the institutionalized juvenile in his present situation. The theory that the central attitudes are the most resistant to change has implications for treatment since the development of a nega- tive subsystem of central attitudes could serve as a barrier to effective rehabilitative relationships. Measurement Techniques Most frequently used methods of measuring attitude ask subjects to indicate agreement or disagreement with state- ments about an object (Thurstone, 1929, 1931; Likert, 1952; Guttman, 1944). The typical scale measures the acceptance 8 The of evaluative statements about the attitude object. instrument which was used in the present study was developed on the basis of this method. Attitude Studies In 1959, Robert Vinter and Morris Janowitz presented the original objectives and theoretical orientation of a research design.9 The object was to examine and explain variations within and among residential institutions. 81bid., p. 14. 9Robert Vinter and Morris Janowitz. "Effective Institutions for Juvenile Delinquents: A Research Statement," Social Service Review, 33 (June, 1959). l2 Variations in outlook of their administrators and the re- sulting attitudes of the inmates were recorded and quanti- fied. Comparisons were made among six different institutions. The research design was comprehensive in that all strata of the staff were included. The design was also experimental due to the use of an intensive training seminar, where organizational change was promoted. One year elapsed be- tween the first and second investigations. The basic hypothesis was supported: institutions that stressed con- formity remained fixed while substantial changes were under- way in the treatment institutions.lO Research was comparative, inclusive and longitudinal. The institutions were both public and private and large and small organizations. Two of the hypotheses are related to the present study: The substantive characteristics of goals will have consequences for many aspects of organizational be- havior, including staff perceptions of institutional pprpose and beliefs about the inmates, day-to-day operating patterns, and staff modes of authority in handling the inmates; these in turn will have further impact upon inmate behavior and perspectives with regard to institutionppstaff and selfiil The analysis led the researchers to define a set of organizational models, ranged along the custody-treatment loDavid Street, Robert D. Vinter and Charles Perrow. Organization for Treatment, New York: The Free Press, 'I966, p. viii. llIbid., p. 22. l3 continuum into which the institutions were classified according to their goals: 1) Obedience/conformity 2) Re-education/development 3) Treatment 4) Mixed goals The institution used in the present study was one of the institutions among the group studied. It was classified on the continuum as having mixed goals. The questionnaires designed for this study were based upon those designed for the study being reviewed. The ques- tionnaires were lengthy and not precisely designed for the purposes of this study; therefore, they were rewritten on the basis of the nature and purpose of the present investi- gation. Portions of the questionnaire which dealt with staff and juvenile attitudes were adapted to produce data which would reveal those attitudes and allow for a compara- tive study. Three approaches to the study of the effect of correc- tional institutions on inmates have been noted by Eynon and Simpson (1965)12 and Burgess. The Gluecks used the predic- tion-of-outcome method, based on preinstitutional factors. Clemmer view impact more as socialization into an inmate 12Thomas G. Eynon and Jon E. Simpson. "The Boy's Perception of Himself in a State Training School for Delinquents," Social Service Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (March 1965). l4 subculture. Reckless utilized the self-reporting approach to view institutional impact through responses to question- naires. Eynon and Simpson made comparisons based on findings from a study of inmate perceptions at a boys' industrial school and inmate perceptions at two open camps which was guided by the Reckless self-reporting approach. It was expected that boys in the camp situation would show a more favorable impact on the boys than the impact on the boys in the school. Categories which were investigated at both admission and release were: a) Helplessness b) Rules of the Game 0) Impersonality d) Outlook e) Self-feelings f) Self-labelling g) General Improvement h) Self-Improvement i) Value Orientation j) Agreeableness The following conclusions were reached: 1. The camp boys perceived their integration into the camp structure more favorably than the school boys perceived their integration into the large training school; this perception tended to be more favorable at release than at intake. 2. Confinement at either the school or the camp appeared to have a favorable impact on outlook, general improvement, and value orientations. 15 3. The school experience also appeared to have had a favorable impact on self-feelings and agreeableness, but the camp boys did not improve along these lines. 4. At release the school boys perceived a greater amount of negative pressure from their fellow inmates than did the camp boys. 5. The school boys believed that the cottage supervisor and the work supervisor had the greatest impact on them, while the camp boys considered the counselor, the cottage supervisor, and the cook, in this order, the most significant staff members for them. 6. Camp boys perceived a much more favorable staff in- fluence upon them than did the school boys. 7. Camp boys were overwhelmingly accepting of the camps, while a majority of the school boys rejected the insti- tution as a place to which th y would want a friend to come if he got into trouble.l% This reported study is similar to the present study in that both utilize the Reckless self-reporting approach to re- veal the perceptions and attitudes of the boys. More speci- fically, two of the categories are very similar to those in the present study. The "outlook" and "self-improvement" categories of the Eynon and Simpson study are comparable to the "expectations" and "self-improvement" inventories of this study. The objects of comparison do differ, yet it is valuable to observe the design and results of the study. Several studies have encompassed organizational goals, inmate and staff organization and accompanying variations in attitudes and behavior. David Street analyzed the variations in organizational goals in Organization for Treatment, which lBIbido’ Pp. 36-37. 16 was previously discussed. Street also discussed the common viewpoint of previous accounts of correctional institutions which portrayed them as handicapped by the inmate system.14 For example, the study by Sykes and Messinger concluded from a study of thirty-five correctional organizations that one pervasive value system exists among the inmate group which unites them (Sykes and Messinger, 1960).15 The exist- ence of such inmate solidarity has been viewed as the reason why "prisonization" rather than rehabilitation results. Street considers deficiencies in this explanation as a general description. He states that most of the research supporting this viewpoint is based upon studies which have lacked adequate methods to assess similarities and differ- ences between organizations or even to make satisfactory estimates of any variability in inmate orientations within the single population studied. The latter criticism offers support for the belief that the present study may produce needed data concerning inmate perspectives. The generalization of a "solidarity opposition" from the adult to the juvenile institution concerns Street, as did its inclusion in generally accepted descriptions of l4David Street. "The Inmate Group in Custodial and Treatment Settings," American Sociological Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (February 1965). 15Gresham M. Sykes and Sheldon L. Messinger. "The Inmate Social System," in Richard A. Howard, et a1., Theoretical Studies in Social Organization 2; the Prison, NEw‘YOrk: Social SEIence ResearchfiCouncil, l§60, pp. 5-8. l7 juvenile institutions, such as Lloyd E. Ohlin and William Lawrence's work16 and Howard Polsky's study of a cottage in a treatment institution.l7 Street notes the lack of use of comparative methods by researchers in the field who have failed to reveal under what conditions in an organization do its members become alienated from the goals of the organization, in addition to the more basic lack of infor- mation which might reveal the existence of an attitude of alienation. In contrast, Street approached inmate group patterns as problematic, using a comparative view of data from several juvenile institutions. Inmate responses were studied which conveyed the dominant tone of inmate perspec- tives. The findings generally supported the hypothesis re- garding differences between custodial and treatment settings and inmate norms and perspectives which challenged the generalibility of the "prisonization" or "solidarity opposition" concept to juvenile institutions: a. The degree of inmate solidarity against the administration in juvenile institutions was nowhere as high as that reported generally for adult prisons. b. Solidarity-~the inmates' belief that they should and do stick together--was not necessarily linked to attitudes opposed to the institution and staff. l6Lloyd E. Ohlin and William C. Lawrence. "Social Inter- action Among Clients as a Treatment Problem," Social Work, 4 (April, 1959). 17 . a . Howard W. Polsky. Cotta e Slx--The Social S stem of 22- linguent Boys 13 Residential Treatment. New 905?: ussel Sage Foundation, 1962. 18 c. Solidarity was higher in the treatment institu- tions, where, as has been suggested, inmate attitude was relatively more favorable than it was in the custodial institutions. d. In the custodial organizations the staff's re- pression of inmate social relations effectively reduced the level of inmate solidarity but at the same time tended to assure that whatever inmate group activity did take place would be oriented against the institution and the staff. By contrast, in the treatment institutions, where the inmates were allowed to organize and express hostility overtly . . . their groupings were less often oriented against the staff and the institution and had fewer undesirable effects upon inmate attitudes.l8 The study illustrates the need for more research of a com- parative approach initially to the inmate attitude, perspec- tive, or group norms. Another study regarding organizational goals and inmate organization which involved consideration of inmate atti- tudes was conducted by Bernard Berk.19 Berk investigated organizational goals and informal organization in three minimum-security prisons in an attempt to replicate a study done by Grusky, which analyzed the consequences of treat- ment goals for the informal organization of prison inmates, and to analyze relations between formal and informal struc- ture and the conditions which lead to oppositional informal organization development. The relevant findings included: 18Mayer N. Zald and David Street. "Custody and Treatment in Juvenile Institutions," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 10 (July 1964). 19Bernard B. Berk. "Organizational Goals and Inmate Organi- zatigns," American Journal 3; Sociology, 71 (March 1966 . l9 (1) inmate attitudes were shaped significantly by the prison experience--the longer the time spent in prison, the more pronounced was its effect and (2) differences in attitudes between prisons resulted from different patterns of informal organization, rather than inmates reacting individually to their similar prison experience, since attitudes were found to be related to involvement in informal organization, and informal leaders in these institutions systematically differed in their attitudes. Differences in the attitudes of the treatment and cus- todial prisons was the first area studied. Attitudes toward the prison, staff and treatment program were examined. (Berk states that Grusky, Vinter and Janowitz, and others have argued that a positive and cooperative type of staff-inmate relationship is a prerequisite for and a consequence of treatment goals, due primarily to accepting attitudes on the part of the staff and the overall replacement of formal controls by more informal ones. Berk's findings on the whole supported Grusky's hypothesis that more positive atti- tudes among inmates are found in treatment institutions by comparing attitudinal responses of inmates in three institutions. Literature Presentingpthe Need for Attitude Research Writers have noted the existence of a void in the material regarding knowledge of juvenile perspectives and 20 its effect upon the development of effective treatment pro- grams. Lloyd Ohlin notes that very little information re- garding the impact of various organizations designed to guide and control youth exists. A great deal of research has been aimed toward determining the effectiveness of par- ticular treatment strategies. (Lloyd W. McCorkle, Albert Elias, and F. Lovel Bixby, 1958;20 21). Lamar Empey and Jerome Rabow, 1961 Stanton Wheeler and Martha Baum have ob- served that research has been devoted largely to investiga- tion of internal dynamics of institutional life and are not well suited to inform us in detail about inmate perspectives.22 Wheeler reports two types of studies designed to aid in filling this knowledge void. The first examined the initial reaction to institutional life, and the second examined a juvenile's perceptions of the effect on them of their stay in an institution.23 The subjects in the first study had been in the insti- tution from approximately five days to two weeks when they were interviewed. Responses were classified into four 20Lloyd w. McCorkle, Albert Elias, and F. Lovel Bixby. The Highfields Story, New York: Henry Holt, 1958. ZlLamar T. Empey and Jerome Rabow. "The Provo Experiment," American Sociological Review, 26 (5), October 1961. Stanton Wheeler. Controllin Delin uents New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, p. 151. 251bid., p. 154. 22 21 categories: a. Reference to persons outside the institution, b. to persons inside the institution, 0. to certain features of the institution, d. and to a generalized expression of feeling. Responses were largely negative. During the first period of confinement, the boys typically were concerned with the outside world--concerned with the things that they would miss. Their anticipations were not favorable and their reactions were less favorable after the arrival period. However, no single reaction to the institution was revealed. The second study respondents, who had been in a recep- tion center for a brief period of time, were asked what effect their stay would have on their futures. The distri- bution between the responses of "help" and "harm" was roughly equal. When asked what "help" meant to them, most viewed it as being a deterrent. Of those who felt they would be harmed by their stay in the future, eighty percent mentioned the effect it would have upon employers or their draft boards. Harmful consequences were based on the image which society would have of the institution and those who have been part of it and not seen as a result of institutional experience itself. In the process of interpreting juvenile attitudes, it is important to keep in mind the sources of those attitudes. 22 The present study does not extend itself to that type of consideration. Wheeler writes that it would seem clear from the studies he has reported that the offender's view is not merely a projection of hostile impulses . . . he has been prepared by family, peers and society at large.24 This concludes the review of literature which was found to be pertinent to the present study. Research has been general in the area of juvenile attitudes with only a few focused investigations at specific points in the institu- tional career, such as at admission or release. Compara- tive research has been limited to the study of institutions with varying goals, juvenile attitudes in differing programs within one institution, and the organizational structure of inmate groups. However, a trend appears to be emerging as recent theorists are stressing the need for more in-depth attitudinal studies of incarcerated juveniles, which might provide evidence that would serve as an impetus to more effective institutional structuring and treatment program- ming. 24Ibid., p. 183. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The Michigan Department of Social Services is a re- source available to the juvenile courts. Juveniles are committed as wards of the State on a delinquency petition which must take place on or after their twelfth birthdate and before the seventeenth birthdate and may continue un- til the age of nineteen. objectives it has designed with regard to juveniles under its jurisdiction: 1. to help these youth gain insight into reasons for their unacceptable behavior and to better understand themselves, their families, etc. to assist them in their ability to establish and maintain satisfactory relationships with other persons. to change their attitudes toward authority and their responsibilities to society. to offer opportunities for successful experi- ences which will result in development of positive goals, a feeling of self-worthiness and motivation toward achievement. to provide activities whereby skills necessary for the completion of school and obtaining of employment can be developed. to help the boy or girl develop emotional con- trols over impulses which have previously led to weak decision-making. 23 The Department has outlined the 24 7. to provide custody and protection for the rebel— lious, aggressive, irresponsible youngster until he or she is ready to make an investment in a responsible future plan. The juvenile facilities of the Department of Social Services are the Lansing Boys‘ Training School; the U.S. Maxey School, located at Whitmore Lake, Michigan, consisting of a reception center serving the Boys' Training School and the camp operations, which are Camp Laviatoire at Grayling, Michigan, and Camp Nokomis at Houghton Lake, Michigan. A Special Treatment Unit for those boys unable to function in an "open" type institution also is located at Whitmore Lake. The Michigan Girls' Training School is located near Adrian, Michigan. Setting The Lansing Boys' Training School was selected as the juvenile institution to be studied. It is a large public institution under the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Services of Michigan (refer to the organization chart, page 24a). The institution houses approximately two hundred fifty boys in nine cottages. The entire staff of the institution numbers approximately two hundred. Boys live in groups of from twenty-five to thirty-five boys. Most groups are based on age, size similarities and maturity with one special grouping for chronic truants and those boys who require close supervision. The institution's popula- tion is largely composed of urban, multiple-offense Indian Affairs 1 ORGANIZATION CHART STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Commission I Aging_Commission! Office of the Director Office of Plannipgg Deputy Director Medical and Rehabilitative Services I I Bureau of [ F Group Care Services 4.1 Bureau of Family and Children's Services Boys Training School __ Girls Training School J Regional L— Detention Facilities .J Group Homes] I 4 Licensing] -4_Wayne County I -4:Out Stgte 1 ----- Housing Authority —— I I I l . I Deputy Director I I Personnel : L | I II Bureau of Bureau of Administrative Housing Services Community Management Services Pn- Systems Construction ‘ Research and and Engineerin Statistics Accounting and Business Services 2441 c-II Urban Renewal and Relocation ————— Codes and- Standards, 25 delinquents. The institution provides psychological, psychiatric, medical and casework services. A full curri- culum of academic school, predominantly of a remedial type, and vocational training is conducted. Determination for release from the institution is made by the staff, depend- ing upon the boy's response to the program and his readiness toward return to his community. The researcher initially made contact with the assis- tant director of the institution and explained the proposed research with the assurance that the study would be con- ducted with minimum disruption of routine and that the staff and juveniles involved in the study would not be named. Later a joint meeting with the assistant director, the clinical psychologist, and a representative of the Research Division of the Department of Social Services was held. At this meeting the procedure for the study and the methods of preserving confidentiality were discussed. A written agreement was signed by the researcher which bound her to exercise care in the preservation of all confidential infor- mation. Full cooperation.and assistance was received from the institution and the Department of Social Services. Clerical assistance was often offered in instances where the researcher would have had to spend much valuable time in obtaining necessary data. The clinical psychologist of the institution worked most closely with the researcher and gave her much valuable advice, information and time. 26 Desigp The research was of a descriptive and comparative nature. The attitudes of a random sample of the juvenile population of the institution were determined regarding the dimensions of the juveniles' relationships with the staff, their expectations upon release, and the nature of their orientation to the institution itself. The per- ceptions of (a random sample of the) staff regarding the nature of the juveniles' attitudes have also been deter- mined, in addition to the variability of the responses of the staff, and the juveniles. The variables of age, length of stay and race were considered in their relationship to the unfavorability or favorability of the juvenile atti- tudes. There was no attempt to reveal any cause and effect phenomena; consideration of these variables was done to re- veal whether any relationship existed between degrees of these variables and favorable or unfavorable attitudes. Measurement The instrument used in the study was constructed on the basis of the instrument used in the Street, Vinter and Perrow study.1 The instrument used in that study was lengthy and required complex techniques of analysis. Questions which produced data revealing the attitude di- mensions under present investigation were taken from the lStreet, Vinter and Perrow, pp. cit. 27 original study, which compared the goals and programs of several institutions. The instrument is an attitude survey in the form of a questionnaire. It is comprised of twenty questions written on the third-grade reading level, which is the average reading ability of the juvenile population of the institution. The three categories of attitudes studied were: Category I: attitudes toward the juvenile- staff relationship Category II: attitudes reflecting the expec- tations of the institution and upon release Category III: attitudes toward the institution, including desire to COOperate, program, purpose and self improvement. The questions measuring the attitude dimension in Category I were questions #4 and #16: #4. Do you think you know pretty well how the adults here feel about you (i.e. about how long you will have to stay)? 1 I know how I stand with adults 2 I think I know how I stand with adults 3 It's hard to say 4 I don't know how I stand with adults #16 The adults here really don't care what happens to us; they are just doing a job and earning money. (1; Agree 2 Not sure (5) Disagree With values of l-2-3-4, on question #4, the lower the value of the response, the more positive the attitude and on question #16, the lower the value of the response, the more negative the attitude. The questions measuring the attitude dimension in Category II were questions #7 and #10: 28 #7. What do you think your chances are to make good after you are released? 1 Excellent or great chance to make good 2 Fair chance to make good 3 My chances are about 50-50 4 I may not make good 5 Little chance to make good #10. What do you think about this place now? A lot better than I expected Better than I expected Not sure About the same A lot worse than I expected W‘PWNH With values of 1-2-3-4-5, on questions #7 and #10, the lower the value of the response, the more positive the ex- pectation. The questions measuring the attitude dimensions in Category III were questions #11, #13, #14, #17 and #5. #11. Boys dislike being here so much that they don't want to c00perate with the adults here any more than they have to. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 3 Disagree #13. There are not enough things to do during free time. 1 Agree 2 WW mus 5 Disagree #14. This is a place that helps boys in trouble. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 3 Disagree #17. This is a place to punish boys for something they did wrong. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree 29 #5. My stay has helped me. (1 Agree 22 Not sure 5 Disagree With values of 1-2-3, on questions #11, #15, #14 and #17, the lower the value of the response, the more negative the attitude (the responses on question #14 were reversed in analysis so that the lower the value of response the more negative the attitude), and on question #5, the lower the value of the response, the more positive the attitude. In order to test the validity and reliability of the instrument, a pretest was conducted before the final ques- tionnaire was prepared. Three boys were chosen from the admission list so that they ranged in age, length of stay and were of different races. The questionnaire was adminis- tered by the researcher in the same manner as it was to be administered to the sample of boys. The purpose was ex- plained and confidentiality was stressed. The purpose of the pretest was to discover any misinterpretation of ques- tions, any ambiguities in wording, and whether opinions had been formulated regarding the issue presented in each question. Therefore, after the questionnaire was completed, each boy was interviewed. Since variant definitions reduce the reliability of questions, the researcher inquired about the meaning of key words in each question. The majority of the questions were meaningful to the boys interviewed. However, there were a few questions which 30 the boys felt they could not answer very easily and that many boys would be confused by. Therefore, those questions were either re-written or rejected. The questionnaire was then produced in its final form which consisted of twenty ques- tions. The staff questionnaire was constructed on the basis of the juvenile questionnaire in that the questions required information regarding the staff's perceptions of attitudes held by the boys on similar dimensions. Sampling A random sample of the staff and the juvenile population with each sample numbering a minimum of fifty was deter- mined. The juvenile admission lists were numbered, begin- ning with those boys who had entered the institution four 2 months ago, and ending with those boys who had entered the institutionjfifteen months ago. Approximately two hundred boys were chosen from this group using a random number table.3 From the admission lists, information regarding reading ability was obtained. Boys with reading ability below the third-grade level were excluded.4 The institution has a very high truancy rate. Those boys who had truanted and 2Four months (December 1970) was used as the latest admis- sion date to insure that attitudes had been formulated. BFrederick Mosteller, Robert E.K. Rourke, and George B. Thomas, Jr. Probabilipy and Statistics, p. 566. 4Reading ability is determined by the Stanford-Binet Achieve- ment Test, administered by the psychologist on the staff of the institution. 31 had not returned were not available and therefore excluded from the sample in addition to those boys who had been released. A substantial number of boys (two hundred) was chosen on the basis of the random number due to the expected loss of boys through the high truancy rate, release,and the exclusion of those boys with reading ability below the third-grade level. The resulting and final sample numbered sixty boys. Thus, the sample was comprised of a randomly chosen group of the available (those present and not AWOL) total population of the institution excluding only those boys with reading ability below the third-grade level. The institution made a list of all staff members avail- able to the researcher and those staff members who had little or no contact with the boys were excluded.5 The list was then numbered and using a randum number table, a sample of sixty was determined. Data Collection The procedure for the administration of the question- naire to the boys was worked out with administrators so as to reduce the possibility of truancy. On March 20 and 27, 1971, the testing was done. A conference room was made available to the researcher in the Administration Building 5Administrators and clerical personnel were excluded. 52 of the institution. Two detail boys6 were assigned to the researcher with the job of bringing boys from the cottages to the testing room and returning them to their cottages upon completion of the questionnaire. Boys were tested in groups of ten and were given the following instructions:7 This is a study of your attitudes toward the Lansing Boys' Training School. Your cooperation is very im- portant. We want to know how you feel. The questions you are being asked are not a test-~there are no right or wrong answers. Do not put your name on the questionnaire. No one will know how each of you answered. If you have questions or the questions confuse you, just raise your hand and I will try to answer it. We appreciate your cooperation in the study. Please check one answer for each question. The boys were also told that they did not have to do the questionnaire, but that their cooperation would be appreciated. Only one boy refused to complete the ques- tionnaire and he was returned to his cottage. The final sample tested numbered fifty-seven rather than sixty be— cause of two truancies or "AWOLs" earlycnl the first test- ing date. The staff questionnaires were delivered personally to the staff by detail boys or placed in their mailboxes with the following instructions: Your cooperation is needed to obtain some important information. A study of the attitudes of a group of the boys in the training school is being con- ducted. Your assistance is needed in the determi- nation of their attitudes. Your opinion is essen- tial in producing an accurate view of the boys' 6Detail boys are boys who are about to be released and are employed by the institution and serve as office boys. 7The researcher read each question aloud as each boy read the questions to himself. 55 attitudes. Your answers will be anonymous so please answer frankly and please do not discuss the ques- tionnaire with anyone who has not finished filling out theirs. Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible. When you have finished the questionnaire, please sign your name on this page, tear this page off and place both this page and the questionnaire in the inner office mail under Mr. Shears' name. Thank you for your cooperation. The questionnaires were returned by forty-six of the staff members in the sample. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The analysis will begin with a description of the juvenile and staff attitudes on all dimensions studied. Following the descriptive analysis of the data of both samples will be a comparative analysis of the juvenile and staff attitudes establishing any significance of dif- ferences between them and any significance of variability between them as determined by a test for significance (z) and a test for variance (F). Next will follow a compara- tive analysis of groups within the juvenile sample: black and white, 12-, 15-, and 14-year-olds and 15- and l6-year-olds, and those who have been in the institution from four to seven months and from eight to fifteen months. Description and Comparison of Juvenile and StaffIAttitudes In Category I, attitudes toward the relationship be- tween the juveniles and staff weré”measured by question #4 and #16. On question #4 the lower the value of the response in a range of values from 1-2-5-4, the more positive the re- sponse regarding how well the juvenile feels that he knows how he stands with the adults on the staff of the institution. The mean value for the total juvenile sample was 2.4, 54 55 TABLE 1 - Categories of Juvenile Sample by Percentages Length of Stay - Race Range Frequency % Groups Frequency % 4 months 12 21 Black 26 48 5 " 4 07 White 28 22 6 " 5 09 TOTAL 54 100% 7 ll 8 l4- { 8 " 5 05 I Age II 18 u g 8; 1 Range Frequency % 11 ll 4 O7 :7 ___ II { i; n 2 S: g 12 years 2 04 14 II 1 02 A 15 " 13 23 15 fl 4 O7 : 14' ll 10 18 I I5 " l4 25 ~ f 16 " 18 51 TOTAL 57 100% A TOTAL 57 100% indicating that the average response was "I think I know how I stand with the adults." The mean value for the staff sample was 2.28, indicating that the staff quite correctly perceived that this would be the average response of the juveniles. The mean was a lower value indicating a positive attitude towards the juveniles' relationship with the staff in that the juveniles felt they knew where they stood with the staff or knowing what the staff felt about them. On question #16, the lower the value of the response, the more negative the response regarding the juveniles' outlook toward the staff's interest in the juveniles. A lower value would thusly indicate that the juveniles felt the staff did not 56 TABLE 2 - Staff and juvenile comparison of means, Z score, significance of difference, F score and significance Category I Attitudes toward the relationship between juveniles and staff _ 2 z Sig.of’ p Item Group N x s score Diff. score Sig. #4 Staff 46 2.28 .64 Juvenile 57 2.40 1.08 .66 .25 1.69 N.S. #16 Staff 46 2.00 .84 Juvenile 57 2.10 .80 .56 .29 1.05 N.S. Category II Expectations of the institution at admission and for success upon release 2 Sig.0f F Item Group N x s scgre Diff. score Sig. #7 Staff 46 2.78 2.57 Juvenile 57 1.95 .74 5.27 .001* 5.22 .001 #10 Staff 46 2.41 .95 Juvenile 57 2.68 2.05 1.15 .125 2.19 .05 Category III Attitudes toward the institution 2 Sig.of_' F Item Group N x s scgre Diff. score Sig. #ll,l5, Staff 46 6.59 4.56 14,17 Juvenile 57 6.72 4.20 .51 .57 1.09 N.S. #5 Staff 46 2.17 .79 | Juvenile 57 1.58 .64 5.51 .001* 1.25 N.S. 57 care what happened to them, but were just doing a job. The mean value for the juvenile sample was 2.1, which reveals that most juveniles were not sure whether or not the staff did have a genuine interest in them. The mean value for the staff sample on this question was 2, again revealing a correct perception by the staff that most boys would not be sure of genuine staff concern for them. In Category II, expectations of the institution just prior to admission and for success upon release were measured by questions #7 and #10. On both questions #7 and #10, the lower the value in a range of values from 1-2-5-4-5, the more positive the response. The mean value for the juvenile sample was 1.95 for question #7 and 2.68 for ques- tion #10 which indicates a slightly more positive attitude in that most boys believe their chances of success to be about fair, and that the institution was "better than they expected." The mean value for the staff sample was 2.78 for question #7 and 2.41 for question #10 revealing that the staff believed the juveniles would feel their chances of success to be between fair and 50-50, which is not as positive as the juveniles' attitude, and that the juveniles would feel that the institution was better than they ex- pected which is an accurate perception of that attitude. In Category III, attitudes toward the institution were measured by questions #11, #15, #14, #17 and #5. 0n ques- tions #11, #15, #14 and #17, the lower the value of the 58 reSponse in the range of values from 1-2-5, the more nega- tive the response regarding the program of activities and purpose of the institution. On question #5, the lower the value of the response, the more positive the attitude towards improvement. The mean value for the total juvenile sample was 6.72 on the four questions, and 1.58 on question #5 (the range for #11, #15, #14, and #17 being 1-12) indicates that the juvenile attitude towards the institution's program of activities was more a neutral response indicating ambiva- lence or a lack of response; and whether the institution was a place to punish or help boys was slightly more positive. The mean value for question #5 indicates that the juvenile attitude regarding their improvement or whether their stay had helped them is a more positive attitude. The mean value for the staff on #11, #15, #14, and #17 was 6.59 which reveals that the staff closely perceived the juvenile attitude meas- ured by those questions. The mean value for the staff on #5 was 2.17, indicating that most of the staff felt that the juveniles would not be sure whether or not they had been helped by their stay. The staff did not perceive the juvenile attitude to be as positive as the juveniles' response indicated. Therefore, there was no significant difference between the juveniles' attitudes and the staff's perceptions of these attitudes except on question #7 where the staff per- ceived the juveniles' expectations of success upon release 59 to be less positive than they were in actuality and on question #5 where the staff perceived the juveniles' atti- tudes towards their improvement as a result of their stay also to be less positive than they were in actuality. In order to determine the variability of the staff and juvenile attitudes a test for variance was run (F Test). The only dimension which revealed variability between the two samples was in Category II, question #7 and #10, measur— ing expectations. 0n question #7, the staff reSponse was significantly more variable than the juvenile response; however, on question #10, the juvenile response was more variable than the staff response. Description and Comparison of Two Groups of’Juveniles byTLepgth 0f Stgy The juvenile sample was divided into two groups by length of stay: Group 1 consisted of juveniles who had been in the institution from four to seven months and Group 2 con- sisted of juveniles who had been in the institution from eight to fifteen months. Group 1 numbered twenty-nine sub- jects and Group 2 numbered twenty-eight subjects. In Category I, question #4, Group 1 had a mean value of 2.45 and Group 2 had a mean value of 2.21 which indicates that both groups had a positive attitude toward this aspect of the juvenile and staff relationship. On question #16, Group 1 had a mean value of 2.07 whereas Group 2 had a mean value of 1.96 indicating that Group 2 had only a slightly 40 TABLE 5 - Two-group juvenile comparison by length of stay of means, 2 score and significance of difference Category I Attitudes toward the relationship between juveniles and staff Item Group N ,2 $2 scgre Sig. of Diff. #4 1* 29 2.45 .97 2 28 2.21 1.06 .88 .19 #16 1 29 2.07 2.14 2 28 1.96 .44 1.17 .12 Category II Expectations of the institution at admission and for success upon release Item Group N a s2 scare Sig. of Diff. #7 1 29 1.90 .95 2 28 2.29 1.10 1.58 .08 #10 1 29 2.62 1.52 2 28 2.82 2.57 .56 .29 Category III Attitudes toward the institution Item Group N i s2 scgre Sig. of Diff. #11,l5,14,17 l 29 6.48 5.76 2 28 7.29 2.26 1.62 .05* #5 1 29 1.55 .61 2 28 1.61 .69 .26 .40 gCroupl’consisted oTHjuveniles institutionalizedffrom four to seven months. Group 2 consisted of juveniles institutionalized from eight to fifteen months. 41 more negative attitude towards staff concern than Group 1 but both groups generally were unsure of whether or not the staff cared what happened to them. In Category II, Group 1 had a mean value of 1.90 on question #7 and a mean value of 2.62 on question #10 and Group 2 had a mean value of 2.29 on question #7 and a mean value of 2.82 on question #10. This reveals that ex- pectations for success were slightly more positive for juve- niles with less time in the institution and that both groups were unsure of their expectations of the institution. In Category III, the mean value for Group 1 on questions #11, #15, #14 and #17 was 6.48 and on question #5 was 1.55 while the mean value for Group 2 was 7.29 on question #11, #15, #14 and #17, and 1.60 on question #5. This indicates that the attitudes of juveniles with less time were slightly more negative than the attitudes of juveniles with more time towards programs and purpose of the institution and that the attitudes of both groups towards their improvement were posi- tive. The only significant difference between the attitudes of Group 1 and Group 2 was in Category 111, where the juveniles with more time in the institution had a significantly more negative attitude towards the institutional program of activities and purpose. The expectations of success upon release were very close to being significantly more negative in the juvenile group with more time in the institution. 42 Description and Compgrison of Two Groups of Juveniles py Agp The juvenile sample was divided into two groups by age: Group 1 consisted of boys from 12 to 14 Years of age and Group 2 consisted of boys from 15 to 16 years of age. Group 1 numbered 25 subjects and Group 2 numbered 52 subjects. In Category I, the mean value of Group 1 was 2.56 for question #4 and Group 2 had a mean value of 2.44 for the same question. Both groups "think they know how they stand with the adults," which is a positive attitude but close to the negative value. 0n question #16, Group 1 had a mean value of 1.92 and Group 2 had a mean value of 2.25 which in- dicates that the younger boys' attitude of staff interest in the juveniles was slightly more negative than the attitude of Group 2. In Category II, the mean value of question #7 was 2.08 for Group 1 and 1.84 for Group 2. The mean value on question #10 was 2.96 for Group 1 and 2.47 for Group 2. The expecta- tions for success upon release were slightly more positive for the older juveniles and the expectation of the institu- tion were also slightly more positive for the older juveniles. In Category III, the mean value on questions #11, #15, #14 and #17 was 6.80 for Group 1 and 6.78 for Group 2. Both groups are more neutral in their attitudes towards the insti- tutional program of activities, the desire to cooperate, and institutional purpose. The mean value on question #5 was 1.52 for Group 1 and 1.44 for Group 2 which indicates that 45 TABLE 4 - Two-group juvenile comparison by age of means, z score and significance of difference Category I Attitudes toward the relationship between juveniles and staff Item Group N i 82 scgre Sig. of Diff. #4 Aged 12-14 years 25 2.56 1.52 Aged 15-16 years 52 2.44 1.16 .26 .40 #16 Aged 12-14 years 25 1.92 .78 Aged 15-16 years' 52 2.25 .48 1.52 .06 Category II Expectations of the institution at admission and for success upon release _ 2 Item Group N x 82 score Sig.of Diff. #7 Aged 12-14 years 25 2.08 .95 Aged 15-16 years 52 1.84 .72 .57 .56 #10 Aged 12-14 years 25 2.96 1.54 Aged 15-16 years 52 2.47 2.45 1.52 .09 TABLE 4 (continued) Category III Attitudes toward the institution Item Group N E s2 scgre Sig. of Diff. #1l,l5,14, Aged 17 12-14 years 25 6.80 .71 Aged 15-16 years 52 6.78 .77 1.44 .07 #5 Aged 12-14 years 25 1.52 .80 Aged 15-16 years 32 1044 061 057 036 44 both groups have more positive attitudes of improvement as a result of their stay. There are no significant differences between the atti- tudes of Group 1 and Group 2 in any of the attitude cate- gories. There is no significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in the attitude towards the staff, expectations of the institution and institutional program and purpose. However, significant differences are closely approached with the younger juveniles approaching a significantly more nega- tive attitude than the older juveniles towards the staff; with the younger juveniles approaching a significantly more negative expectation of the institution; and with the younger juveniles approaching a significantly more negative attitude towards institutional program of activities, desire to cooperate and institutional purpose. Description and Comparison of Two Groups of Juveniles by Race The juvenile sample was divided into two groups by race. Group 1 consisted of twenty-six black juveniles and Group 2 consisted of twenty-eight white subjects. In Category I, the mean value for question #4 was 2.58 for Group land 2.54 for Group 2 which indicates that both groups are between "I think I know how I stand with the adults" and "It's hard to say." Both groups have a more negative attitude toward this aspect of the juvenile and staff relationship. The mean value for question #16 was 45 TABLE 5 - Two-group juvenile comparison by race of means, 2 score and significance of difference ___———v Category I Attitudes toward the relationship between juveniles and —— Item Group N x s2 #4 Black 26 2.38 1.13 White 28 2.54 1.00 #16 Black 26 2.07 .99 White 28 2.03 .95 staff 17:1 score Sig. of Diff. .24 .41 .15 .44 Category II Expectations of the institution at admission and for success upon release I 0 w o.“ 9. .0‘0- 0 - o t Z SCOI‘G Item Group N x s Sig. of Diff. #7 Black 26 2.05 1.05 White 28 1.89 .75 .55 .50 #10 Black 26 2.8 2.04 White 28 2.57 2.44 .56 .29 Category III Attitudes toward the institution _ 2 Z . . Item Group N x s score Sig. of Diff. #11,15,14, Black 26 1.65 45.64 17 White 28 1.79 47.60 .07 .47 #5 Black 26 1.58 .59 White 28 1.42 .70 .79 .21 46 2.07 for Group 1 and 2.05 for Group 2 indicating that both groups are unsure or ambivalent as to whether the staff is concerned about what happens to them. In Category II, the mean value for question #7 was 2.05 for Group 1 and 1.89 for Group 2. Both group expectations of success upon release are about fair. The mean value for ques- tion #10 was 2.8 for Group 1 and 2.57 for Group 2. The expec- tations of the institution are slightly more negative for Group 1. In Category III, the mean value for questions #11, #15, #14 and #17 was 1.65 for Group 1 and 1.79 for Group 2 (the range of values used was 1-2-5). Both group attitudes are closest to being unsure about institutional program, purpose, and desire to cooperate but the black juvenile attitude is slightly more positive than Group 1. The mean value for ques- tion #5 was 1.58 for Group 1 and 1.42 for Group 2. The black juvenile attitude slightly more negative in regard to improve- ment as a result of their stay. However, no significant dif- ferences exist between the attitudes of Group 1 and Group 2. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Literature in the field of juvenile delinquency reveals and stresses the need for more knowledge of the impact of the criminal justice system upon those who are processed by that system in an effort to reduce the negativism of the processing experience and improve the rehabilitation of the institutionalized. The author has strived to produce some knowledge of the attitudes of a sample of juveniles in a state training school for delinquents, the relationship which exists among different groups within the juvenile population, and the staff perception of the attitudes and orientation of the juveniles. It was hypothesized that: a. the attitudes of a group of institutionalized juveniles would not be similar to the staff members' perception of those attitudes; b. the staff attitudes would be more variable than the juvenile attitudes; c. that increasing age would be positively related to more unfavorable juvenile attitudes; d. that increasing length of stay would be positively related to more negative juvenile attitudes; e. and that there will be no significant differences between the attitudes of black and white institu- tionalized juveniles. 47 48 The categories of attitudes which were investigated were: attitudes toward the juvenile and staff relationship Category I Category II: attitudes reflecting the expectations of the institution and upon release Category III: attitudes toward the institution, in- cluding the desire to cooperate, insti- tutional program, institutional purpose and improvement as a result of the stay in the institution The results of the study indicate: 1. There are no significant differences between the juvenile attitudes and the staff perception of those atti- tudes except in Category II where the staff perceived the juveniles” expectations of success upon release to be less positive than.indicated by the actual juvenile response and in Category III where the staff perceived the juveniles' attitudes toward their improvement as a result of their stay in the institution to be less positive than indicated by the actual juvenile response. 2. There is no significant difference in the variability of the staff attitudes as opposed to the juvenile attitudes. (Staff responses to juvenile expectations of success upon release were more variable than the juvenile response; how- ever, juvenile responses to expectations of the institution were more variable than the staff response.) 5. There are no significant differences between attitudes of a younger group of institutionalized juveniles 49 (ages 12, l5, l4) and an older group of institutionalized juveniles (ages l5, l6). 4. There are no significant differences between the attitudes of juveniles who have been in the institution from four to seven months andlhose who have been in the institution eight to fifteen months except in Category 111 where the older group of juveniles had a significantly more negative attitude towards the institutional program, desire to cooperate, and institutional purpose. 5. There are no significant differences between the attitudes of black and white institutionalized juveniles. The foregoing results lend support to one of the hypotheses: that no significant differences would exist between the attitudes of black and white institutionalized juveniles. It appears that generally no significant dif- ferences exist between the staff perceptions of juvenile attitudes and the actual juvenile attitudes. It was indi- cated, however, that in two aspects of the categories studied (expectations of success upon release and attitude toward improvement as a result of institutional stay) the staff perceptions were significantly more negative than the actual juvenile attitude. This may indicate a lack of discussion of these issues between the juveniles and the staff. However, it is crucial that the staff is aware of whether or not the juvenile feels he is being helped. 50 The results indicate that attitudes of groups within the juvenile sample compared by age, length of stay and race are similar with only a few items showing significant differences. One could conclude that within a juvenile institution a strong socialization process is in operation. Younger juveniles are quickly assimilated by the older groups who have definite status because of age and size. Juveniles who have been in the institution for shorter periods of time hold attitudes very similar to those of juveniles who have been in the in- stitution for much longer periods. Black and white juveniles hold attitudes more similar than any of the other groups com- pared. The socioeconomic factor may be crucial to an inter- pretation of this finding. The majority of the population of the institution is composed of urban, multiple-offense delinquents from the Detroit area with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. This factor may contribute to a more singular and cohesive socialization process in the adjustment to in- stitutionalization. The staff itself may be contributing to the immediate socialization process which may be operating. Staff expectations of a juvenile's attitude toward institu- tionalization can be perceived by the juvenile and his be- havior adapts so as to meet those expectations. The finding that the staff correctly perceives the attitudes of the juveniles does not insure the development of rehabilitative relationships. It may indicate the staff's realization and tacit acceptance of the socialization process which begins at admission. In two instances, the staff perception of 51 juvenile attitudes was more negative than the actual juvenile response which may indicate that the staff is unintentionally allowing for the development of a more negative institutional orientation. In conclusion, this study appears to have lent support to only one of its hypotheses; however, much was learned about the testing of attitudes and even more was learned about relationships which might exist among important variables affecting juvenile and staff interaction within a juvenile institution. It is hoped that this study may be of some value to the institution in which it was conducted in struc- turing more effective treatment programs and in identifying the needs of both juveniles and staff. Programs may be de- signed not only to increase staff awareness of the juvenile attitudes but more importantly to increase the ability of the staff to utilize this knowledge in such a manner that does not self-fulfill the negative attitudes they believe to exist. In order to accomplish that, they must be able to function within the socialization process which is operating without becoming a part of the negative socialization which may occur. Recommendations for Future Research The following are suggestions which may be of value to other researchers who are interested in similar studies in the area of juvenile delinquency: 52 1. Further investigation of the relationship of age, length of stay, and race could be made on a larger scale. The sample used in the present study was rather limited in size. 2. The staff of an institution could be grouped into those having differing levels of experience, education and possibly those of different ages in comparing varying atti- tudes within the staff. 5. The instrument used to determine juvenile attitudes and the staff perception of juvenile attitudes should be tested for reliability within the same p0pulation under study. 4. Type of offense might be investigated in its re- lationship to the favorability or unfavorability of juvenile attitudes. 5. A comparative study of the institutional goals, as perceived by the administration of a juvenile institution, as perceived by the staff, and as perceived by the juveniles might be conducted. 6. The present study could be expanded to determine the factors which could be affecting the various relation- ships which were investigated in the present study. 7. The investigation of background data of a juvenile sample in a study similar to this one may produce the exis- tence of relationships affecting attitudes toward the institution and staff. 55 8. Future research might investigate further atti- tudinal categories which could be crucial to effective treatment programming. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Cicourel, Aaron V. The Social 0r anization of Juvenile Justice, New YorE, JOKE WiIey and Sons,_Inc., 1968. Cloward, Richard A. Theoretical Studies in Social Or ani- zation of the PrIson, New YorE, SociEI c ence Re- searcH CEuncIl, I960. Haskell, Martin R. and Yablonsky, Lewis. Crime and Delin- quency, Chicago, Rand-McNally and Company, 1970. McCorkle, Lloyd W., Elias, Albert, and Bixby, F. Lovel. The Highfields Stor , New York, Henry Holt, 1958. Miller, Delburt C. HandbOok of Research Design and Social Measurement, New York, David McKay 00., Inc., 1964. Mosteller, Frederick, Rourke, Robert E. K., and Thomas, George B. Probability and Statistics, Massachusetts, Addison Wes ey o 009 i961. Polsky, Howard. Cottage Six: The Social S stem of Delin- fluent Bo s‘gp Residential Treatment, New YorRZ’ ussel 1962 age Foundaron, . President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Task Force Re ort: The Challen e of Crime in p Free SocieT , Washffigfon, D.C., U.S. Coveffiment FfintIng Office, 1967. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, Wasfiington, .C. U.S. Government Hinti ng DEB-5, 1967. Selltig, Claire, Jahoda, Marie, Deutsch, Morton and Cook, Stuart W. Research Methods ip Social Relations, New York, Chicago, San Fran01sco, ToronTo, HoIt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1959. 54 55 Simon, Julian L. Basic Research Methods in Social Science, New York, Random House, I969. Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M. Scales for the Measure- ment 2;.Attitudes, New York, McGraw-HIII Company, 1967. Stratton, John R. and Terry, Robert M., eds. Prevention‘gf Delinguency, London and New York, The MachIIan Com- Pa-nY9 o Vinter, Robert, Street, David and Perrow, Charles. Or ani- zation for Treatment, New York, Free Press, 196 . Weeks, H. Ashley. Youthful Offenders at Highfields: An Evaluation of the Affects of Short-Term Treatment‘Ez DeIin uent BEys, Ann AEBor, University of Michigan Press, I958. Wheeler, Stanton, Ed. Controllin Delinquents, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196 . Periodicals Allen, Donald D. and Sandhu, H. S. "Alienation, Hedonism, and Life-Vision of Delinquents," Journal|gf Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vo . 35, No. 3, 7. Axelrod, Sidney. "Negro and White Institutionalized Delin- quents," American Journal‘gf Sociology, Vol. 57, 1952. Berk, Bernard. "Organizational Goals and Inmate Organiza- tions," American Journal‘gf Sociolo , Vol. 71, March, 1966. Block, Herbert A. "Juvenile Delinquency: Myth or Threat," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminolo , and Police ScIenoe,—V0I. 19, No. , NovemBer-Eecem er, I953. Chapman, Ames W. "Attitudes Toward Legal Authorities by Juveniles " Sociolo and Social Research, 40:170-175 SeptemberLOctOBer, I956. ' Clark, John P. and Wenninger, Eugene P. "The Attitude of Juveniles Toward the Legal Institution," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminolo a.§E§ Police Science, VOIT 55, DecemBer,-E64. DeFleur, Melvin L. and Westie, Frank R. "Attitudes as a Scientific Concept," Social Forces, Vol. 42, October, 1963. 56 Empey, Lamar T. and Rabow, Jerome. "The Provo Experiment," American Sociological Review, Vol. 26(5), October, 1961. Eynon, Thomas G. and Simpson, Jon E. "The Boy's Perception of Himself in a State Training School for Delinquents, Social Service Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, March, 1965. Garabedian, Peter C. "Social Roles and Processes of Sociali- zation in the Prison Community," Social Problems, Vol. 11, Fall, 1965. Grusky, Oscar. "Organizational Goals and the Behavior of Informal Leaders," American Journal 2; Sociolo , Vol. 65, No. 1, July 195 . Johnson, Orval G. and Stanley, Julian C. "Attitudes Toward Authority of Delinquent and Non-Delinquent Boys," Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps cholo , Vol. 51, JuIy, I955. Street, David. "The Inmate Group in Custodial and Treat- ment Settings," American Sociological Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, February, . Vinter, Robert and Janowitz, Morris. "Effective Institutions for Juvenile Delinquents: A Research Statement," Social Service Review, Vol. 55, June, 1959. Wheeler, Stanton. "Socialization in Correctional Communities," American Sociological Review, Vol. 26, October, 1961. Zald, Mayer N. and Street, David. "Custody and Treatment in Juvenile Institutions," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 10, July, 1964. APPENDI C ES APPENDIX A BOYS' QUESTIONNAIRE This is a study of your attitudes toward the Lansing Boys Training School. Your cooperation is very important. We want to know how you feel. The questions you are being asked are not a test--there are no right or wrong answers. Do not put your name on the questionnaire. No one will know how each of you answered. If you have questions or the questions confuse you; just raise your hand and one of us will try to answer it. We appreciate your cooperation in the study. Please check one answer for each question. 1. When you were first told you were going to be sent here, what did you think this place would be like? 1 Good place ~ 2 Not sure 5 Bad place 2. Some adults here are too strict. 1 Agree 2 Not sure . 5 Disagree 3. Boys should be able to suggest changes in work pro- grams, rules and activities. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 3 Disagree 4. Do you think you know pretty well how the adults here feel about how long you will have to stay? 1 I know how I stand with adults 2 I think I know how I stand with adults 3 It's hard to say 4 I don't know how I stand with adults 5. My stay has helped me. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 3 Disagree 58 7. 9. 10. ll. 12. 59 Adults here are not strict enough with certain boys. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree What do you think your chances are to make good after are released? 1 Excellent or great chance to make good 2 Fair chance to make good 5 My chances are about 50-50 ____ 4 I may not make good ___fi5 Little chance to make good Ill ‘4 0 :3 Do you think some of the adults here can help you find out why you got into trouble and help you stay out of trouble in the future? 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree Adults here are pretty fair. 1 Agree 2 Not sure __ 5 Disagree What do you think about this place now? 1 A lot better than I expected Better than I expected Not sure About the same as I expected 5 A lot worse than I expected #WN Boys dislike being here so much that they don't want to cooperate with the adults here any more than they have to. 1 Agree . 2 Not sure ~ 5 Disagree Some boys get away with too much. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree l5. l4. l5. l6. 17. 18. 19. 60 There are not enough things to do during free time. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree This is a place that helps boys in trouble. 1 Agree 2 Not sure .___ 5 Disagree Check the statement that is closest to what you think about yourself. ___’ Someone who got a raw deal {2; Someone with personal problems Someone who knows what the score is and how to play it cool ___§4; Someone who doesn't let anyone push him around Someone who is trying to straighten out They adults here really don't care what happens to us; they are just doing a job and earning money. 1 Agree 2 Not sure ___,5 Disagree This is a place to punish boys for something they did wrong. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree Boys get enough help here in preparing for jobs they want in the future. 1 Agree ,1__ 2 Not sure 5 Disagree Most boys don't care about learning why they did the things that got them into trouble or how to change. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree 20. 61 What do you think you will do after you are released? Be careful and behave myself I won't get caught again I think I can make good I will live it up and hope I don't get sent back here ewmw APPENDIX B STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE Your cooperation is needed to obtain some important information. A study of the attitudes of a group of the boys in the training school is being conducted. Your assistance is needed in the determination of their atti- tudes. Your opinion is essential in producing an accurate view of the boys' attitudes. Your answers will be anonymous so please answer frankly and please do not discuss the ques- tionnaire with anyone who has not finished filling out theirs. Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible. When you have finished the questionnaire, please sign your name on this page, tear this page off and place both this page and the questionnaire in the designated box in the office. Thank you for your cooperation. Mame: 62 5. C‘\ \N When boys were first told that they were going to be sent here, what do you think the boys thought it would be like? 1 Good place 2 Not sure 5 Bad place The boys believe adults here are too strict. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree The boys feel that they should be able to suggest changes in work programs, rules and activities. ‘___ 1 Agree ___ 2 Not sure I___ 5 Disagree Boys dislike being here so much that they don't want to cooperate with the adults here any more than they have to. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree The boys believe that their stays have helped them. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree .- The boys believe that adults here are not strict enough with certain boys. 1 Agree 2 lhit sure 5 Disagree What do you think the boys feel their chances are after they are released? Excellent or great chance to make good Fair chance to make good My chances are about 50-50 I may not make good Little chance to make good U'l-P-WNI-J IO. 11. l2. 14. 64 Do you think that the boys feel that some of the adults here can help them find out why they got into trouble and can help them stay out of trouble in the future? 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree The boys feel that the adults here are pretty fair. I Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree What do the boys think about this place now? A lot better than they expected Better than they expected Not sure About the same as they expected A lot worse than they expected U'th‘JNl-J Boys dislike being here so much that they don't want to cooperate with the adults here any more than they have to. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree The boys feel that some boys get away with too much. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree The boys feel that there are not enough thins to do during free time. ____1 ____2 ____5 Agree Not sure Disagree The boys feel that this is a place that helps boys in trouble. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. 65 Check the statement that is closest to what you think most boys feel about themselves. 2 Someone with personal problems 5 Someone who knows what the scene is and how to play it cool .___E4g Someone who doesn't let anyone push him around 5 Someone who is trying to straighten out {1; Someone who got a raw deal The boys feel that the adults here really don't care what happens to us, and that they are just doing a job. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree The boys feel that this is a place to punish boys for something they did wrong. (1 Agree £2 Not sure 5 Disagree The boys feel they get enough help here in preparing for jobs they want in the future. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree Most boys don‘t care about learning why they did the things that got them into trouble. 1 Agree 2 Not sure 5 Disagree What do you think the boys feel they will do after they are released? Be careful and behave themselves Not get caught again Think they can make good Live it up and hepe they won't get caught again —F—‘\Nl\)!—‘ "7'14 AA AMA All Is