Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Breaking with tradition : role development in a prison-based baccalaureate program 1987

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1987_A2 C52.pdf [ 7.15MB ]
UBC_1987_A2 C52.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055823.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055823+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055823.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055823+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055823+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055823+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0055823.ris

Full Text

BREAKING WITH TRADITION: ROLE DEVELOPMENT IN A PRISON-BASED BACCALAUREATE-PROGRAM by GRANT STEWART CLARKE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t and Higher E d u c a t i o n ) We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to t h e r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February 1987 © Grant Stewart C l a r k e 1987 - 3 1 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6(3/81) i i Breaking With T r a d i t i o n : Role Development In A P r i s o n - B a s e d B a c c a l a u r e a t e Program ABSTRACT P r i s o n s a r e o r g a n i z e d to h o l d and c o n t r o l inmates. Inmates t r a d i t i o n a l l y oppose a u t h o r i t y , and the s o c i a l e c ology of p r i s o n s r e s i s t s c h a n g e - o r i e n t e d programs. S u c c e s s f u l e d u c a t i o n a l programs appear to n e u t r a l i z e c e r t a i n n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s of the s o c i a l e c ology w h i l e engaging inmates i n s e t t i n g and working toward p r o - s o c i a l g o a l s . One i n i t i a t i v e i s the Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y p r i s o n - b a s e d b a c c a l a u r e a t e program i n the h u m a n i t i e s . Inmates i n t h i s program appear to develop p o s i t i v e student r o l e s . E x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the program's apparent success had not p r e v i o u s l y examined the i n t e r a c t i o n between inmates and the s o c i a l e c ology of the program. P r e v i o u s accounts of the program r e l i e d on a n e c d o t a l reviews and p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s of inmate development. To b r i d g e t h i s gap, t h i s study was d e s i g n e d to e x p l i c a t e a t h e o r e t i c a l model t o e x p l a i n student r o l e s and a s s o c i a t e d f e e l i n g s t a t e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s , to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e i t , and to examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s with v a r i o u s socio-demographic and c a r c e r a l v a r i a b l e s . Three approaches were used. The f i r s t i n v o l v e d f o r m u l a t i n g the model, drawing on p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s and e x p e r i e n c e with inmates i n t h i s program, l i t e r a t u r e about the program, and r o l e t h e o r y . A model of r o l e development was p o s i t e d . I t has f i v e s t a g e s : ( 1 ) Recruitment, (2) D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , (3) S e p a r a t i o n , (4) T r a n s i t i o n , and (5) S o l i d a r i t y . The second phase i n v o l v e d o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the model. Seventy w r i t t e n statements were c o n s t r u c t e d r e p r e s e n t i n g inmates' f e e l i n g s toward p r i s o n , and the u n i v e r s i t y program, at each stage of the model. They were judged by f i v e e x p e r t s i n c o r r e c t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n who s t r o n g l y c o n c u r r e d i n a s s i g n i n g the 70 statements i n t o r e s p e c t i v e s t a g e s . The second phase a l s o i n v o l v e d a c a r d s o r t of these 70 statements by 33 inmate u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s i n one p r i s o n . They s o r t e d the c a r d s a c c o r d i n g t o : (1) "how I f e e l now"; (2) "how I used to f e e l , but not now"; (3) "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " ; and (4) "don't know." For the t h i r d phase, data were a n a l y z e d u s i n g Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n s and ANOVA s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s . The major c o n c l u s i o n s which emerged from the study p e r t a i n e d to the t h r e e purposes. With r e g a r d t o the e x p l i c a t i o n of a model of r o l e development, i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t (1) Role t h e o r y i s an a p p r o p r i a t e framework f o r a r t i c u l a t i n g a model of p r i s o n e c o l o g y , and (2) Inmates e x p e r i e n c e f i v e d i s t i n c t and s e q u e n t i a l s t a g e s of r o l e development. With r e g a r d to the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the model, i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t (1) Judges found the o v e r a l l model p l a u s i b l e and workable, (2) Judges were a b l e to r e l i a b l y d i s c r i m i n a t e items i n t o s t a g e s , and (3) Inmates' responses c o n f i r m e d i n t r a - s t a g e r e l i a b i l i t y . With r e g a r d to r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s c o r e s o b t a i n e d from o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the model and v a r i o u s socio-demographic and p r i s o n - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s , i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t (1) The expected a s s o c i a t i o n s were not confirmed, (2) Inmates' fo r w a r d i n g of i v f e e l i n g s from p r e v i o u s i n c a r c e r a t i o n s supports the Importation model, (3) A c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e f i n d i n g ( u n i v e r s i t y term by Recruitment) i s p r o b a b l y an a r t i f a c t of p r e v i o u s p e n i t e n t i a r y e x p e r i e n c e , and (4) The u n i v e r s i t y program does f o s t e r p r o - s o c i a l r o l e development, thus p r o v i d i n g support f o r the "some t h i n g s work" p o s i t i o n . V TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION TO EDUCATION IN PRISONS 1 The P r i s o n S e t t i n g 1 P r i s o n O r g a n i z a t i o n 4 Models Of C o r r e c t i o n a l P r a c t i c e 7 The Problem Of E f f e c t i v e Programs For Inmates 9 The "Nothing Works" P o s i t i o n 10 The "Some Things Work" P o s i t i o n 11 C o r r e c t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n 13 The P r i s o n U n i v e r s i t y Program 14 Purposes Of The Study 20 Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 21 Views Of The Inmate S o c i a l System 21 The D e p r i v a t i o n Model 25 The I m p o r t a t i o n Model 30 Chapter 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 35 General Assumptions Of Role Theory 35 Concepts In Role Theory 40 C r i t e r i a For A Model Of Role Development 48 Stages Of The Model 51 Recruitment Stage 53 D i s o r i e n t a t i o n Stage 54 S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n Stage 55 T r a n s i t i o n - R e f r a m i n g Stage 56 S o l i d a r i t y Stage 57 Chapter 4: INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT 60 Item C o n s t r u c t i o n And S e l e c t i o n 62 Item Judging Process 64 Inmate And Stage Meanings 67 R e l i a b i l i t y E s t i m a t e s 86 Ques t i o n s D e r i v e d From The Stage Model 87 v i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter 5: METHODOLOGY 89 Choice Of Research S e t t i n g 89 Subject S e l e c t i o n Procedures 91 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Of Q-Sorts 92 C a r c e r a l And Demographic Information 94 Data A n a l y s i s 98 Chapter 6: RESULTS 99 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Of P a r t i c i p a n t s 99 Stage I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s And I n t e r n a l Consistency 103 P r i n c i p a l Stage O r i e n t a t i o n s 106 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Stages And Respondent Background ..112 E f f e c t s Of Background V a r i a b l e s On Stage Scores 118 Chapter 7: CONCLUSIONS 122 The P r i s o n Context 122 The Model 123 E x p l i c a t i o n Of The Model 125 O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g The Model 125 R e l a t i o n s h i p s With The Model .127 L i m i t a t i o n s Of The Study 130 Chapter 8: DISCUSSION 134 Concerning Future Research 134 Concerning P r i s o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 138 Concerning T r a i n i n g Of C o r r e c t i o n a l Educators 139 REFERENCES 141 APPENDICES 148 Appendix A: Seventy Items L i s t e d By Stage 148 Appendix B: Offence S e v e r i t y Scale 151 Appendix C: Information Sheet 152 Appendix D: C a r c e r a l And Demographic Coding Sheet 153 v i i LIST OF TABLES 1. In t e r - J u d g e Agreement On 70 Items 66 2. O v e r a l l Item Score Means By Role Development Stages ... 72 3. Summary And C o n t r a s t s Of Stage Score Meanings 82 4. R e l i a b i l i t i e s For F i v e Stages Of Role Development 86 5. Item C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s For F i v e C a r c e r a l V a r i a b l e s 100 6. S e v e r i t y Of O f f e n c e s And P r e v i o u s F e d e r a l Term Served .101 7. O c c u p a t i o n a l And E d u c a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - 102 8. Stage Score I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s And R e l i a b i l i t i e s 104 9. Percentages Of Items D e s c r i b i n g Present F e e l i n g s 109 10. Items D e s c r i b i n g F e e l i n g s : P r e s e n t , Past Or Never 111 11.. Stage, C a r c e r a l And Demographic C o r r e l a t i o n s 113 12. E f f e c t s Of E n r o l l m e n t Term On Role Stage Scores 119 13. C a r c e r a l And Demographic E f f e c t s On Stage Scores 120 14. E f f e c t s Of F e d e r a l P r i s o n E x p e r i e n c e On Stage Scores ..121 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES 1. O p p o s i t i o n a l S o c i a l Ecology In The D e p r i v a t i o n Model .. 27 2. Pre- And P o s t - I n c a r c e r a t i o n F a c t o r s In The I m p o r t a t i o n Model 31 3. Role I n t e r a c t i o n s P e r t a i n i n g To E d u c a t i o n In P r i s o n s .. 49 4. I n t e r a c t i o n s In The Academic E c o l o g y And Stages Of Role Development 52 5. Inte r - J u d g e And Inmate Agreements On Items 68 6. Inmate Responses By Stage And Category 74 7. Inmate Item Responses By Category And Stage 108 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank the C o r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e of Canada and i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f o r a l l o w i n g t h i s study to be conducted, and f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g my a c c e s s to r e l e v a n t r e c o r d s . I am g r a t e f u l t o the 33 men who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study without whom none of t h i s was p o s s i b l e . I am i n d e b t e d to the Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who ensure the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program works, and who served as expert judges i n t h i s study. They are Stephen Duguid, J a c q u e l y n Nelson, Hendrik Hoekema and Wayne K n i g h t s . I p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r e c i a t e the l o g i s t i c a l a s s i s t a n c e g i v e n me by Dr. J a c q u e l y n Nelson d u r i n g the data c o l l e c t i o n phase. My committee was amicable, s u p p o r t i v e , and uncompromisingly r i g o r o u s i n i t s s c r u t i n y of my work. To Drs. Roger B o s h i e r , John C o l l i n s , Tom Sork, and Stephen Duguid, I extend s i n c e r e thanks f o r s e e i n g me (and the d i s s e r t a t i o n ) through. There were times I d i d n ' t t h i n k I would f i n i s h , e v e r . I am r e a l l y g r a t e f u l to f a m i l y , f r i e n d s , and f e l l o w s t u d e n t s who buoyed me up over a long h a u l . My w i f e , E l a i n e McCreary, and c h i l d r e n have been my best f r i e n d s through t h i s p r o c e s s . My par e n t s and mother-in-law have gi v e n me u n f a i l i n g support and encouragement. Thank you. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO EDUCATION IN PRISONS The P r i s o n S e t t i n g P r i s o n s a r e p l a c e s where the p o l i c e and c o u r t s send people f o r b r e a k i n g c r i m i n a l laws. C o n c r e t e l y and a b s t r a c t l y , they r e p r e s e n t s o c i e t y ' s power to impose extreme s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t i t s members f o r v i o l a t i o n s of l e g a l codes. Moreover, p r i s o n s are l a r g e l y c l o s e d to mainstream s o c i e t y . Both keepers and the kept p l a y out a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e i r l i v e s unseen and unknown by the l a r g e r p u b l i c except f o r o c c a s i o n s when a r i o t , h o s t a g e - t a k i n g or murder focuses a t t e n t i o n on a p r i s o n ' s inner workings. S o c i e t y does not seem to want to know more about i t s p r i s o n s . R e g u l a t i o n s prevent members of the p u b l i c from t a k i n g a c a s u a l look i n s i d e . P r i s o n s are i s o l a t e d from s o c i e t y , l a r g e l y impermeable to the i n f l u e n c e of s o c i e t a l s t andards while e n c l o s i n g inmates behind p h y s i c a l and r e g u l a t o r y b a r r i e r s (Goffman, 1961, 1961a; G r o s s e r , 1968). Inmates a r e u n c r i t i c a l l y s t e r e o t y p e d as dangerous; t h i s r e s u l t s i n a " h a n d s - o f f a t t i t u d e toward the purposes and workings of p r i s o n s . Boyanowsky (1977, p. 126) contends t h a t s o c i e t y views an inmate's time spent i n p r i s o n as c o n f i r m a t i o n of h i s c r i m i n a l i t y and dangerousness " r a t h e r than a c c e p t i n g time i n p r i s o n as e v i d e n c e of change, c u r e , or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . " P r i s o n s and p r i s o n e r s r a i s e dark and d i s q u i e t i n g f e e l i n g s 2 i n the p u b l i c . D e s p i t e r e c e n t e x c e p t i o n s i n Canada, communities are g e n e r a l l y u n w i l l i n g to have new p r i s o n s b u i l t i n t h e i r midst ( S c u l l , 1977), and t h e r e i s a widespread p e r c e p t i o n that crime i s i n c r e a s i n g . T h i s has r e s u l t e d i n p u b l i c support f o r " s t e r n e r " treatment of o f f e n d e r s . A f e d e r a l government Task Fo r c e (1977) concluded t h a t the Canadian p u b l i c wanted those c o n v i c t e d of s e r i o u s crimes to be g i v e n longer sentences r e q u i r i n g i n c a r c e r a t i o n . A n o t a b l e c u r r e n t example of a tougher p o l i c y toward c e r t a i n crimes i s an i n c r e a s i n g use of imprisonment f o r d r i n k i n g - d r i v i n g o f f e n c e s . C r i m i n a l j u s t i c e p o l i c y i n Canada has s h i f t e d i n emphasis from.the treatment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of o f f e n d e r s to the r i g h t s of v i c t i m s of crime and to crime p r e v e n t i o n ( E k s t e d t & G r i f f i t h , 1984). Moreover, the n o t i o n t h a t p r i s o n s can f i g h t crime and i t s causes has l o s t support (Task F o r c e , 1977). E k s t e d t and G r i f f i t h (1984, p. 363) contend t h a t the c o r r e c t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e " i s viewed, and p e r c e i v e s i t s e l f , as the ' t a i l - e n d ' of the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system." P r i s o n s have not l i v e d up to s o c i e t y ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s of them as a v e h i c l e f o r r e f o r m i n g c r i m i n a l l y - o r i e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l s . Indeed, the o p p o s i t e seems t r u e . P r i s o n s are viewed as " s c h o o l s f o r c r ime" by p u b l i c and inmates a l i k e (Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977; G o s s e l i n , 1982). In the f a c e of t h i s l a c k of success i n " c o r r e c t i n g " c r i m i n a l behaviour, and the p u b l i c ' s disenchantment w i t h the system, i t may be argued t h a t p r i s o n s do l i t t l e more than f u n c t i o n as human warehouses. However, the e x p e r i e n c e of p r i s o n i s not benign, nor i s i t intended to be. P r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s and 3 the p u b l i c seem to f e e l inmates are sent to p r i s o n f o r punishment, not j u s t as punishment (Hepburn & S t r a t t o n , 1977; E k s t e d t & G r i f f i t h , 1984). Inmates are not supposed to enjoy the time they spend i n p r i s o n . C r e s s e y ' s (1960, p. 82) comment that punishment i s "an u n e q u i v o c a l f u n c t i o n of p r i s o n s " i s s t i l l t r u e today. Thus p r i s o n p r a c t i c e s tend to be r e f l e x i v e l y p u n i t i v e though no l o n g e r i n the form of c o r p o r a l punishment. Inste a d , p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s e n f o r c e m u l t i p l e d i r e c t i v e s and r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t govern d a i l y p r i s o n l i f e . G r o s s e r contends that the r o u t i n e of p r i s o n l i f e i s used as a mechanism of c o n t r o l by a u t h o r i t i e s : Even e a t i n g and s l e e p i n g tend to become r o u t i n i z e d i n the p r i s o n . The d i s c i p l i n e extended to every a s p e c t of the p r i s o n e r ' s m u l t i p l e r o l e s l e a v e s l i t t l e scope f o r n o n r e g u l a t e d or u n s u p e r v i s e d a c t i v i t y . H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h i s development was based on the b e l i e f t h a t d i s c i p l i n e per se i s a good and t h a t i t s enforcement w i l l have b e n e f i t s beyond the p r i s o n w a l l s i n the h a b i t s i n c u l c a t e d i n i n d i v i d u a l p r i s o n e r s . . . . T h e r o u t i n i z a t i o n of p r i s o n l i f e i s a l s o t r a c e a b l e t o : (1) the p u n i t i v e p h i l o s o p h y , which tends to be expressed i n o v e r - e l a b o r a t i o n of the n e c e s s a r y r o u t i n e s of l i v i n g so t h a t p r i s o n e r s 'don't have i t too easy'; and (2) the i m p e r a t i v e s of any f u n c t i o n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n which cannot l e a v e time s c h e d u l e s , a l l o c a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s , e t c . , to the d i s c r e t i o n of each i n d i v i d u a l (1968, pp. 15-16). N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the p u b l i c ' s d e s i r e to see tougher p e n a l t i e s imposed on s e r i o u s o f f e n d e r s , most w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be r e l e a s e d from p r i s o n . A f t e r a s u s t a i n e d e x p e r i e n c e of dependency-inducing p r i s o n r o u t i n e ( G r o s s e r , 1968), inmates face the f o r m i d a b l e task of "making i t " on the o u t s i d e . T h e r e f o r e , how p r i s o n s t r e a t inmates, and how they respond to p r i s o n a u t h o r i t y , i s c e n t r a l to any examination of s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l 4 change. Moreover, treatment and program i n i t i a t i v e s t h a t p u r p o r t e d l y e q u i p inmates with the c o g n i t i v e , s o c i a l , and emotional s k i l l s to "make i t " s h o u l d be t h o r o u g h l y s t u d i e d because p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n and p r a c t i c e s appear t o be a s u b s t a n t i a l o b s t a c l e to a c h i e v i n g these k i n d s of outcomes. P r i s o n O r g a n i z a t i o n F e d e r a l p r i s o n s are operated by the C o r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e of Canada (CSC), under the d i r e c t i o n of the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l . P r i s o n s are l a b e l l e d " c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . " The name i m p l i e s a concern with " c o r r e c t i n g " b e h a v i o u r . The s i t u a t i o n i s somewhat more complex than i m p l i e d by the c o r r e c t i o n a l l a b e l because p r i s o n s have a d i v e r s i f i e d mandate that i n c l u d e s r e t r i b u t i o n (punishment), i n c a p a c i t a t i o n , d e t e r r e n c e , and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ( r e f o r m a t i o n ) ( E k s t e d t & G r i f f i t h , 1984; C r e s s e y , 1960). These f u n c t i o n s are t y p i c a l l y a s s i g n e d v a r y i n g p r i o r i t i e s . In a d i s c u s s i o n document p r e p a r e d by the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada ( S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l , 1977), c o r r e c t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s were ranked as f o l l o w s : f i r s t , c o n t r o l and custody of o f f e n d e r s ; second, humane treatment; and t h i r d , sound c o r r e c t i o n a l programs f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . A b a s i c dilemma t h a t p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s face i s how to r e c o n c i l e c o n t r o l l i n g and changing inmates. Thomas and P e t e r s o n contend t h a t w h i l e t h e r e i s no i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n the p r i s o n ' s p u r s u i t of c o n t r o l and change, a problem a r i s e s because " p r i s o n s are not p r i m a r i l y o r g a n i z e d to pursue changes i n those they p r o c e s s and, i n s t e a d , remain committed t o the g o a l of 5 i n s u r i n g e f f e c t i v e c u s t o d i a l c o n t r o l " (1977, pp. 64-65). N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g formal statements by c o r r e c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s about g o a l s , a commonly h e l d view i s t h a t p r i s o n s t r u c t u r e has changed l i t t l e (Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977). Moreover, the ge r m i n a l work from the 1960's on p r i s o n s t r u c t u r e and inmate s o c i e t y by authors l i k e C r e s s e y , Sykes and Messinger have r e t a i n e d t h e i r r e l e v a n c e i n contemporary c o r r e c t i o n s l i t e r a t u r e ; they e s t a b l i s h e d "benchmarks" to which r e s e a r c h e r s s t i l l r e f e r . There i s no evidence to suggest t h a t custody and c o n t r o l promotes p o s i t i v e changes i n inmates. Moreover, a widely h e l d view i s t h a t p r i s o n ' s dominant c o n c e r n with c o n t r o l and custody n e u t r a l i z e s p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r change (Ekstedt & G r i f f i t h , 1984; Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977; Goffman, 1961a; Cressey, 1960; Conrad, 1983; Murton, 1976). A c o r o l l a r y of " c o n t r o l and custody" i n p r i s o n i s an a u t h o r i t a r i a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t y l e which r e l i e s on c o e r c i o n (Burns, 1969; Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977). The concern of a l l types of p r i s o n s f o r c o n t r o l of inmates encourages the use of c o e r c i v e power. Burns (1969, p. 153) argued t h a t " p r i s o n s appear to form a group of s o c i a l systems d i f f e r i n g i n d e t a i l , but a l i k e i n t h e i r fundamental p r o c e s s e s . " He too p e r c e i v e d f o r c e a g a i n s t inmates as a mechanism of power shared by a l l p r i s o n systems. Perhaps the p r i s o n ' s c o n t i n u e d r e l i a n c e on c o e r c i v e power accounts f o r p a r t of the c o n t r o v e r s y over t h e i r r e h a b i l t a t i v e e f f o r t s , d e s p i t e s h i f t s i n contemporary p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e toward more humane treatment. In Canadian c o r r e c t i o n s there 6 have been a number of d i f f e r e n t treatment approaches aimed at changing the inmate. Treatment and program are u s u a l l y d i s t i n c t from c u s t o d i a l s t a f f . C o n t r o l (custody) i s the foremost o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e of p r i s o n s ( S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l , 1977; Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977). From guard to warden, c u s t o d i a l p e r s o n n e l are members of a l i n e o r g a n i z a t i o n , w h ile treatment and program p e r s o n n e l are not. C r e s s ey (1960) wrote of t h r e e p e r s o n n e l h i e r a r c h i e s i n p r i s o n s , r e s p o n s i b l e f o r (a) keeping, (b) u s i n g , and (c) s e r v i n g inmates. P r i s o n s have not p r o v i d e d f o r the i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e i r d i v e r g e n t purposes. Moreover, C r e s s e y viewed the purposes of p e r s o n n e l concerned with keeping and s e r v i n g inmates as e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t and p a r t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y . In the g i v e and take of r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n w i t h i n the p r i s o n , programs and p e r s o n n e l s e r v i n g a r e h a b i l i t a t i v e or change purpose are at a c l e a r d i s a d v a n t a g e : On an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l the e f f e c t of the primacy of c u s t o d i a l or c o n t r o l g o a l s i s q u i t e pronounced. The p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e of the i n s t i t u t i o n , the manner i n which a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s are a l l o c a t e d , the r i g i d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y , l i n e s of communication, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power, the r o u t i n i z a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , the means by which o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a n t s o t h e r than inmates are e v a l u a t e d , and r e l a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a c t i v i t i e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l r e f l e c t the dominant concern of the p r i s o n (Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977, p. 37). 7 Models of C o r r e c t i o n a l P r a c t i c e Even though custody and c o n t r o l are the prime o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s of Canadian c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , v a r i o u s p o l i c i e s d e a l w i t h inmate r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . E k s t e d t and G r i f f i t h s (1984, pp. 67-73) i d e n t i f y f i v e models of Canadian c o r r e c t i o n a l p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e spanning the y e a r s 1700 u n t i l the p r e s e n t . The p e r i o d 1700-1938 f e a t u r e d punishment as the primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of c o r r e c t i o n a l p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e , though the type and s e v e r i t y of p u n i t i v e p r a c t i c e s changed over the y e a r s . Three models are a s s o c i a t e d with c o r r e c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e from 1938 u n t i l today: R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , R e i n t e g r a t i o n , and R e p a r a t i o n . While promoting other o b j e c t i v e s such as treatment, p r i s o n s never r e l i n q u i s h e d punishment as t h e i r key o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e . The R e h a b i l i t a t i o n model c h a r a c t e r i z e d the p e r i o d 1938- 1970. Under t h i s model c o r r e c t i o n s took on the task of r e f o r m i n g the o f f e n d e r and p r e c i p i t a t e d the development of inmate treatment m o d a l i t i e s or models, c h i e f l y the medical model which l i k e n e d c r i m i n a l i t y to a d i s e a s e f o r which t h e r a p e u t i c treatment was p r e s c r i b e d . The m e d i c a l model l i n g e r s to the p r e s e n t day, but i s l a r g e l y out of favour due to i t s l a c k of s uccess i n " c u r i n g " inmates of t h e i r presumed c r i m i n a l i t y . The other s i g n i f i c a n t program to emerge (though not f o r the f i r s t time) d u r i n g the tenure of the R e h a b i l i t a t i o n model was e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g . Though s i g n i f i c a n t , e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g programs have not r e c e i v e d support w i t h i n the c o r r e c t i o n a l system comparable to t h a t g i v e n i n i t i a t i v e s based on the m e d i c a l model. 8 The R e i n t e g r a t i o n model c h a r a c t e r i z e d c o r r e c t i o n a l p o l i c y from 1970 to 1978 and, a c c o r d i n g to E k s t e d t and G r i f f i t h s (1984), c o n t i n u e s to t h i s day to account f o r much c o r r e c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e . The p r i n c i p a l f e a t u r e of t h i s model was the s h i f t i n emphasis from the m e d i c a l model of treatment to the b e l i e f t h a t r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i s best sought i n the community, not the p r i s o n . Thus, d i v e r s i o n programs, community-based c o r r e c t i o n s , p a r o l e and p r o b a t i o n a l l r e c e i v e d more support. O f f e n d e r s were to be sentenced to p r i s o n as a l a s t r e s o r t and, i n some d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n to the kind of c r i m i n a l behaviour e x h i b i t e d , not on the b a s i s of presumed c r i m i n a l i t y . P o l i c y f o r the p e r i o d 1978 to the p r e s e n t has moved toward the R e p a r a t i o n model i n which the r i g h t s of v i c t i m s are a f o c u s . There i s a renewed emphasis on the punishment of o f f e n d e r s who are l i a b l e t o pay r e s t i t u t i o n where f e a s i b l e and a c c e p t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r own r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ( S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l , 1977). The c o r r e c t i o n a l system w i l l make r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to inmates f o r t h e i r own betterment, but not c l a i m to be i n the b u s i n e s s of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . T h i s new treatment o r i e n t a t i o n i s known as the " O p p o r t u n i t i e s " model. E k s t e d t and G r i f f i t h s (1984) c l a i m t h a t the c u r r e n t model of c o r r e c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e i s s t i l l R e i n t e g r a t i o n . I t i s p r o b a b l y more a c c u r a t e t o say a mixed model i s i n e f f e c t . While community-based c o r r e c t i o n s and d i v e r s i o n are emphasized, the n o t i o n t h a t inmates must assume g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r own r e h a b i l i t a t i o n has gained prominence. Given t h i s emphasis, g r e a t e r use of r e p a r a t i o n i s l i k e l y . 9 However, i n p r a c t i c e , "punishment" of inmates s t i l l o c c u r s d e s p i t e c u r r e n t c o r r e c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s . Whatever the m e r i t s or moral arguments f o r or a g a i n s t punishment, t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n i n e v i t a b l y i n c r e a s e s t e n s i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n medium and maximum s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s . The r e p o r t on The Role of F e d e r a l C o r r e c t i o n s i n Canada (Task F o r c e , 1977) acknowledged t h a t t e n s i o n i s "paramount" i n c o r r e c t i o n s . Punishment r e l i e s on c o n t r o l and c o e r c i o n . Punishment motiva t e d a c t i o n s by CSC s t a f f towards inmates are l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n g r e a t e r a n t i p a t h y between the groups. Furthermore, giv e n the c o r r e c t i o n a l system's p a s s i v e stance towards r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , b e n e f i t s t o inmates under the O p p o r t u n i t i e s model are l i k e l y to f a l l s h o r t of o f f i c i a l c l a i m s . Any p r o s p e c t of p o s i t i v e change i n inmates must be weighed a g a i n s t p r e s s u r e on inmates to conform to inmate codes t h a t p r e s c r i b e r e s i s t a n c e to a u t h o r i t a r i a n a c t i o n s by CSC s t a f f . The Problem of E f f e c t i v e Programs f o r Inmates There are two d i v e r g e n t v i e w p o i n t s r e g a r d i n g the e f f i c a c y of change ( r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ) treatments and programs. One h o l d s t h a t "nothing works"; the ot h e r t h a t "some t h i n g s work." 10 The "Nothing Works" P o s i t i o n Doubts about the e f f i c a c y of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs i n the p r i s o n c o n t e x t gained a f o o t h o l d i n Canadian c o r r e c t i o n s with the p u b l i c a t i o n of the Ouimet Report (1969). Ouimet noted the l a c k of consensus among e x p e r t s on the a p p r o p r i a t e t h e o r e t i c a l bases f o r c o r r e c t i o n a l programs, and growing e v i d e n c e to suggest t h a t community-based treatment might be more e f f e c t i v e than p r i s o n - b a s e d programs. Subsequent f e d e r a l r e p o r t s by the Law Reform Commission (1975) and a Task F o r c e (1977) went f u r t h e r than Ouimet i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t r e h a b i l i t a t i o n was not a s u p p o r t a b l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i n c a r c e r a t i o n . A study t h a t had a s i g n i f i c a n t and l a s t i n g e f f e c t on Canadian and American c o r r e c t i o n s was r e p o r t e d by M a r t i n s o n (1974). He concluded from a survey of 231 e v a l u a t i o n s of c o r r e c t i o n a l treatment programs conducted between 1945 and 1967 t h a t " n o t h i n g works." He c l a i m e d t h a t the r e p o r t s on r e h a b i l i t a t i o n treatment and programs f a i l e d to demonstrate any a p p r e c i a b l e a m e l i o r a t i o n of r e c i d i v i s m . A number of authors have s i n c e argued t h a t the impact of the M a r t i n s o n r e p o r t exceeded what was j u s t i f i e d by i t s s c i e n t i f i c v a l i d i t y ( E k s t e d t & G r i f f i t h , 1984; Gendreau & Ross, 1979; Cousineau & P l e c a s , 1982). N e v e r t h e l e s s , M a r t i n s o n ' s r e p o r t seemed to c o n f i r m the worst s u s p i c i o n s r a i s e d by Ouimet (1969) and o t h e r s t h a t s u c c e s s f u l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n (change) programs are u n l i k e l y t o be found i n p r i s o n s . P a r t of the l e g a c y of the "nothing works" vi e w p o i n t i s the r e p a r a t i o n p o l i c y i n Canadian c o r r e c t i o n s ( E k s t e d t & G r i f f i t h , 11 1984) w i t h i n which the "program o p p o r t u n i t i e s model" i s supposed to a ccomplish t h r e e t h i n g s : I t makes the o f f e n d e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r changing h i s own conduct, i t p r o v i d e s F e d e r a l C o r r e c t i o n s w i t h a r e a l i s t i c g o a l r a t h e r than an u n a t t a i n a b l e g o a l of changing the o f f e n d e r ' s behaviour, and i t does not l e a d the p u b l i c to b e l i e v e t h a t F e d e r a l C o r r e c t i o n s can r e s o l v e the problem of crime ( S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada, 1977, p. 34). The "Some Things Work" P o s i t i o n Others have a s s e r t e d t h a t , c o n t r a r y to M a r t i n s o n ' s i n i t i a l c l a i m s , t h e r e a re e f f e c t i v e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs. Ross and Fabiano (1983a) c l a i m e d some programs have demonstrated success i n r e d u c i n g r e c i d i v i s m r a t e s by 30 to 60 pe r c e n t over f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d s of up to 15 years a f t e r program c o m p l e t i o n . Gendreau and Ross (1979) e v a l u a t e d p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s of 95 programs t r e a t i n g a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r s f o r the p e r i o d 1973 to 1978 and co n c l u d e d t h a t s e v e r a l types of c o r r e c t i o n a l treatment programs were s u c c e s s f u l . Summarized below are f i v e i s s u e s which they f e l t r e l a t e d g e n e r a l l y t o the f a i l u r e of so many c o r r e c t i o n a l programs. 1. R e l i a n c e on a s i n g l e method - more p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s o c c u r r e d by u s i n g a combination of methods. 2. R e l i a n c e on a s i n g l e outcome, such as r e c i d i v i s m . Other outcomes such as r e s o l v i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l , e d u c a t i o n a l and v o c a t i o n a l problems are v a l i d g o a l s t o o . 3. I n t e r a c t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s - success i s i n c r e a s e d by t a k i n g i n t o account how i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s and treatment s e t t i n g s i n t e r a c t . 1 2 4. Not enough treatment - too few inmates have adequate a c c e s s to treatment s e s s i o n s , many c o r r e c t i o n a l environments are a poor c o n t e x t f o r promoting p r o s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r s . 5. Lack of i n t e r r e l a t i o n among a g e n c i e s - fragmented, l a c k of s e r v i c e s to o f f e n d e r . Ross and McKay (1978) e v a l u a t e d 53 i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y and community based behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n programs f o r the p e r i o d 1965 to 1976. They d i s c o v e r e d t h r e e f a c t o r s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e d s u c c e s s f u l from u n s u c c e s s f u l programs. 1. The s u c c e s s f u l programs were not imposed on the o f f e n d e r s i n an a u t h o r i t a r i a n f a s h i o n , but i n v o l v e d them i n program p l a n n i n g . 2. In s u c c e s s f u l programs the t a r g e t b e h a v i o u r s were not a n t i - s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r s . They sought to s t r e n g t h e n p r o s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r s r a t h e r than a t t e m p t i n g to reduce the frequency of i n a p p r o p r i a t e or a n t i - s o c i a l a c t s . 3. They n e u t r a l i z e d or m o b i l i z e d the o f f e n d e r ' s peer group. (1978, pp. 291-292) Support f o r the r e h a b i l i t a t i v e p o t e n t i a l of c e r t a i n programs i s b e i ng l i n k e d i n c r e a s i n g l y with s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a such as those c i t e d above. E d u c a t i o n i s one a r e a t h a t has a t t r a c t e d i n t e r e s t because of i t s p o t e n t i a l to i n c o r p o r a t e the v a r i o u s elements of s u c c e s s f u l c o r r e c t i o n a l programs. 13 C o r r e c t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n C o r r e c t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n c o n f r o n t s problems s i m i l a r to those f a c e d by o t h e r kinds of treatment programs. E d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s are t h r u s t up a g a i n s t the r e a l i t y of p r i s o n , an o r g a n i z a t i o n embodying p r a c t i c e s p r e d i c a t e d on c o n t r o l , not change. The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n (OISE) Report (OISE, 1978) to the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada reviewed e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g i n Canadian c o r r e c t i o n s and concluded t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n was v o l u n t a r y , and thus, on t h i s p o i n t , i n a c c o r d w i t h p r i n c i p l e s of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n . Furthermore, the r e v i e w e r s were impressed by the apparent w i l l i n g n e s s of inmates t o i n v o l v e themselves i n a v a r i e t y of programs. The OISE re v i e w e r s were p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned with p o s s i b l e b a r r i e r s or i n h i b i t o r s t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g programs. The c o r r e c t i o n a l system's r e s i s t a n c e to recommendations f o r the improvement of e d u c a t i o n f o r inmates i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to the importance g i v e n c o n t r o l r a t h e r than change i n s e t t i n g c o r r e c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s . Furthermore, Cosman (1981) contends t h a t much e d u c a t i o n sponsored by the c o r r e c t i o n a l system i t s e l f l a c k s commitment to r e a l a t t a i n m e n t . P e n i t e n t i a r y e d u c a t i o n i n Canada has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a g e n e r a l l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n genuine e d u c a t i o n a l achievement, by inadequate standards of t e acher s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g , by a l a c k of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n matters of c u r r i c u l u m between the t r i v i a l and the important, a l a c k of d i s c i p l i n e and s t r u c t u r e , and by a complete l a c k of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h (1981, p. 46). 14 Moreover, p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n o f t e n admits no v i s i o n other than t h a t of f i t t i n g the inmate f o r work (Cosman, 1981; Fawcett, 1983; K n i g h t s , 1983). Yet, inmates i n f e d e r a l p r i s o n s are p r i m a r i l y a d u l t s . Canadian s o c i e t y i s fundamentally a " p o l i t i c a l l y based system of human r e l a t i o n s , not one aimed s o l e l y a t economic w e l l - b e i n g " (Fawcett, 1983). I f inmates are to f u n c t i o n i n mainstream s o c i e t y , they w i l l r e q u i r e more than the b a r e s t u t i l i t a r i a n t r a i n i n g or e d u c a t i o n t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s much c o r r e c t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . Indeed, Morin (1981 ) argues t h a t e d u c a t i o n f o r inmates i s e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e i r d i g n i t y and development. The P r i s o n U n i v e r s i t y Program One Canadian p r i s o n - b a s e d e d u c a t i o n a l program stands out because i t appears to p r o v i d e a s i g n i f i c a n t e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e f o r i t s inmate-students. An academic, undergraduate program has been i n e x i s t e n c e f o r over t h i r t e e n y e a r s , sponsored f i r s t by the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , and more r e c e n t l y by Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y . The program i s based on a c o n c e p t u a l model which assumes t h a t inmates (1) are more d e c i s i o n makers than v i c t i m s , (2) have c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t s ( l a c k of c r i t i c a l r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y ) , (3) possess a l i m i t e d r e p e r t o i r e of s o c i a l responses and (4) have l i m i t e d moral r e a s o n i n g a b i l i t y (Duguid, 1979; 1981a; 1981b; 1983). These c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t s a re thought to c o n t r i b u t e t o inmates' i n i t i a l and r e c u r r i n g c r i m i n a l b e h a v i o u r s . The way to overcome c o g n i t i v e , s o c i a l and moral r e a s o n i n g d e f i c i t s i n inmates i s to i n v o l v e them as l e a r n e r s i n 15 an i s s u e - o r i e n t e d , l i b e r a l - a r t s program w i t h i n an i n t e r a c t i v e and democratic community (Duguid, 1980; 1981). Duguid (1981a) observed changes i n inmates who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the u n i v e r s i t y program, i n m o t i v a t i o n , a t t i t u d e , and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . Whetstone (1981), a former student i n the program, d e s c r i b e d the changes he had e x p e r i e n c e d , from s k e p t i c and c y n i c to e n t h u s i a s t i c s u p p o r t e r of the u n i v e r s i t y program. B o s h i e r (1983) c i t e d r e p o r t s by inmates of the p o s i t i v e changes wrought i n t h e i r l i v e s by the u n i v e r s i t y program. A study on the p o s t - r e l e a s e e f f e c t s of the u n i v e r s i t y program on 65 men over a two year p e r i o d c o n c l u d e d t h a t the r a t e of r e c i d i v i s m f o r s tudents was 14 per cent compared to 52 per cent f o r a matched group of non-student p r i s o n e r s . Though concern has been expressed over the f a c t t h a t inmate-students i n the u n i v e r s i t y program were s e l f - s e l e c t i n g and t h a t the study used a matched r a t h e r than randomly d e r i v e d c o n t r o l group, a g r e a t d e a l of i n t e r e s t was generated by the o p t i m i s t i c r e s u l t s (Ayers et a l . , 1980). The apparent s u c c e s s of the u n i v e r s i t y program i n f a c i l i t a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l change i n inmate- st u d e n t s c a s t s i t i n t o the "some t h i n g s work" c a t e g o r y . In an e x t e r n a l review of t h i s u n i v e r s i t y program, Ross (1980) observed t h a t i t had s e v e r a l components i n common wit h other e f f e c t i v e c o r r e c t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n programs. He d e s c r i b e d the program as " m u l t i - f a c e t e d " , one t h a t emphasized c o g n i t i v e development and i n t e r - p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s k i l l s . A key f e a t u r e of the program was i t s a b i l i t y to n e u t r a l i z e the a n t i - s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s 16 of the o f f e n d e r ' s peer group w h i l e a t the same time m o b i l i z i n g i t as a p r o s o c i a l f o r c e . S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e i r review of e f f e c t i v e p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programs, Linden and P e r r y (1982) concluded that i n t e n s i v e programs, ones t h a t p r o v i d e inmates w i t h an a l t e r n a t i v e community and peer support, w i l l have the most impact and s u c c e s s . Ross and Fabiano (1983a) m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the u n i v e r s i t y program embodied p r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r v e n t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with what they l a b e l the " C o g n i t i v e Model" of crime and d e l i n q u e n c y . The c o g n i t i v e model suggests t h a t the o f f e n d e r needs t r a i n i n g , not therapy. He needs to l e a r n not o n l y s o c i a l s k i l l s and v o c a t i o n a l s k i l l s , but t h i n k i n g s k i l l s , p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s k i l l s , and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g s k i l l s . He needs to develop h i s s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e : to go beyond an e g o c e n t r i c view of the world by d e v e l o p i n g the a b i l i t y t o take the p e r s p e c t i v e of o t h e r people (1983a, p. 7 ) . Ross and Fabiano (1981) d i s t i n g u i s h e d between impersonal and i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o g n i t i o n . Impersonal c o g n i t i o n encompasses the p h y s i c a l realm i n c l u d i n g the development of an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of c a u s a l i t y , time, movement and space. I n t e r p e r s o n a l c o g n i t i o n r e f e r s to d e v e l o p i n g an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of people, i n c l u d i n g the a b i l i t y to i n t e r a c t w i t h them based on an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e s . The c o g n i t i v e model assumes t h a t many o f f e n d e r s have developmental d e l a y s i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of a number of c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s which are e s s e n t i a l t o s o c i a l a d a p t a t i o n . Yet, Ross and Fabiano (1983a) concluded t h a t i n t e r v e n t i o n s aimed on l y at r e d u c i n g impersonal and i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t s i n 17 o f f e n d e r s d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y change c r i m i n a l behaviour, nor l e a d to b e t t e r p o s t - r e l e a s e adjustment. S u c c e s s f u l c o r r e c t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s a t t e n d e d as w e l l t o the p r o c e s s e s of program implementation, to the m a n i p u l a t i o n of the inmate's s o c i a l environment. C o g n i t i v e and other c o n c e p t u a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s of the u n i v e r s i t y program (Duguid, 1981a; 1981b) p r o v i d e a m e n t a l i s t i c p o r t r a y a l of the dynamics of change i n inmate-students even though t h e r e i s g e n e r a l agreement about the importance of the inmate's peer group, the i n s t r u c t o r ' s r o l e as a model of p r o s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o u r , and the need to i n v o l v e inmates i n c r e a t i n g and s u s t a i n i n g s o c i a l p r o c e s s e s s u p p o r t i n g the program. Yet l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been g i v e n t o d e s c r i b i n g how i n t e r a c t i o n s occur among i n d i v i d u a l inmates, t h e i r p eers, program p e r s o n n e l , and the program c o n t e n t . T h i s study attempts to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e these i n t e r a c t i o n s . B o s h i e r (1983) p o i n t e d t o the need f o r p r i s o n r e s e a r c h t h a t o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d "person" and "environment" v a r i a b l e s i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h one another. Authors l i k e Duguid (1980; 1981) have acknowledged the importance of the p r i s o n environment because i t impinges on a l l f a c e t s of inmate e x p e r i e n c e , i n c l u d i n g membership i n the academic community. The p r i s o n environment i s a b l e to overpower i n d i v i d u a l s ( G o s s e l i n , 1982; Jackson, 1984; and Zimbardo, 1977). Yet inmates i n the u n i v e r s i t y program appear to l e a r n , to develop i n t e l l e c t u a l and s o c i a l s k i l l s , and to a c q u i r e new a t t i t u d e s . Inmate-students spend more time as p r i s o n e r s than they do 18 as s t u d e n t s . Duguid (1981) observed t h a t the academic community i n p r i s o n "remains an i s l a n d i n a h o s t i l e sea." Inmate-students move between two communities which embody opposing v a l u e s and which expect d i f f e r e n t kinds of behaviour from them. T e n s i o n r e s u l t s . I t may d e t e r the i n d i v i d u a l from f u r t h e r involvement i n the u n i v e r s i t y program or p o s s i b l y impel him to i d e n t i f y even more wit h the norms of the academic community. Bo s h i e r (1983) and B e l l (1982) c i t e d examples of r e l u c t a n c e among inmates to become i n v o l v e d with the program because of i n s t i t u t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e s and l i n g e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s among some inmates t h a t the program i s "therapy" and t h e r e f o r e i n c o n f l i c t with inmate codes. An inmate-student i n a S c o t t i s h p r i s o n on a twenty year sentence f o r bank robbery r e c e n t l y wrote: Because of my o f f e n c e , sentence, and the f a c t t h a t I was i n the n o t o r i o u s s e c u r i t y p a r t y a t Peterhead ( s i c ) . I t caused q u i t e a s t i r when I opted f o r e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s a f t e r f o u r y e a r s i n p r i s o n . Normally t h i s would have meant being a c r e e p , j o i n i n g the "other s i d e " , or at the v e r y l e a s t s y c o p h a n t i c behaviour i n s u r r e n d e r i n g to the "enemy" ( J . C r o s b i e , p e r s o n a l communication to SFU Program, 1984). There i s evidence t h a t inmates who s t a y i n v o l v e d w i t h the u n i v e r s i t y program accommodate the t e n s i o n of c o n f l i c t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s coming from the academic and t r a d i t i o n a l p r i s o n communities by d e v e l o p i n g a d u a l r o l e or s o c i a l i d e n t i t y as an "inmate-student" (Duguid, 1981a). The change from "inmate" to "inmate-student" o c c u r s w i t h i n an " a l t e r n a t i v e " academic community w i t h i n the p r i s o n , one c h a r a c t e r i z e d by peer group support and e x t e n s i v e m o d e l l i n g by u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l . Inmates appear to d e v e l o p t h e i r student r o l e s g r a d u a l l y r a t h e r 19 than i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y , as they become i n v o l v e d i n the program. The a l t e r n a t i v e academic community p r o v i d e s them with o p p o r t u n i t i e s to p r a c t i c e student r o l e s , r e c e i v e feedback and r e i n f o r c e m e n t , and d e a l w i t h the p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l t e n s i o n s t h e i r c h o i c e s e n t a i l . The p r o c e s s of t a k i n g on student r o l e s seems to be marked by s t a g e s which c h a r a c t e r i z e changing f e e l i n g s and e x p e c t a t i o n s inmates' h o l d toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. The study r e p o r t e d here i n v o l v e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of stages of r o l e development inmate-students e x p e r i e n c e , not j u s t as a c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s of a c q u i r i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s (Ross & Fabiano, 1981) but a l s o i n r e l a t i o n to the a u t h o r i t a r i a n c h a r a c t e r of p r i s o n s and the competing e x p e c t a t i o n s and norms of s i g n i f i c a n t s o c i a l groups and i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n the p r i s o n and academic communities. P r i s o n s p r e s e n t f o r m i d a b l e o b s t a c l e s to s u c c e s s f u l change- o r i e n t e d programs. S u c c e s s f u l i n i t i a t i v e s l i k e the SFU u n i v e r s i t y program must accommodate the impact of p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n on the s o c i a l e c o l o g y of i n d i v i d u a l s and groups w i t h i n t h e i r domains. The l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to the SFU u n i v e r s i t y program l a c k s a comprehensive e x p l a n a t i o n of how changes i n the p r e v a i l i n g s o c i a l ecology of the p r i s o n are a c h i e v e d . The study r e p o r t e d here i n v o l v e d development of a t h e o r e t i c a l l y grounded e x p l a n a t i o n of inmate-students' changing r o l e s and accompanying f e e l i n g s and e x p e c t a t i o n s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program and p r i s o n . 20 Purposes of the Study Inmate-students' i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h p r i s o n and academic environments p r o v i d e d a c o n t e x t f o r t h i s study, whose purposes were t h r e e f o l d : 1. E x p l i c a t e a t h e o r e t i c a l model to i d e n t i f y student r o l e s (and a s s o c i a t e d f e e l i n g s t a t e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s ) o c c u p i e d by inmates who p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program. 2. O p e r a t i o n a l i z e the model with expert judges and inmates. 3. Examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s c o r e s o b t a i n e d from o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the model and v a r i o u s s o c i o - demographic and p r i s o n - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s . The purposes were accomplished by (1) u t i l i z i n g r o l e theory as a framework t o d e v e l o p a model, (2) o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the model with i n p u t from expert judges, and (3) c o n d u c t i n g a study w i t h inmate-students. Before d e s c r i b i n g the study procedures i t i s n e cessary to review l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g t o the s o c i a l e c o l o g y of p r i s o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the " d e p r i v a t i o n " and " i m p o r t a t i o n " views of inmate s o c i e t y and behaviour. 21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW S u c c e s s f u l c o r r e c t i o n a l i n i t i a t i v e s such as the SFU u n i v e r s i t y program engage the s o c i a l e c o l o g y of the p r i s o n i n a number of ways: The program approach i s based on a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g or e d u c a t i o n a l model. Environmental f a c t o r s which support d e l i n q u e n t behaviour or prevent p r o s o c i a l a d a p t a t i o n are n e u t r a l i z e d . The o f f e n d e r ' s peer group i s n e u t r a l i z e d or i s r e - m o b i l i z e d as a t h e r a p e u t i c f o r c e . Program p e r s o n n e l p r o v i d e p r o s o c i a l m o d e l l i n g and r e i n f o r c e m e n t . O f f e n d e r s are a c t i v e l y engaged i n v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of the program. (Ross & Fabiano, 1981; 1983a) T h i s c hapter w i l l review s a l i e n t l i t e r a t u r e on the o r i g i n s and s t r u c t u r e of p r i s o n e c o l o g y . Prominently f e a t u r e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e on inmate s o c i a l systems are d i s c u s s i o n s of r e f e r e n c e groups, t y p o l o g i e s of inmate r o l e s and d i s t i n c t i o n s between " d e p r i v a t i o n " and " i m p o r t a t i o n " views of inmate s o c i e t y and beh a v i o u r . Views of the Inmate S o c i a l System The inmate s o c i a l system i s an important element of p r i s o n l i f e , an i n t e g r a l p a r t of p r i s o n c u l t u r e . The inmate s o c i a l 22 system i s the r e p o s i t o r y of inmate norms and t r a d i t i o n s that e x i s t i n c o u n t e r p o i n t to p r i s o n a u t h o r i t y . G r o s s e r contends t h a t membership i n the s o c i a l system i n f l u e n c e s an i n d i v i d u a l inmate's response to c o r r e c t i o n a l programs. The r o l e of the inmate s o c i a l system i s f a r more s i g n i f i c a n t and e x e r t s f a r deeper i n f l u e n c e on the p e r s o n a l i t y of i t s members than i s i m p l i e d by the s u p e r f i c i a l n o t i o n t h a t c r i m i n a l s teach each other bad h a b i t s . . . . T r e a t m e n t o r i e n t a t i o n and reform have to reckon w i t h the p r i s o n e r as a group member and a l l t h a t t h i s e n t a i l s (1968, p. 23). I n s o f a r as the p r i s o n i s an i s o l a t e d s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e d around p r i n c i p l e s of c o n t r o l , d i s c u s s i o n of the inmate s o c i a l system must c o n s i d e r i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s . G r o s s e r (1968) a s s e r t s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s and inmates t y p i f i e s a " r u l i n g c a s t e " and " s u b o r d i n a t e c a s t e " r e s p e c t i v e l y . S i m i l a r l y , Thomas and Pete r s o n (1977) made a d i s t i n c t i o n between the "haves" ( s t a f f ) and "have-nots" ( i n m a t e s ) . G r o s s e r (1968) e l a b o r a t e d on the n o t i o n of c a s t e - l i k e d i f f e r e n c e s between inmates and s t a f f by o b s e r v i n g t h a t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r v e r t i c a l m o b i l i t y a c r o s s c a s t e l i n e s do not e x i s t i n p r i s o n . Thomas and Peterson (1977) contend t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g r e c e n t c h a l l e n g e s to the power of p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s , even the most mundane inmate a c t i v i t i e s remain s u b j e c t to o f f i c i a l d i c t a t e . T h i s view of the d i f f e r e n t s t a t u s e s f o r s t a f f and inmates i s c o n s i s t e n t with a p o r t r a y a l of p r i s o n s as " t o t a l " i n s t i t u t i o n s . Goffman s u c c i n c t l y d e f i n e s t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : The c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of t o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s can be 23 d e s c r i b e d as a breakdown of the b a r r i e r s o r d i n a r i l y s e p a r a t i n g . . . . spheres of l i f e . F i r s t , a l l a s p e c t s of l i f e are conducted i n the same p l a c e and under the same s i n g l e a u t h o r i t y . Second, each phase of the member's d a i l y a c t i v i t y i s c a r r i e d on i n the immediate company of a l a r g e number of o t h e r s , a l l of whom are t r e a t e d a l i k e and r e q u i r e d to do the same t h i n g t o g e t h e r . T h i r d , a l l phases of the day's a c t i v i t i e s are t i g h t l y s cheduled, with one a c t i v i t y l e a d i n g at a pr e a r r a n g e d time i n t o the next, and the whole sequence of a c t i v i t i e s being imposed from above through a system of e x p l i c i t formal r u l i n g s and by a body of o f f i c i a l s . F i n a l l y , the c o n t e n t s of the v a r i o u s e n f o r c e d a c t i v i t i e s a re brought t o g e t h e r as p a r t s of a s i n g l e o v e r - a l l r a t i o n a l p l a n p u r p o r t e d l y d e s i g n e d to f u l f i l l the o f f i c a l aims of the i n s t i t u t i o n (1961, p. 17). In t o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , the s p l i t between s t a f f and inmates i s f r e q u e n t l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h o s t i l e s t e r e o t y p i n g . R e f e r r i n g to the Canadian f e d e r a l c o r r e c t i o n a l system, Eichman observed t h a t o f f i c i a l s view " . . . v i r t u a l l y a l l c o n v i c t s as more or l e s s dangerous, u n t r u s t w o r t h y and/or too immature t o f u n c t i o n without t i g h t s e c u r i t y " (1981, p. 6 ) . T h i s k i n d of s t e r e o t y p i n g has f u r t h e r consequences f o r the d i s p o s i t i o n of inmates once they are taken i n t o the c o r r e c t i o n a l system. Once c o n v i c t e d , the Canadian f e d e r a l o f f e n d e r i s twice as l i k e l y as h i s c o u n t e r p a r t s i n the U.S.A. to be c l a s s i f i e d t o a maximum s e c u r i t y i n s t i t u t i o n (Eichman, 1981). In a d d i t i o n to h o l d i n g i n c r e a s i n g numbers of p r i s o n e r s r e l a t i v e t o minimum s e c u r i t y , maximum s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s have i n f l u e n c e d medium s e c u r i t y i n s t i t u t i o n s to a c q u i r e s i m i l a r a t t r i b u t e s such as peepholes, i n c r e a s e d i n t e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e and armed guards ( G o s s e l i n , 1982). To the ex t e n t t h a t inmates are p r e s e n t e d with an a u t h o r i t a r i a n p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n and a c a s t e - l i k e , a n t a g o n i s t i c schism between themselves and s t a f f , they are l i k e l y to make 24 o p p o s i t i o n a l responses to t h e i r imprisonment. C o l l e c t i v e inmate responses to the shared f a c t of t h e i r imprisonment are shaped by the e x i s t e n c e of an inmate code which d e f i n e s the p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s of behaviour (Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977). D e v i a t i o n s from the code r e s u l t i n inmate imposed s a n c t i o n s , so most inmates r e s p e c t and d e f e r t o the code even though they may not a c t i v e l y promote i t . Elements of the code i n c l u d e : O p p o s i t i o n to the v a l u e s of c o n v e n t i o n a l s o c i e t y , and to p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s . No s u p p o r t i v e or n o n e x p l o i t i v e l i a i s o n w i t h p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s . S t a t u s and p r e s t i g e accorded to inmates most v i s i b l y opposed to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . P o s i t i v e v a l u i n g of p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e and s t r e n g t h , e x p l o i t a t i v e sex r e l a t i o n s . P r e d a t o r y a t t i t u d e s toward money and p r o p e r t y . Strong emphasis on in-group l o y a l t y and s o l i d a r i t y . A g g r e s s i v e and e x p l o i t a t i v e r e l a t i o n s with c o n v e n t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d out-groups ( O h l i n , 1956, pp. 28-29). Sykes and Messinger c l a s s i f i e d the t e n e t s of the inmate code i n t o f i v e major groups: 1. Don't i n t e r f e r e w i t h inmate i n t e r e s t s - be l o y a l t o your c l a s s - the cons. 2. Don't l o s e your head - don't argue or q u a r r e l with f e l l o w p r i s o n e r s . 3. Don't e x p l o i t inmates - by means of f o r c e , f r a u d or c h i c a n e r y . 4. Don't weaken - show courage, m a i n t a i n i n t e g r i t y i n the face of p r i v a t i o n . 5. Don't be a sucker - don't a c c o r d p r e s t i g e or 25 r e s p e c t to p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s or the world they stand f o r , don't adopt v a l u e s of hard work and submission to r o u t i n e (1960, pp. 6-9). While t h e r e i s g e n e r a l agreement about the e x i s t e n c e of an inmate code, t h e r e i s debate over the extent to which i t i s caused by p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n or i s s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e d i c t the v a r i e t y and degree of inmate a d a p t a t i o n t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n . These i s s u e s form the two p r i n c i p a l t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s of inmate s o c i e t y - the " D e p r i v a t i o n Model" and the "Importation Model." The D e p r i v a t i o n Model The d e p r i v a t i o n model has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a " s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e " i n which an o p p o s i t i o n a l inmate code and s u b c u l t u r e a re viewed as a response t o p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n (Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977). Much of the most important l i t e r a t u r e on the d e p r i v a t i o n model was w r i t t e n i n the 1960's and r e t a i n s i t s r e l e v a n c e . These authors have been c i t e d i n the e x p l i c a t i o n of d e p r i v a t i o n and i m p o r t a t i o n models. Proponents of the d e p r i v a t i o n model have focused on t h r e e areas of c o n c e r n : 1. P r o c e s s i n g and i n d u c t i o n procedures t h a t c o n t r i b u t e to the "homogenization" of inmates; 2. The problems and d e p r i v a t i o n s of confinement t h a t are e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y a j o i n t product of the p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n and the p o s i t i o n h e l d by inmates w i t h i n t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n ; 3. The c o l l e c t i v e or s u b c u l t u r a l response t h a t inmates make t o t h e i r common problems (Thomas & Pe t e r s o n , 1977, p. 48). The p r o c e s s i n g and i n d u c t i o n of inmates and the 26 d e p r i v a t i o n s of confinement they e x p e r i e n c e are a h i g h l y r e g u l a t e d p r o c e s s of s t a t u s a t t r i b u t i o n or d e g r a d a t i o n ( G r o s s e r , 1968; D a v i s , 1976; Cloward, 1960). Goffman (1961) d e s c r i b e s the stages of the d e g r a d a t i o n p r o c e s s i n terms of a t e n s i o n between s t a t u s a t t r i b u t i o n s a r i s i n g from an inmate's c i v i l i a n world and those imposed w i t h i n the p r i s o n . I t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of inmates t h a t they come to the i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h a " p r e s e n t i n g c u l t u r e " . . . . d e r i v e d from a home world -- a way of l i f e and a round of a c t i v i t i e s taken f o r g r a n t e d u n t i l the p o i n t of admission to the i n s t i t u t i o n . . . . W h a t e v e r the s t a b i l i t y of the r e c r u i t ' s p e r s o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t was p a r t of a wider framework lodged i n h i s c i v i l environment — a round of e x p e r i e n c e t h a t c o n f i r m e d a t o l e r a b l e c o n c e p t i o n of s e l f , and a l l o w e d f o r a set of d e f e n s i v e maneuvers, e x e r c i s e d at h i s own d i s c r e t i o n , f o r c o p i n g with c o n f l i c t s , d i s c r e d i t i n g s , and f a i l u r e s . . . . T h e r e c r u i t , then, comes i n t o the e s t a b l i s h m e n t w i t h a c o n c e p t i o n of h i m s e l f made p o s s i b l e by c e r t a i n s t a b l e s o c i a l arrangements i n h i s home world. Upon e n t r a n c e , he i s immediately s t r i p p e d of the support p r o v i d e d by these arrangements... he begins a s e r i e s of abasements, d e g r a d a t i o n s , h u m i l i a t i o n s , and p r o f a n a t i o n s of s e l f . H i s s e l f i s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y , i f o f t e n u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y , m o r t i f i e d (1961, pp. 22-23). Once i n v e s t e d with a degraded s t a t u s of " c r i m i n a l " and "non-person" ( S a r b i n & A l l e n , 1968; E k s t e d t & G r i f f i t h s , 1984), p r i s o n e r s e x p e r i e n c e a host of "pains of imprisonment" i n c l u d i n g p h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n from s o c i e t y , d e p r i v a t i o n of goods and s e r v i c e s , d e p r i v a t i o n s of freedom of movement, h e t e r o s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , autonomy, s t a t u s and s e c u r i t y (Sykes & Messinger, 1960, pp. 13-16). A c c o r d i n g to the d e p r i v a t i o n model, these " f a c t s " of confinement are s u f f i c i e n t l y p o w e r f u l to d i s p l a c e o t h e r sources of l i f e e x p e r i e n c e and h i s t o r y from the o u t s i d e , l e a v i n g p r i s o n e r s i s o l a t e d as a group at the bottom of the p r i s o n 27 F i g u r e 1. O p p o s i t i o n a l S o c i a l Ecology In The D e p r i v a t i o n Model o r g a n i z a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y . The c u l t u r a l vacuum thus c r e a t e d impels the growth of an inmate s o c i e t y which i s o p p o s i t i o n a l i n nature t o the formal g o a l s of p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s and s o c i e t y at l a r g e . F i g u r e 1 shows i n t e r a c t i o n s among and between inmates and p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h i s diagram does not show a l l of the dynamics of the d e p r i v a t i o n model, but r a t h e r t h a t inmates are presumed to oppose any e x p r e s s i o n of p r i s o n a u t h o r i t y . In F i g u r e 1, the jagged l i n e s between the arrows ( r e p r e s e n t i n g s e p a r a t e g o a l s of inmates and a u t h o r i t i e s ) suggest a n t i p a t h y . 28 The growth of the inmate s u b c u l t u r e or s o c i e t y , according to the d e p r i v a t i o n model, i s best e x p l a i n e d as a process of " p r i s o n i z a t i o n " which Clemmer (1958, p. 299) d e f i n e d as "the t a k i n g on i n g r e a t e r or l e s s degree of the folkways, mores, customs, and general c u l t u r e of the p e n i t e n t i a r y . " The key f e a t u r e of the d e p r i v a t i o n model's view of p r i s o n i z a t i o n i s that v i r t u a l l y a l l p r i s o n e r s are l i k e l y t o become part of the inmate s u b c u l t u r e to v a r y i n g degrees, some more than others according to f a c t o r s such as sentence l e n g t h , d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n , p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s , kind and extent of contact s u s t a i n e d w i t h the o u t s i d e and so on. Inmate s o c i e t y , with i t s p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s , i s the c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of p r i s o n l i f e t hat a l l inmates, a c c o r d i n g t o Roebuck (1963), have to engage i n to e x p l o i t or face being e x p l o i t e d by i t i n t u r n . A major area of study on p r i s o n e r s ' a s s i m i l a t i o n i n t o inmate s o c i e t y looks at the development of s o c i a l r o l e types which accord d i f f e r e n t i a l s t a t u s to t h e i r occupants. Sykes and Messinger (i960) viewed the development of d i s t i n c t s o c i a l r o l e s as a f u n c t i o n of group cohesion, or inmate s o l i d a r i t y , which m i t i g a t e s to some extent the "pains of imprisonment". P r i s o n e r s enact the v a r i o u s r o l e s , or are assigned a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e , based on the extent to which they exemplify the i d e a l s of the inmate code, e s p e c i a l l y the n o t i o n of inmate s o l i d a r i t y (Sykes & Messinger, 1960; Kassebaum, Ward & W i l n e r , 1971). One of the most notable d e p i c t i o n s of inmate s o c i a l r o l e types was devised by Sykes and Messinger (1960). They d e s c r i b e d 29 a v a r i e t y of s o c i a l r o l e s l a b e l l e d i n a r g o t or s l a n g terms. Among them i s the " r a t " who b e t r a y s another p r i s o n e r ; the "tough" who i s a g g r e s s i v e , quarrelsome and f i g h t s r e a d i l y f o r no obvious cause; the "merchant" who uses m a n i p u l a t i o n and t r i c k e r y r a t h e r than f o r c e to e x p l o i t other inmates, u s u a l l y i n v o l v i n g the s a l e or t r a d e of s c a r c e goods; the "weakling" who shows he cannot cope w i t h the r i g o r s of p r i s o n ; the "wolf" or " f a g " who becomes a c t i v e l y or p a s s i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n homosexual r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; the "square John" who i s seen to conform to the v a l u e s and norms of p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s ; and the " r i g h t guy" who i s supposed to be the most l o y a l t o other p r i s o n e r s , the most s t e a d f a s t i n h o l d i n g to the v a l u e s of the inmate code i n o p p o s i t i o n to p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s (1960, pp. 9-11). Cloward (1960) proposed t h a t because s o c i e t y d e n i e s p r i s o n e r s means of a c c e s s to h i g h e r s t a t u s , the p r i s o n system r e c o g n i z e s the need to a l l o w inmates to e v o l v e means of r e s t o r i n g s t a t u s w i t h i n inmate s o c i e t y . By so doing, p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s ensure t h a t p o t e n t i a l l y d i s r u p t i v e behaviour becomes c h a n n e l l e d i n s t e a d i n t o a c q u i r i n g s t a t u s w i t h i n inmate s o c i e t y by o f f i c i a l l y t o l e r a t e d " i l l e g i t i m a t e means." The " i l l e g i t i m a t e o p p o r t u n i t y s t r u c t u r e s " c o r r e s p o n d to the i n f l u e n c e a s s o c i a t e d with the a r g o t s o c i a l r o l e t y p e s . Those p r i s o n e r s who become upwardly mobile through r o l e s l i k e the " r i g h t guy" or "merchant" h e l p to p r e s e r v e s t a b i l i t y i n p r i s o n so as to m a i n t a i n t h e i r s u p e r i o r s t a t u s . However i n t e r e s t i n g , these s o c i a l types are s t i l l undocumented i n the u n i v e r s a l i t y of t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on inmates. 30 A number of s t u d i e s have q u e s t i o n e d the u t i l i t y of s o c i a l r o l e types because of the d i f f i c u l t y of a c t u a l l y c l a s s i f y i n g inmates a c c o r d i n g t o the c a t e g o r i e s (Kassebaum, Ward, & W i l n e r , 1971; G l a s e r & S t r a t t o n , 1961). G l a s e r and S t r a t t o n (1961) observed t h a t a l i m i t a t i o n of s o c i a l r o l e t y p o l o g i e s r e s u l t s from t h e i r p o r t r a y a l of extreme r a t h e r than average r o l e s i n the inmate s o c i a l system. In e f f e c t , they are a b s t r a c t i o n s of inmate behaviour p e r c e i v e d to connote i n t e r e s t s and consequences i n r e l a t i o n to the inmate code and group s o l i d a r i t y . The I m p o r t a t i o n Model Proponents of the " i m p o r t a t i o n model" do not r e j e c t a l l the c l a i m s of the d e p r i v a t i o n ^model. The i m p o r t a t i o n model, a c c o r d i n g to Thomas and Peter s o n (1977), i s an " e x t e n s i o n " of the d e p r i v a t i o n model and should be seen as complementary r a t h e r than c o n t r a d i c t o r y . The p r i n c i p a l c r i t i c i s m of the d e p r i v a t i o n model i s t h a t i t i s too r e s t r i c t i v e i n s u g g e s t i n g t h a t inmate s o c i e t y emerges p r i m a r i l y as a d i r e c t response to the impact of p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n . Rather, i n a r g u i n g f o r the i m p o r t a t i o n model, Thomas and Peter s o n note t h a t "... inmates have a p a s t , a f u t u r e , and, not u n i m p o r t a n t l y , a pr e s e n t which i s not e x c l u s i v e l y t i e d to t h e i r p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the p r i s o n (1977, p. 56). Advocates of the i m p o r t a t i o n model look to e x t e r n a l and i n t r a - i n s t i t u t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s to a n a l y z e p r i s o n i z a t i o n and to seek p o s i t i v e r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n among inmates. E x t e r n a l 31 Figure 2. P r e - And P o s t - I n c a r c e r a t i o n Factors In The Importat ion Model i n f l u e n c e s take the form of p r e - p r i s o n ( p a s t ) , p r e s e n t and f u t u r e e x p e r i e n c e s . P r e - p r i s o n i n f l u e n c e s i n c l u d e s o c i a l c l a s s of o r i g i n and attainment and p r e v i o u s c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n s . Present i n f l u e n c e s are t h i n g s l i k e the number of l e t t e r s inmates 32 r e c e i v e per week and the q u a l i t y and frequency of c o n t a c t s they m a i n t a i n with o u t s i d e r e f e r e n c e groups or i n d i v i d u a l s . Future i n f l u e n c e s r e f e r to the concerns and u n d e r s t a n d i n g s inmates c o n s t r u c t around p o s t - r e l e a s e l i f e - c h a n c e s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s _ . E x t e r n a l or e x t r a - i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e to responses inmates make to p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n and the inmate code (Thomas, 1973; Thomas & P e t e r s o n , 1977; Garabedian, 1963; S a p s f o r d , 1978). F i g u r e 2 d e p i c t s the i n t r a and e x t r a - i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s of the i m p o r t a t i o n model. Inmates m a n i f e s t o p p o s i t i o n to a u t h o r i t y but the inmate s o c i a l system (shown as a c i r c l e w i t h spaces or gaps i n the c i r c u m f e r e n c e ) i s l e s s i n s u l a r than as shown i n F i g u r e 1. Pre- and p o s t - i n c a r c e r a t i o n f a c t o r s i n the o u t s i d e community are shown (with arrows) to a c t on inmates, o u t s i d e of the c o n t r o l e x e r c i s e d by the p r i s o n . The i m p o r t a t i o n model a l l o w s f o r both p r o s o c i a l and a n t i s o c i a l inmate a d a p t a t i o n as outcomes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h any of these f a c t o r s which may be under or o u t s i d e the c o n t r o l of p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s . Some r e s e a r c h e r s have compared the d e p r i v a t i o n model with a v a r i a n t of the i m p o r t a t i o n model, one that e v a l u a t e s the impact of p r e v i o u s l y h e l d c r i m i n a l v a l u e s on p r i s o n e r a d a p t a t i o n (Irwin & C r e s s e y , 1962; Cohen & T a y l o r , 1972; Kassebaum, Ward, & W i l n e r , 1971; Akers, G r u n i g e r , & Hayner, 1976; Hepburn & S t r a t t o n , 1977). These s t u d i e s g i v e q u a l i f i e d support f o r an i m p o r t a t i o n model. Garabedian (1963) e x p l o r e d the i n f l u e n c e of l e n g t h of time served and remaining to be s e r v e d on the degree of p r i s o n i z a t i o n . While Clemmer (1958) maintained t h a t v a r i a t i o n s 33 i n the degree of p r i s o n i z a t i o n from inmate to inmate were i n e v i t a b l e , the d e p r i v a t i o n model i m p l i e s t h a t p r i s o n i z a t i o n s h o u l d i n c r e a s e as a f u n c t i o n of time served a c r o s s a l l s o c i a l r o l e t y p e s . Garabedian (1963) measured the degree of p r i s o n i z a t i o n f o r th r e e s e p a r a t e groups of inmates i n one p r i s o n based on time se r v e d and time remaining to be s e r v e d . Inmates i n the " e a r l y phase" had s e r v e d l e s s than s i x months, those i n the "middle phase" had served more than s i x months but had more than s i x months remaining to be s e r v e d , and i n the " l a t e phase" inmates had l e s s than s i x months remaining (1963, p. 141). Garabedian found t h a t c o n f o r m i t y to s t a f f norms among most inmates i n the th r e e groups showed a c u r v i l i n e a r , or U-shaped " a d a p t i v e " p a t t e r n . Inmates i n the e a r l y phase were " p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y twice as l i k e l y t o conform to s t a f f norms as compared w i t h inmates i n the middle p e r i o d " (1963, p. 142). Moreover, t h i s p r o c e s s of p r i s o n i z a t i o n , t h a t i s , movement away from s t a f f norms t o inmate code norms, " i s r e v e r s e d as the inmate comes to the end of h i s p r i s o n c a r e e r " (p. 142). Garabedian's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e t u r n t o c o n f o r m i t y with s t a f f norms i n the l a t e phase as a n t i c i p a t o r y s o c i a l i z a t i o n t o e x t e r n a l groups and v a l u e s b u t t r e s s e s the c l a i m s of the i m p o r t a t i o n model. The u t i l i t y of the i m p o r t a t i o n model f o r t h i s study i s i t s e x p l i c a t i o n of f a c t o r s , beyond the c o n t r o l of p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s , t h a t i n f l u e n c e inmate a d a p t a t i o n to p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n and the inmate code. Inmates are a d u l t s . They r e l a t e t o t h e i r p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n i n a way t h a t r e f l e c t s t h e i r p r e p r i s o n 34 l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , t h e i r e x t r a - p r i s o n l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , t h e i r e x t r a - p r i s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and t h e i r p o s t - p r i s o n e x p e c t a t i o n s Most p r i s o n inmates do not become co m p l e t e l y or u n i f o r m l y a s s i m i l a t e d i n t o the inmate s o c i e t y R e s o c i a l i z a t i o n can be e f f i c i e n t l y developed even i n the c o n t e x t of a c u s t o d i a l l y o r i e n t e d maximum-security p r i s o n (Thomas, 1973, pp. 20-21). The i m p o r t a t i o n model r e c o g n i z e s t h a t inmates have the o p p o r t u n i t y to develop r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h groups, l i k e the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y community, o u t s i d e the d i r e c t c o n t r o l of p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s . Moreover, such r e l a t i o n s h i p s suggest p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r d e v e l o p i n g r o l e s i n a d d i t i o n t o or i n s t e a d of those a s s o c i a t e d with the inmate code. In any case, proponents of the d e p r i v a t i o n and i m p o r t a t i o n models concur on the importance of v i e w i n g inmates as members of groups and of the s a l i e n c y of u t i l i z i n g s o c i a l r o l e theory to a n a l y z e the inmate s o c i a l system. In Chapter 3, the s o c i a l e c o l o g y of the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y community w i l l be a n a l y z e d u s i n g s o c i a l r o l e t h e o r y and a model form u l a t e d to e x p l a i n changes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h inmate p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the u n i v e r s i t y program. The model of r o l e development assumes t h a t the p r i s o n e c o l o g y i n f l u e n c e s inmate behaviour i n the manner proposed i n the " d e p r i v a t i o n " p o s i t i o n and i n c o r p o r a t e s the " i m p o r t a t i o n " premise t h a t e x t r a - i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e s determine behaviour as w e l l . 35 CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK T h i s c h a p t e r o u t l i n e s a c o n c e p t u a l framework based on r o l e t h e o r y , from which a model of r o l e development i n inmate- st u d e n t s emerged. D i s c u s s i o n c e n t r e s on assumptions and major concepts i n r o l e theory, c r i t e r i a of the model, and the model's f i v e s t a g e s . G e n e r a l Assumptions of Role Theory Role t h e o r y i s w e l l - s u i t e d to the a n a l y s i s of p r i s o n environments. W i t h i n these t o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s the r o l e s f o r s t a f f and inmates are r i g i d l y p r e s c r i b e d and s t a t u s i s accorded t o i n d i v i d u a l s on the b a s i s of them. In the case of inmates c r e a t i n g "new" r o l e s f o r themselves as s t u d e n t s i n the u n i v e r s i t y program, r o l e t h e o r y p r o v i d e s a r a t i o n a l e f o r unde r s t a n d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s i n g from the competing demands of " p r i s o n " and " e d u c a t i o n . " The a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g r o l e of inmate i s c h a l l e n g e d by the e d u c a t i o n a l environment with i t s emphasis on democratic s t u d e n t - i n s t r u c t o r and s t u d e n t - s t u d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . There are many v a r i a t i o n s of s o c i a l r o l e t h e o r y , but S a r b i n and A l l e n advanced a v e r s i o n with p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e to the SFU p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program (see a l s o S a r b i n & Schiebe, 1983). For them " r o l e " i s a t h e a t r i c a l metaphor, " . . . i n t e n d e d to denote 36 t h a t conduct adheres t o c e r t a i n ' p a r t s ' (or p o s i t i o n s ) r a t h e r than to the p l a y e r s who read or r e c i t e them" (1968, p. 489). Thus, i n a p r i s o n c o n t e x t , i n d i v i d u a l s m a n i f e s t conduct a c c o r d i n g to the primary p a r t they p l a y at any g i v e n time; inmate, guard, or s t u d e n t . But each p l a y e r m a i n t a i n s a l a r g e r s e l f - i d e n t i t y than i s accounted f o r by any one r o l e . S a r b i n and A l l e n ' s p r i n c i p a l concept i s " r o l e enactment", which r e f e r s to the o v e r t s o c i a l conduct of a person i n one or more r o l e s . They pose a number of q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g to r o l e enactment: What are the p o s i t i o n s of the o t h e r s w i t h whom the a c t o r i s performing? How e f f e c t i v e i s the a c t o r i n v a l i d a t i n g the occupancy of h i s s t a t u s ? What i s the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the o t h e r s to the enactment - do they p r o v i d e d i s c r i m i n a t i v e cues which l e a d the a c t o r to s e l e c t another r o l e performance? (1968, p. 490) Role t h e o r y , w i t h i t s focus on r o l e enactment, " . . . b r i d g e s the gap between the i n d i v i d u a l and the group, between p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n " (1968, p. 490). They propose t h r e e c r i t e r i a f o r making i n f e r e n c e s about observed or r e p o r t e d s o c i a l behaviours — the " a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s " , " p r o p r i e t y " , and " c o n v i n c i n g n e s s " of the enactment: 1. Is the conduct a p p r o p r i a t e t o the s o c i a l p o s i t i o n g r a n t e d t o or a t t a i n e d by the a c t o r ? That i s , do h i s performances i n d i c a t e t h a t the a c t o r has taken i n t o account the e c o l o g i c a l c o n t e x t i n which the b e h a v i o r o c c u r s ? In s h o r t , has he s e l e c t e d the r i g h t r o l e ? 2. Is the enactment proper? That i s , does the o v e r t behavior meet the normative standards which serve as v a l u a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a f o r the o b s e r v e r ? Is the performance to be e v a l u a t e d as good or bad? 3. Is the enactment c o n v i n c i n g ? That i s , does the enactment l e a d the o b s e r v e r to d e c l a r e unequi- v o c a l l y t h a t the incumbent i s l e g i t i m a t e l y 37 occupying the p o s i t i o n ? (1968, p. 490) S a r b i n and A l l e n c o n s i d e r t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l dimensions of r o l e enactments to determine t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , p r o p r i e t y and c o n v i n c i n g n e s s : (1) number of r o l e s , (2) org a n i s m i c involvement ( e f f o r t ) , (3) preemptiveness (time) (1968, p. 491). Number of r o l e s r e f e r s t o the v a r i e t y or r e p e r t o i r e of s o c i a l r o l e s t h a t a r e not onl y w e l l - p r a c t i c e d and r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to the a c t o r , but s o c i a l l y r e a l i s t i c as w e l l . They contend that without a v a r i e t y of such r o l e s t o c a l l on, a person i s l e s s w e l l p r e p a r e d than the s k i l l e d r o l e - t a k e r t o meet new and s t r e s s f u l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . Inmates have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as l a c k i n g an adequate range of responses (both c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o u r a l ) t o the economic and s o c i a l demands of s o c i e t y (Duguid, 1981a; Ross & Fabiano, 1981). T h e i r r e p e r t o i r e of r o l e s has more to do with s u r v i v a l i n t h a t s p e c i a l i z e d environment than w i t h r e a l i s t i c s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o u t s i d e of p r i s o n (Davis, 1976; Garabedian, 1963; Roebuck, 1963; Sykes & Messinger, 1960; Thomas & F o s t e r , 1976). Thus, the development and p r a c t i c e of student r o l e s w i t h i n an academic community i n p r i s o n i m p l i e s an i n c r e a s e d c a p a c i t y f o r inmates t o respond w i t h behaviour a c c e p t a b l e to s o c i e t y (Ross & Fabiano, 1983a; Ross, 1980). The student r o l e encompasses a range of s u b - r o l e s such as l e a r n e r , c o l l e a g u e , r e s e a r c h e r , group member, h e l p e r . I f o f f e n d e r s are put i n p r i s o n not j u s t as punishment, but f o r more punishment, t h e i r involvement i n student r o l e s l a c k s l e g i t i m a c y because inmates are not, a c c o r d i n g to t h i s view, 38 supposed to enjoy any aspect of p r i s o n . On the other hand, i f i t i s important f o r inmates to be able to develop s o c i a l l y r e a l i s t i c and acceptable behaviours, then inmate involvement i n programs which promote s o c i a l l y p o s i t i v e values of mainstream s o c i e t y i s " a p p r o p r i a t e " and "proper." A second dimension i s the "organismic involvement" or i n t e n s i t y of r o l e enactments. Organismic involvement r e f e r s to the degrees of e f f o r t and v i s c e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a r o l e enactment by a person. S a r b i n and A l l e n suggest as an example of low involvement a t i c k e t s e l l e r i n a neighbourhood cinema d u r i n g a slow p e r i o d of business (1968, p. 492). At the high end of involvement i s the quarterback's r o l e during a championship f o o t b a l l game. Great degrees of e f f o r t are i n v o l v e d through muscular e x e r t i o n , autonomic nervous system a c t i v a t i o n ( v i s c e r a l ) , and involvement of the s e l f i n the r o l e . S a rbin and A l l e n a s s e r t t h a t "even the c a s u a l observer can i d e n t i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r o l e enactment along an i n t e n s i t y dimension" (1968, p. 492). The u n i v e r s i t y r e q u i r e s inmates to maintain a minimum standard of performance i n order to be allowed to remain i n the program. As w i t h students everywhere, e f f o r t i s i n v o l v e d i n meeting and exceeding t h a t standard. Those who perform at or beyond the minimum standard are enacting the student r o l e w i t h p r o p r i e t y . There are other i n d i c a t o r s of involvement i n the student r o l e . These provide i n s i g h t s i n t o how i n v o l v e d c e r t a i n inmates want to be. An awards ceremony i s h e l d at the end of each term i n each of the p r i s o n s where the u n i v e r s i t y program operates. 39 At these award ceremonies inmates t y p i c a l l y e x h i b i t p r i d e at r e c e i v i n g awards f o r coursework. T h e i r p e e r s , by responding with u n r e s t r a i n e d applause, r e i n f o r c e the l e g i t i m a c y of s c h o l a r l y e f f o r t . I n s t r u c t o r s t a l k e d of the p e r s i s t e n c e and depth of m o t i v a t i o n of t h e i r s t u d e n t s . D u r i n g the Matsqui p r i s o n r i o t of 1981 s t u d e n t s i n the u n i v e r s i t y program d i s s u a d e d r i o t e r s from b u r n i n g the u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y . To oppose the w i l l of inmate r i o t e r s i n order to p r o t e c t an important symbol of the u n i v e r s i t y program demonstrated how i n v o l v e d with the program some inmate-students had become. The awards ceremonies, the Matsqui r i o t , and the e v a l u a t i o n by u n i v e r s i t y i n s t r u c t o r s a l l support c o n j e c t u r e which h o l d s t h a t inmates become c o n v i n c i n g l y i n v o l v e d w i t h student r o l e enactments. Moreover, a r e c e n t survey i n v o l v i n g 11 of the 16 i n s t r u c t o r s i n the SFU u n i v e r s i t y program concluded t h a t most i n s t r u c t o r s viewed inmate-students as h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d to engage i n e d u c a t i o n (Duguid, 1985). A t h i r d dimension of r o l e enactment i s the preemptiveness of r o l e s — "the amount of time a person spends i n one r o l e r e l a t i v e to the amount of time he spends i n o t h e r r o l e s " (1968, p. 496). In p r i s o n , o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o spend time i n a student r o l e are r e g u l a t e d by p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s . Furthermore, a u t h o r i t i e s t r e a t time spent a t t e n d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l c o u r s e s as a work placement f o r which inmates are p a i d . But the pay s c a l e f o r e d u c a t i o n i s lower than f o r o t h e r p r i s o n work assignments such as i n maintenance, k i t c h e n and l a u n d r y . Moreover, inmates i n the u n i v e r s i t y program are now r e q u i r e d to pay a token fee 40 f o r each course they take. Yet inmates choose to be s t u d e n t s d e s p i t e f i n a n c i a l d i s i n c e n t i v e s . Concepts i n Role Theory S a r b i n and A l l e n t r e a t r o l e enactment as a dependent v a r i a b l e w i t h judgements about i t s a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , p r o p r i e t y and c o n v i n c i n g n e s s s u b j e c t to the i n f l u e n c e s of a number of independent v a r i a b l e s . The f i r s t of these independent v a r i a b l e s i s the concept of r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s — the b e l i e f s , e x p e c t a n c i e s , " r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s , d u t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s of any occupant of a s o c i a l p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o persons occupying other p o s i t i o n s i n the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e " (1968, p. 497). As such, r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s set the normative l i m i t s f o r s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r . They operate as p e r s o n a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l i m p e r a t i v e s to a person's conduct and c o g n i t i o n w h i l e e n a c t i n g a r o l e . D i f f e r e n t r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and i m p e r a t i v e s f o r conduct a r i s e from inmate and student r o l e s w i t h i n a p r i s o n c o n t e x t , i n p a r t because the complementary r o l e s and the people who occupy them are d i f f e r e n t . For i n s t a n c e , c o r r e c t i o n a l employees enact r o l e s of "keeper" or "guard." Role e x p e c t a t i o n s encompassed i n inmates' r e l a t i o n s h i p s with them are imbued wi t h the antagonism i n h e r e n t t o the p r i s o n system. On the o t h e r hand, the r o l e of i n s t r u c t o r i s complementary to a student r o l e . U n i v e r s i t y i n s t r u c t o r s are employed by u n i v e r s i t i e s , not the c o r r e c t i o n a l s e r v i c e . Role e x p e c t a t i o n s between i n s t r u c t o r s and students are not encumbered by the t r a d i t i o n a l s u s p i c i o n t h a t e x i s t s between 41 c o r r e c t i o n a l s t a f f and inmates. Role e x p e c t a t i o n s between occupants of complementary s o c i a l p o s i t i o n s are mutually determined. Thus, S a r b i n and A l l e n contend that conformity to c e r t a i n r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s may occur even i n the absence of strong commitment to a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e because of a person's s e n s i t i v i t y t o other peoples' r e a c t i o n s (1968, p. 502). They use the concepts of r o l e c l a r i t y and r o l e l o c a t i o n to f u r t h e r e x p l a i n the mutually-determined behaviour of persons i n complementary s o c i a l r o l e s . Role c l a r i t y r e f e r s to the " d i f f e r e n c e between the optimal amount of i n f o r m a t i o n needed about r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and the amount a c t u a l l y a v a i l a b l e to a person" (1968, p. 503). Where a l a c k of c l a r i t y i n r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s e x i s t s , a person has d i f f i c u l t y knowing which r o l e enactments are a p p r o p r i a t e and what the complementary conduct of others should be. For both inmate and student r o l e s i n a p r i s o n c o n t e x t , r o l e c l a r i t y i s p r e s c r i b e d at a f a i r l y e x p l i c i t l e v e l , although c o n f l i c t s between r o l e s may occur. Role l o c a t i o n r e f e r s to the i n f e r e n t i a l process whereby a person's "choice of r o l e f o l l o w s from the l o c a t i o n of s e l f i n the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , such l o c a t i o n being determined c o n j o i n t l y w i t h l o c a t i n g the p o s i t i o n of the other" (1968, p. 507). Thus, i n the context of p r i s o n l i f e , l o c a t i n g the p o s i t i o n of a CSC employee as "cop" or "keeper" w i l l l e a d an inmate to choose a complementary inmate r o l e . On the other hand, l o c a t i n g the p o s i t i o n of a u n i v e r s i t y employee as " i n s t r u c t o r " c r e a t e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of an inmate choosing other than an inmate r o l e , 42 such as " s t u d e n t . " S p e c i f i c r o l e enactments may a r i s e from the folkways or mores a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . These are c a l l e d r o l e demands. An inmate e x p e r i e n c e s i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e s to conform to an a c c e p t a b l e range of inmate r o l e s or f a c e the consequences. However, th e r e a r e r o l e demands a s s o c i a t e d with a student r o l e w i t h i n an academic community e s t a b l i s h e d by the u n i v e r s i t y and these demands h e l p to impel inmates who p a r t i c i p a t e i n the program i n t o e n a c t i n g a c o n v i n c i n g student r o l e . S a r b i n and A l l e n m a i n t a i n t h a t how w e l l a person enacts a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e depends not o n l y on v a r i a b l e s l i k e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , r o l e l o c a t i o n , r o l e demands and s e l f - r o l e congruence, but a l s o on those r o l e s k i l l s p o s s e s s e d by the person. Role s k i l l s " r e f e r to those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s possessed by the i n d i v i d u a l which r e s u l t i n e f f e c t i v e and c o n v i n c i n g r o l e enactment: a p t i t u d e , a p p r o p r i a t e e x p e r i e n c e , and s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g " (1968, p. 514). A c c o r d i n g l y , people may vary w i d e l y i n the c o n v i n c i n g n e s s , a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , and p r o p r i e t y of s i m i l a r r o l e s because of d i f f e r e n t i a l r o l e s k i l l s . While r o l e s k i l l s are l e a r n e d l a r g e l y through s o c i a l i z a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e s of e a r l y l i f e , they may be enhanced i n l a t e r l i f e through a p p r o p r i a t e t r a i n i n g as i n the case of the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program. Role s k i l l s may be d i v i d e d i n t o c o g n i t i v e and motor s k i l l s , each of which d i v i d e s i n t o g e n e r a l and r o l e - s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . G e neral c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s i n c l u d e the a b i l i t y t o make a c c u r a t e i n f e r e n c e s i n a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n , to take the r o l e of 43 the o t h e r i n both c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e terms, and may i n c l u d e g e n e r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y (1968, p. 515). I t i s the apparent l a c k of development i n these g e n e r a l c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s among inmates t h a t p r o v i d e s a focus f o r the u n i v e r s i t y program. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s view i s the n o t i o n of e l i m i n a t i n g or r e d u c i n g c o g n i t i v e " d e f i c i t s " through a p p r o p r i a t e t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n c e n t r e d on a l i b e r a l a r t s c u r r i c u l u m . Ross and Fabiano's (1981; 1983; 1983a - see Chapter 1) c l a i m s c o n c e r n i n g developmental d e l a y s i n inmates' impersonal ( i . e . g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e ) and i n t e r p e r s o n a l ( i . e . s o c i a l s k i l l s ) c o g n i t i o n match v e r y c l o s e l y these a s p e c t s of S a r b i n and A l l e n ' s r o l e t h e o r y . G e n e r a l motor s k i l l s r e f e r to the body movements, p o s t u r e , f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n and tone of . v o i c e r e q u i r e d f o r many r o l e enactments. For the student r o l e s of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study, an average l e v e l of motor a b i l i t y i s p r o b a b l y s u f f i c i e n t to a l l o w inmates to f u l l y enact those r o l e s . For the study and enactment of drama a h i g h e r l e v e l of motor a b i l i t y i s a r e q u i s i t e f o r f u l l enactment. Concerning s e l f - r o l e congruence, S a r b i n and A l l e n contend t h a t : S o c i a l r o l e s are p e r c e i v e d and enacted a g a i n s t the background of the s e l f . The term ' s e l f r e f e r s t o the i n f e r e n c e s the person makes about the r e f e r e n t ' I ' . I t i s a c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e and d e r i v e s from pa s t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h other persons and w i t h o b j e c t s . We d e f i n e the s e l f as the e x p e r i e n c e of i d e n t i t y a r i s i n g from a person's i n t e r b e h a v i n g w i t h t h i n g s , body p a r t s , and o t h e r persons (1968, pp. 522-523). To the e x t e n t t h a t s e l f - r o l e congruence i s h i g h , t h e r e i s a "goodness of f i t " t h a t s h o u l d m a n i f e s t i t s e l f as commitment or 44 involvement i n a r o l e whose enactment would then be judged c o n v i n c i n g , proper and a p p r o p r i a t e . In the absence of s e l f - r o l e congruence, c o n f u s i o n i s l i k e l y . The person e n a c t i n g the r o l e e x p e r i e n c e s a s t a t e of t e n s i o n and c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n . S e l f - r o l e congruence can be e x p l o r e d i n terms of r o l e c o n f l i c t ( i n t e r r o l e and i n t r a r o l e ) , a fundamental dynamic i n the model of r o l e development i n inmate-students. S a r b i n and A l l e n contend t h a t r o l e enactment i s an ongoing p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g (1) the r o l e p erformer, (2) the person i n the complementary r o l e , and (3) a t h i r d member who observes the pr o c e s s of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n (1968, p. 528). The t h i r d member i s the audience or "the o t h e r " or "the g e n e r a l i z e d o t h e r . " The audience may be p h y s i c a l l y or o n l y s y m b o l i c a l l y p r e s e n t and be a l a r g e group, s m a l l group or dyad. The audience e s t a b l i s h e s c o n s e n s u a l r e a l i t y f o r a r o l e , p r o v i d e s d i s c r i m i n a t i v e responses (cues) t o guide a pe r f o r m e r ' s r o l e enactment, g i v e s s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t t o or w i t h h o l d s i t from a r o l e p erformer, and c o n t r i b u t e s t o the maintenance of r o l e behaviour over time (1968, p. 534). An audience which i s onl y s y m b o l i c a l l y or c o g n i t i v e l y p r e s e n t , but which a person v a l u e s , and toward which a r o l e enactment i s d i r e c t e d , i s c a l l e d a r e f e r e n c e group. The g r e a t e r the congruence between an i n d i v i d u a l ' s v a l u e s and the p e r c e i v e d v a l u e s of a symbolic group, the more l i k e l y t h a t t h i s group w i l l become a r e f e r e n c e group f o r t h a t i n d i v i d u a l . S e v e r a l d i s t i n c t a udiences are important f o r inmates. The two most apparent groups, peers and p r i s o n s t a f f , a re p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t . T h e i r i n f l u e n c e r e i n f o r c e s inmate s u b c u l t u r e r o l e s 45 (see Chapter 2 ) . The other audience of i n t e r e s t , the academic community, i s both p h y s i c a l l y and s y m b o l i c a l l y p r e s e n t . I t i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t i n the form of the u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f and f e l l o w s t u d e n t s . E q u a l l y important, i t i s s y m b o l i c a l l y p r e s e n t as s o c i e t y o u t s i d e of p r i s o n but wit h the p o t e n t i a l t o become a r e f e r e n c e group f o r inmates who become i n v o l v e d w i t h the program. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y stems from inmates' acknowledgement of v a l u e s and norms shared with a l e g i t i m a t e segment of s o c i e t y , one l y i n g beyond the scope of u s u a l inmate r o l e s . S a r b i n and A l l e n p r e s e n t a number of ways of l o o k i n g a t complex r o l e phenomena. They d i s c u s s m u l t i p l e r o l e s i n terms of e i t h e r simultaneous or s u c c e s s i v e enactment. S u c c e s s i v e r o l e enactments are best c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the m a t u r a t i o n a l p r o c e s s and i t s a s s o c i a t e d r i t e s of passage or developmental t a s k s . Simultaneous enactment of m u l t i p l e r o l e s may occur when (1) o n l y one r o l e i s a c t i v a t e d , o t h e r s b e i n g " l a t e n t " , (2) two or more r o l e s merge, (3) m u l t i p l e r o l e s a l t e r n a t e w i t h i n a gi v e n p e r i o d of time, and (4) i n f o r m a l r o l e s occur s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h formal r o l e s , such as i n the case of a surgeon who a c t s the comedian wh i l e p e r f o r m i n g surgery (1968, p. 538). A c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of p r i s o n l i f e f o r st u d e n t s i s simultaneous r o l e enactment and the development of r o l e c o n f l i c t between inmate and student r o l e s . I n t e r r o l e c o n f l i c t i s "due to simultaneous occupancy of two or more p o s i t i o n s having i n c o m p a t i b l e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , " and i n t r a r o l e c o n f l i c t "to c o n t r a d i c t o r y e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d by two or more groups of 46 r e l e v a n t o t h e r s r e g a r d i n g the same r o l e " (1968, p. 540). In g e n e r a l , an i n d i v i d u a l a l l o c a t e s time and energy among r o l e s a c c o r d i n g to (1) the i n d i v i d u a l ' s norm commitment, (2) e s t i m a t e of reward or punishment by r o l e p a r t n e r s , and (3) es t i m a t e of r e a c t i o n s of a t h i r d p a r t y or an audience (1968, p. 569). However, r o l e c o n f l i c t r e s u l t s i n c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n which impels the i n d i v i d u a l to seek a r e s o l u t i o n of the c o n d i t i o n by any of the f o l l o w i n g a d a p t i v e responses: (1) i n s t r u m e n t a l a c t s and r i t u a l s , (2) a t t e n t i o n deployment, (3) changes i n b e l i e f system, (4) t r a n q u i l l i z e r s and r e l e a s e r s , and (5) no or u n s u c c e s s f u l a d a p t a t i o n (1968, p. 541). Although a l l f i v e types of response may occur w i t h i n a p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n program, the t h i r d response (change i n b e l i e f system) i s the one t h a t has the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l t o e x p l a i n r o l e development among inmate-students. The other four response modes imply no r e a l change i n inmates i n v o l v e d w i t h the u n i v e r s i t y program. The dynamics of change i n b e l i e f system are congruent w i t h " p e r s p e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n " , a p r o c e s s of d e v e l o p i n g a new p e r s p e c t i v e i n a way t h a t acknowledges d i f f e r e n c e s between one's o l d and new p e r s p e c t i v e c o n c e r n i n g thought, f e e l i n g and w i l l (Mezirow, 1978). T h i s i n c l u d e s an awareness of one's r o l e s , and a c t i o n to t e s t or p r a c t i c e new r o l e s which i n c o r p o r a t e new v a l u e s . Boyanowsky (1977, p. 116) documents t h r e e phases of p e r s p e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n — (1) s e p a r a t i o n from o l d r e l a t i o n s h i p s , (2) a d i s t i n c t i v e t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d , and (3) i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o a new group or r e l a t i o n s h i p . A s i m i l a r t h r e e 47 phases are proposed by Mezirow (1978, p. 105) — (1) a l i e n a t i o n from p r e s c r i b e d s o c i a l r o l e s , (2) r e f r a m i n g or r e s t r u c t u r i n g one's c o n c e p t i o n of r e a l i t y and one's p l a c e i n i t , and (3) c o n t r a c t u a l s o l i d a r i t y w i t h i n which i t becomes p o s s i b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e a g a i n i n s o c i e t y . These n o t i o n s of p e r s p e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n enhance u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the p r o c e s s of r o l e development from inmate to inmate-student. Moreover, the concept of p e r s p e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l s o suggests how ex-students may be drawn to u t i l i z e new r o l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s o u t s i d e p r i s o n subsequent to t h e i r r e l e a s e . The p r o c e s s of p e r s p e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i m p l i e s r o l e c o n f l i c t to an e x t e n t r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n . A l s o i m p l i e d i s change i n inmate b e l i e f systems and worldviews. The n o t i o n of " c o n t r a c t u a l s o l i d a r i t y " supports the view t h a t inmate-students i n the u n i v e r s i t y program do not j u s t become b e t t e r educated c r i m i n a l s , but undergo s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e development i n the c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l s k i l l s r e f e r r e d to by Ross and Fabiano (1981; 1983; 1983a). Concerning r o l e l e a r n i n g , S a r b i n and A l l e n s t r e s s the importance of persons e n a c t i n g complementary r o l e s as t e a c h e r s , models and coaches, and the importance of r e l e v a n t a u d i e n c e s . They d i f f e r e n t i a t e between r o l e l e a r n i n g i n c h i l d h o o d of a s c r i b e d , and r o l e l e a r n i n g i n a d u l t h o o d of l a r g e l y a c h i e v e d r o l e s . P r a c t i c e of r o l e s i s e s s e n t i a l to r o l e l e a r n i n g . Thus, by o c c u pying and p r a c t i c i n g student r o l e s inmates g r a d u a l l y l e a r n t h e i r f u l l and c o n v i n c i n g enactment. T h i s g r a d u a l r o l e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s i s the f o c a l p o i n t f o r a model of r o l e 48 development. C r i t e r i a f o r a Model of Role Development The p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n on concepts of r o l e theory s e r v e d to o u t l i n e the g e n e r a l assumptions of a framework f o r a model of i n r o l e development among inmate-students. A c c o r d i n g to Sztompka (1974), a t h e o r e t i c a l or c o n c e p t u a l model must a l s o s p e c i f y i t s p a r t i c u l a r assumptions i n terms of c o n c r e t e c h o i c e s a l o n g the dimensions o u t l i n e d i n the g e n e r a l assumptions. Dubin (1978) r e f e r s t o these c o n c r e t e dimensions i n a t h e o r e t i c a l model as (1) u n i t s of i n t e r a c t i o n , (2) laws of i n t e r a c t i o n , (3) boundaries, (4) system s t a t e s , (5) p r o p o s i t i o n s , (6) e m p i r i c a l i n d i c a t o r s , and (7) hypotheses. F i g u r e 3 d e p i c t s inmate-students r o l e enactments and i n t e r a c t i o n s i n the p r i s o n and academic environments, and i n r e l a t i o n to the o u t s i d e community. Inmate-students enact r o l e s (square symbol) i n a s s o c i a t i o n with o t h e r inmate-students who perform complementary r o l e s (round symbol) such as t u t o r or study p a r t n e r , and audience r o l e s ( t r i a n g l e ) such as c l a s s m a t e s . Role i n t e r a c t i o n s a l s o occur between inmate-students and i n s t r u c t o r s ( t r i a n g l e — complementary r o l e s ; round symbol — audience r o l e ) who l e g i t i m i z e t h e i r s t a t u s as s t u d e n t s . The academic a r e a i s a p h y s i c a l l y d i s t i n c t l o c a t i o n w i t h i n p r i s o n . Non-student inmates do not n o r m a l l y go t h e r e . Nor do c o r r e c t i o n a l s t a f f f r e q u e n t the area except on b u s i n e s s . Consequently, the p r i n c i p a l r o l e p erformers i n i n t e r a c t i o n with one another are i n s t r u c t o r s and inmate-students. 49 P R I S O N E N V I R O N M E N T R O L E I N T E R A C T I O N S P R I S O N E N V I R O N M E N T U N I V E R S I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N U N I V E R S I T Y S T U D E N T B O D Y THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY F i g u r e 3. Role I n t e r a c t i o n s P e r t a i n i n g To Educat ion In P r i s o n 50 The symbols i n F i g u r e 3 r e p r e s e n t u n i t s , or v a r i a b l e s , "whose i n t e r a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e the s u b j e c t matter of a t t e n t i o n " (Dubin, 1978, p. 7 ) . The u n i t s of the model of r o l e development are p r i n c i p a l l y the t h r e e s e t s of a c t o r s i n v o l v e d w i t h any r o l e enactment, (1) the r o l e performer, (2) the complementary r o l e p e r f o r m e r ( s ) , and (3) the a u d i e n c e ( s ) . The laws of i n t e r a c t i o n among the u n i t s d e r i v e from the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , r o l e demands, r o l e l o c a t i o n , r o l e s k i l l s , r o l e l e a r n i n g , and r o l e c o n f l i c t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h inmate and student r o l e s . The laws of i n t e r a c t i o n p r o v i d e f o r r o l e c o n f l i c t , c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n , and the r e s o l u t i o n of t h a t s t r a i n i n a number of ways. T h i s model proposes t h a t inmate-students' r e s o l u t i o n of r o l e c o n f l i c t and c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n r e s u l t s i n a changed set of b e l i e f s and a g r e a t e r commitment to student r o l e s . The boundaries w i t h i n which the model i s expected to h o l d are c l e a r l y d e f i n e d by the c o r r e c t i o n a l s e t t i n g w i t h i n which any such program i s s e t . Thus, the u n i v e r s i t y program i n the four f e d e r a l p r i s o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia are i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the boundaries, as are the s t u d e n t s i n t h a t program. System s t a t e s r e f e r s t o any prominent c o n d i t i o n or f e a t u r e of the c o r r e c t i o n a l system which f o s t e r s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and p e r s i s t i n g v a l u e s among inmates and c o r r e c t i o n a l employees. The most s a l i e n t f e a t u r e of th a t system i s c o n f l i c t and t e n s i o n r e l a t e d to a u t h o r i t a r i a n p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n . Inmate-students presumably e x p e r i e n c e the r o l e c o n f l i c t s and t e n s i o n s t h a t come from competing demands of inmate norms and student r o l e demands. 51 The p r o p o s i t i o n s of the model are i t s f i v e stages and the t r a n s i t i o n s from one stage to another. These are d e s c r i b e d i n the next s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r . The means by which the f i v e s t a g e s were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i s r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 4. Stages of the Model A f i v e - s t a g e model e x p l a i n s how the s o c i a l e c o l o g y of the academic environment, an a l t e r n a t i v e community w i t h i n p r i s o n s , f o s t e r s c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l development i n inmate-students. The academic environments r e f e r r e d to i n the model e x i s t w i t h i n f o u r f e d e r a l p r i s o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The g e n e r a l dynamics of p r i s o n l i f e , o r g a n i z a t i o n and inmate s o c i a l systems d e s c r i b e d i n Chapters 1 afid 2 p e r t a i n to these p r i s o n s . The u n i v e r s i t y program i s open to inmates who are a s s e s s e d by u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y to possess the necessary E n g l i s h language s k i l l s . P r e - u n i v e r s i t y q u a l i f y i n g E n g l i s h c o u r s e s are p e r i o d i c a l l y g i v e n f o r inmates e x p r e s s i n g i n t e r e s t i n the program but who l a c k the r e q u i r e d language s k i l l s . Inmates may be r e c r u i t e d to the u n i v e r s i t y program by o t h e r inmates, CSC s t a f f , or u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l . They may a p p l y f o r enrolment upon e n t e r i n g a p r i s o n t h a t hosts the program, or at some l a t e r time. Those who e n r o l on a f u l l - t i m e b a s i s spend most of t h e i r weekdays i n the academic a r e a . P r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s view time spent i n the academic ar e a as a work placement. Every inmate i s expected to "work," be i t i n the k i t c h e n , on maintenance, or i n other t r a d i t i o n a l p r i s o n j o b s , i n the 52 v o c a t i o n a l shops, p r i s o n i n d u s t r i e s , or the u n i v e r s i t y program. Pay s c a l e s vary f o r d i f f e r e n t j o b s . E d u c a t i o n i s among the lowest paying "work" inmates may perform. In c a s h - s h o r t p r i s o n l i f e even the s m a l l e s t e x p e n d i t u r e i s regarded as important by inmates. Yet, inmate i n t e r e s t i n the program remains h i g h . Reasons f o r t h e i r c o n t i n u i n g i n t e r e s t and involvement emerge from the model of r o l e development. F i g u r e 4 diagrams the e s s e n t i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n the academic environment and shows the stages of the model of r o l e development i n sequence, s t a r t i n g with Recruitment. D e s c r i p t i o n s of each stage of the model f o l l o w . F i g u r e 4. I n t e r a c t i o n s In The Academic Ecology And Stages Of Role Development 53 Recruitment Stage I n i t i a l l y , inmate-students r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s are d e r i v e d from the inmate code. C y n i c i s m and s u s p i c i o n about the program are even more l i k e l y t o predominate among inmates who have been through the p r i s o n system b e f o r e . I f they have G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n Diploma (G.E.D.) or v o c a t i o n a l c o u r s e s , they have some r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s about being a s t u d e n t . However, these e x p e c t a t i o n s may be d i f f e r e n t from those a r i s i n g l a t e r out of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the u n i v e r s i t y program because of the c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the scope and c u r r i c u l a of the v a r i o u s programs. At t h i s stage, inmate e x p e c t a t i o n s are l i k e l y to be i n s t r u m e n t a l l y concerned w i t h "making i t i n p r i s o n . " Thus, they may t h i n k the u n i v e r s i t y program i s worth e x p l o r i n g f o r i t s p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i c v a l u e . New r e c r u i t s to the program have not yet e x p e r i e n c e d the e x p e c t a t i o n s , cues or r e i n f o r c e m e n t from those who occupy complementary or audience r o l e s to t h e i r student r o l e s . At the v e r y l e a s t , they do not a n t i c i p a t e b e i n g punished by any group (inmate or s t a f f ) f o r e x p l o r i n g the o p t i o n s the u n i v e r s i t y program may o f f e r . Even s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d w i t h no thought of changing or g e t t i n g something out of the e x p e r i e n c e must i n i t i a l l y comply with the minimum r o l e demands put forward by u n i v e r s i t y i n s t r u c t o r s i n order to m a i n t a i n a f o o t h o l d i n the program w h i l e e x p l o r i n g these o p t i o n s . Thus, they e x p e r i e n c e student r o l e enactment at some minimal l e v e l without n e c e s s a r i l y b e i ng committed to i t . Because of the assumptions and p r a c t i c e s of 54 the i n s t r u c t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l and the p h y s i c a l e n c a p s u l a t i o n of the academic a r e a , the enactment of student r o l e s begins to c r e a t e an awareness of i t s c o n t r a s t with p r i s o n e x p e r i e n c e i n g e n e r a l . D i s o r i e n t a t i o n Stage Inmates' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r o l e demands and e x p e c t a t i o n s i n c r e a s e s as they c o n t i n u e t o enact student r o l e s . They become b e t t e r a b l e to l o c a t e r o l e s and accompanying e x p e c t a t i o n s of i n s t r u c t o r s and c l a s s m a t e s . Inmates e i t h e r c o n t i n u e to a d j u s t t h e i r r o l e enactments t o the emerging s o c i a l and c o g n i t i v e c r i t e r i a or r e j e c t them and drop out, or are r e q u i r e d to leav e the program. I f they c o n t i n u e t o a d j u s t e x p e c t a t i o n s and behaviour they a l s o develop c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s through p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s (course work, d i s c u s s i o n s , a n a l y s i s , p r o j e c t s ) . T h e i r r o l e s k i l l s improve and they become more s k i l l f u l i n t h e i r student r o l e enactments. C o g n i t i v e development may be i n t r i n s i c a l l y as w e l l as s o c i a l l y rewarding. S o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t comes i n the form of encouragement from i n s t r u c t o r s and c l a s s m a t e s . However, because they do not expect a n y t h i n g important t o happen, they may be i n i t i a l l y s u r p r i s e d by the changes and rewards a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r student r o l e s . Moreover, they are d i s t u r b e d and d i s o r i e n t e d because e x p e c t a t i o n s and behaviours d e r i v i n g from student r o l e s c o n t r a s t s h a r p l y w i t h inmate norms and r o l e s . The c o n t r a s t c r e a t e s u n c e r t a i n t y about t h e i r primary r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n i n g e n e r a l which i n t u r n 55 r e s u l t s i n c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n . The s t r a i n l e a d s them to q u e s t i o n the wisdom or " T i g h t n e s s " of c o n t i n u i n g i n the u n i v e r s i t y program. They may q u e s t i o n the motives behind the program, and though r o l e demands and e x p e c t a t i o n s from i n s t r u c t o r s are e a s i e r to " l o c a t e " , they may f e e l unsure about what i s r e a l l y i n v o l v e d and expected of them. S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n Stage Inmates who stay i n v o l v e d i n the program c o n t i n u e to develop t h e i r r o l e and c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s w i t h p r a c t i c e . S o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t by those i n complementary r o l e s (eg. i n s t r u c t o r s ) and audience r o l e s (eg. f e l l o w s t u d e n t s ) a l s o c o n t i n u e s . Role c o n f l i c t i s l i k e l y to deepen u n t i l c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n becomes uncomfortable enough to r e q u i r e r e s o l u t i o n . C o g n i t i v e s t r a i n must be r e s o l v e d when inmate-students f e e l t h a t c o n t i n u i n g t h e i r student r o l e s poses a s e r i o u s c o n t r a d i c t i o n to the inmate code. C o g n i t i v e s t r a i n may be caused by i n t e r r o l e and/or i n t r a r o l e c o n f l i c t . I n t e r r o l e c o n f l i c t o c c u r s when inmates c o n f r o n t the p o s s i b i l i t y of s i m u l t a n e o u s l y occupying inmate and student r o l e s which appear to have i n c o m p a t i b l e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s . I n t r a r o l e c o n f l i c t o c c u r s when inmates are s u b j e c t e d to the c o n t r a d i c t o r y e x p e c t a t i o n s of s e v e r a l groups of r e l e v a n t o t h e r s ( i n s t r u c t o r s , c l a s s m a t e s , g e n e r a l inmate p o p u l a t i o n , s t a f f ) c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r student r o l e s . For example, i n s t r u c t o r s may expect them to take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r work and development, to show i n i t i a t i v e , to p r a c t i c e acceptance and t o l e r a n c e of other 56 s t u d e n t s and t h e i r views. However, non-student inmates who support the inmate code expect them to w i t h h o l d c o o p e r a t i o n , to be s u s p i c i o u s , e x p l o i t a t i v e , and to take no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s . To r e c a p i t u l a t e , an a d a p t i v e response to an uncomfortable c o n d i t i o n of c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n due to r o l e c o n f l i c t may l e a d to any of f i v e k inds of outcomes. For those whose a d a p t i v e response i s a change i n t h e i r b e l i e f system, the chances of a deeper involvement i n a student r o l e and achievement of the g o a l s of the program are g r e a t e s t . T r a n s i t ion-Reframing Stage I n d i v i d u a l s whose p e r s p e c t i v e s on student-inmate r o l e c o n f l i c t undergo t r a n s i t i o n ( i e . a b e l i e f system change), e x p e r i e n c e a l e s s e n i n g of c o n f l i c t and an i n c r e a s e i n the degree of s e l f - r o l e congruence. Not o n l y do those i n d i v i d u a l s c o n t i n u e t h e i r student r o l e s , t h e i r commitment to get the most they can out of the program i n t e n s i f i e s . I n d i v i d u a l s begin t o c o n c e i v e of themselves as l e g i t i m a t e l y engaged i n changing t h e i r s o c i a l i d e n t i t y through the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of student r o l e enactments on t h e i r c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l s k i l l s . They r e c o n c e p t u a l i z e what i s p o s s i b l e and a t t r i b u t e new v a l u e to outcomes a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n student r o l e s . They need not a n t i c i p a t e an i n d e f i n i t e c o n t i n u a t i o n of student r o l e s i n an academic s e t t i n g i n order to b e l i e v e t h a t fundamental and l a s t i n g b e n e f i t s or changes have o c c u r r e d f o r them. However, w h i l e i n p r i s o n , and as the o p p o r t u n i t y to do so 57 c o n t i n u e s , they are l i k e l y to p e r s i s t as s t u d e n t s and stay i n v o l v e d w i t h other s t u d e n t s and i n s t r u c t o r s e n a c t i n g complementary and audience r o l e s . At t h i s stage, inmate-students f e e l t h e i r r o l e s have been v a l i d a t e d through acceptance by o t h e r s i n complementary r o l e s ( t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s and c l a s s m a t e s ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , other students and i n s t r u c t o r s i n the academic area act as important audiences by g i v i n g g e n e r a l s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t and by p r o v i d i n g cues from t h e i r r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s which guide the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r o l e enactment and c o n t r i b u t e to i t s maintenance over time. S o l i d a r i t y Stage Inmate-students a t t h i s stage of development become s t a b l e s u p p o r t e r s of the e d u c a t i o n program and i t s p r o c e s s e s . Thus i n the f a c e of d e s t a b i l i z i n g events such as the Matsqui p r i s o n r i o t , the s t u d e n t s who a c t e d as g u a r d i a n s and advocates f o r the u n i v e r s i t y program and i t s l i b r a r y e x h i b i t e d a c o m p e l l i n g attachment and p o s i t i v e v a l u a t i o n toward the c o n c r e t e symbols of t h e i r academic community. T h e i r s t r o n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with t h e i r student r o l e s l e d to a d i s p l a y and t e s t of t h e i r s o l i d a r i t y w i t h the program, i t s p e r s o n n e l , and i t s p r o p e r t y i n the face of severe inmate o p p o s i t i o n to p r i s o n a u t h o r i t y and o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s who r e s o l v e c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n and c o n t i n u e i n the program become models f o r new r e c r u i t s to the program. " S e n i o r s " have a s t a b i l i z i n g e f f e c t on the behaviour of newer 58 s t u d e n t s . T h e i r own r e l a t i o n s h i p s with i n s t r u c t o r s and program a d m i n i s t r a t o r s becomes more c o l l e g i a l as they become t u t o r s and f a c i l i t a t o r s of o t h e r inmates' l e a r n i n g . These i n d i v i d u a l s have a " r o b u s t " r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the program and are l e s s l i k e l y than new r e c r u i t s t o d i s c o n t i n u e t h e i r student r o l e s when p e r s o n a l d i s r u p t i o n s i n the p r i s o n o c c u r . To r e i t e r a t e , t h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t e d a model composed of f i v e stages of r o l e development. The model assumed t h a t inmates are s o c i a l i z e d i n t o the " p o s i t i v e " h i g h e r s t a g e s ( T r a n s i t i o n , S o l i d a r i t y ) through p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the SFU program and i t s s o c i a l e c o l o g y . Moreover, a t e n s i o n ( r o l e c o n f l i c t ) i s thought to e x i s t f o r inmates as they move between the d i s t i n c t e c o l o g i e s of the p r i s o n and academic program. T h i s t e n s i o n impels inmates i n t o t r a n s i t i o n t o h i g h e r stages of r o l e development as they take on the r o l e of s t u d e n t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p among stages i m p l i e s l i n e a r i t y . Inmates newly r e c r u i t e d t o the program, without p r i o r u n i v e r s i t y e x p e r i e n c e , would be expected to e x p e r i e n c e Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n s t a t e s f i r s t , then S e p a r a t i o n , T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y . However, t h i s p r o c e s s of r o l e development may be sudden or g r a d u a l depending on the p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p r i s o n and academic e c o l o g i e s , and the c o g n i t i v e development of the i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s l a s t p o i n t r a i s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t inmates might "jump" stages (from i n i t i a l t o l a t e r ) i f the t r a n s i t i o n i s very sudden. The model assumes t h a t r o l e development, once i t o c c u r s , w i l l remain s t a b l e i f no s i g n i f i c a n t d i s r u p t i o n s occur t o the person (eg. t r a n s f e r to another p r i s o n , b e i n g p l a c e d i n 59 s o l i t a r y ) or i n the academic ecology (eg. program being c l o s e d ) . Inmates would not be expected to "jump" from a higher stage to one lower. However, as Garabedian's (1963) research demonstrated, inmate s o c i a l r o l e s are responsive t o stages i n sentence l i f e s p a n , and so may be i n d i v i d u a l inmates i n the SFU program. Student r o l e development, u n l i k e inmate r o l e s , i s presumed to provide inmates w i t h c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l s k i l l s (and reinforcement) that provide an a l t e r n a t i v e to p r i s o n norms. Chapter 4 o u t l i n e s the r a t i o n a l e f o r and steps taken to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the model, provides v a r i o u s estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y , and proposes s e v e r a l research questions d e r i v i n g from the model of r o l e development. Chapter 5 d e s c r i b e s the methodology employed i n the study. 60 CHAPTER 4 INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT Chapter 3 d e s c r i b e d how the model was developed. B e f o r e the model c o u l d be t e s t e d with inmates, i t f i r s t had to be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d , and t h a t p r o c e s s i s r e p o r t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . An i n t e g r a l p a r t of the instrument development p r o c e s s i n v o l v e d the use of ex p e r t judges. A l s o r e p o r t e d are s e l e c t e d r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from t e s t i n g the instrument with inmates. Although these r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d from the study p r o p e r , they were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s chapter to p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the p l a u s i b i l i t y of the model's s t a g e s . The unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p r i s o n environments p r e s e n t s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r r e s e a r c h e r s . Inmates are o f t e n r e l u c t a n t to p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e s e a r c h , e s p e c i a l l y t h at which i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . They express resentment a t be i n g " t e s t e d " by r e s e a r c h e r s when they p e r c e i v e no b e n e f i t t o themselves and f e e l t h a t the r e s u l t s of such r e s e a r c h c o u l d be used a g a i n s t them by p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s . Inmate r e t i c e n c e about r e s e a r c h n e c e s s i t a t e d u s i n g more n o n r e a c t i v e methods of o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . A n o n r e a c t i v e method i s one t h a t reduces (though i t cannot e l i m i n a t e ) the r i s k of d e l i b e r a t e or u n i n t e n t i o n a l response b i a s by inmates. A c r u c i a l component of method i s the instrument. A r e a c t i v e instrument may negate a l e s s - r e a c t i v e method (eg. u s i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h i n p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n ) . 61 From p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e ( B o s h i e r & C l a r k e , 1983) i t was known t h a t inmates r e s i s t p a p e r - p e n c i l survey-type i n s t r u m e n t s , so t h i s approach was not used. A c a r d s o r t (Q-sort) was s e l e c t e d as an a p p r o p r i a t e instrument to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n from inmates, and more l i k e l y to secure t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n than w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . A c a r d s o r t r e q u i r e s no w r i t i n g and i s gamelike. Q methodology i s the name g i v e n to a set of p s y c h o l o g i c a l , p h i l o s o p h i c a l , s t a t i s t i c a l i d e a s and procedures concerned with r e s e a r c h on i n d i v i d u a l s (Stephenson, 1953; K e r l i n g e r , 1973). Q technique i n v o l v e s the rank o r d e r i n g of items or groups of o b j e c t s such as words, p i c t u r e s , v e r b a l statements or w r i t t e n phrases i n t o a number of c a t e g o r i e s or p i l e s based on some c r i t e r i o n ( K e r l i n g e r , 1973). The Q - s o r t s by which t h i s rank o r d e r i n g i s a c h i e v e d may be s t r u c t u r e d or u n s t r u c t u r e d . U n s t r u c t u r e d Q - s o r t s c o n s i s t of items of presumed e q u i v a l e n c e t h a t r e f e r to one domain, such as a t t i t u d e , and which are not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n any o t h e r way from one another except as the respondent presumes. S t r u c t u r e d Q - s o r t s use items from one or more domains p a r t i t i o n e d i n one or more ways. For example, r o l e development i n inmate-students i s a domain of i n t e r e s t . Items r e p r e s e n t i n g t h i s domain were p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o the f i v e stages of the model. In e f f e c t , the p r o p o s i t i o n s of the model were b u i l t i n t o the Q - s o r t . Subsequently, inmates' responses to these items i n the Q - s o r t t e s t e d the i n t e r n a l coherence of each stage . Q - s o r t s are e i t h e r " f o r c e d " , r e q u i r i n g s o r t e r s t o put 62 v a r y i n g numbers of items i n t o d i f f e r e n t p i l e s based on a normal or quasi-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , or "unforced", whereby s o r t e r s d i s t r i b u t e cards i n t o p i l e s without r e s t r i c t i o n s (Stephenson, 1953; K e r l i n g e r , 1973). S o r t i n g s t r a t e g i e s which fo r c e r e g u l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n s are sometimes adopted f o r s t a t i s t i c a l convenience. A Q-sort c o n s t r u c t e d to t e s t the model of inmate-student r o l e development was n e c e s s a r i l y s t r u c t u r e d . Sets of w r i t t e n statements (items) i n c o r p o r a t e d the d i s t i n c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of stages of r o l e development. The s o r t i n g e x e r c i s e was unforced to reduce the r i s k of d e l i b e r a t e r e a c t i o n to the c o n s t r a i n t s of a r e q u i r e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of items. This "one-way s t r u c t u r e d s o r t " ( K e r l i n g e r , 1973) was analogous to a one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e , because the items i n the s o r t were c r e a t e d and c l a s s i f i e d w i t h reference to one domain -- b r o a d l y , stages of r o l e development. Item C o n s t r u c t i o n and S e l e c t i o n W r i t t e n statements (items) making up the card s o r t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e o r e t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n s of the model. D e s c r i p t i o n s of the stages d e r i v e d from c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h inmates e n r o l l e d i n the SFU u n i v e r s i t y program i n four f e d e r a l p r i s o n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The c o n v e r s a t i o n s took place dur i n g the course of another study on inmates' motives f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r i s o n education (Boshier & C l a r k e , 1983; B o s h i e r , 1983). Numerous statements made by inmates d u r i n g that study r e f e r r e d to t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of personal change i n s o c i a l i d e n t i t y which they a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r involvement i n the 63 u n i v e r s i t y program. The p r o p o s i t i o n s of the model and r e p o r t s made by inmates i n the u n i v e r s i t y program formed the b a s i s f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g statements d e s c r i b i n g the s u b j e c t i v e or " l i v e d " e x p e r i e n c e of inmates i n any of the h y p o t h e t i c a l stages of r o l e development. The i n i t i a l p r o c e s s of g e n e r a t i n g statements (items) i n v o l v e d o n l y the a u t h o r . Items were c o n s t r u c t e d one stage a t a time. When no a d d i t i o n a l statements emerged f o r a stage, the procedure was r e p e a t e d w i t h the next s t a g e . Some items were d i s c a r d e d almost immediately because they were redundant or obscure. Four sample items f o l l o w . I don't expect much out of t h i s program. I'm c o n f i d e n t of my a b i l i t y to l e a r n . There i s more work than I expected. I'm f e d up w i t h p r i s o n games. The i n i t i a l item c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s r e s u l t e d i n 60 statements r e p r e s e n t i n g the model's f i v e s t a g e s . These 60 statements were p r i n t e d on l a b e l s and stuck one to a c a r d . A second person f a m i l i a r with the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program (as a teacher and a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) e v a l u a t e d the statements ( i n no p a r t i c u l a r o r d e r ) f o r c l a r i t y , face v a l i d i t y , and c o n t e n t . He became the f i r s t of four expert "judges." The intended r e l a t i o n s h i p of the items to the s t a g e s were e x p l a i n e d to him. He was asked t o s o r t the items i n t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e stages and to p o i n t out any t h a t should be d e l e t e d or m o d i f i e d s h o u l d t h e i r adherence to the model's stages be u n c l e a r or c o n t r a r y to h i s e x p e r i e n c e . H i s i d e a s f o r a d d i t i o n a l items f o r s e v e r a l s t a g e s , 6 4 notably S o l i d a r i t y (Stage 5 ) , r e s u l t e d i n f u r t h e r changes. Some items were r e w r i t t e n , others dropped, and a number of new ones c o n s t r u c t e d . Seventy statements emerged from t h i s stage of the item refinement process. The 70 items were computer p r i n t e d on mai l l a b e l s and then each one was stuck to a blank 3 by 5 inch f i l e c a r d . M u l t i p l e decks of f i l e cards were assembled i n t h i s f a s h i o n . Item Judging Process In a d d i t i o n to the f i r s t judge, three more i n d i v i d u a l s were asked to serve as expert judges; a l l four were f a m i l i a r w i t h the s p e c i f i c p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program. Each of the four had taught fo r extended p e r i o d s i n the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program. Two judges were s t i l l engaged i n teaching i n the program, two others were i n v o l v e d as u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Separate appointments were made w i t h each judge. Two were int e r v i e w e d i n o f f i c e s at Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y . The other two judges were i n t e r v i e w e d on Vancouver I s l a n d , one at the p r i s o n where the study was subsequently conducted, the other i n a residence near V i c t o r i a . The same procedure was f o l l o w e d w i t h each judge. A b r i e f and general account of the research p r o j e c t was given . The model and the f u n c t i o n of the 70 items were e x p l a i n e d . Judges looked at a f i g u r e (see F i g u r e 4 i n Chapter 3) d i s p l a y i n g the f i v e s e q u e n t i a l stages of r o l e development. Each stage was b r i e f l y e x p l a i n e d i n terms drawn from the conceptual framework (Chapter 3). Judges were i n v i t e d to ask ques t i o n s i n order to 65 c l a r i f y t h e i r understanding of the model, i t s assumptions and i t s p r o p o s i t i o n s . Each judge was handed a deck of f i l e cards c o n t a i n i n g the 70 statements w i t h the cards sequenced i n no p a r t i c u l a r order. F i v e envelopes were placed before them. Each envelope had one of the stage names p r i n t e d on i t . Judges looked at the statements on cards and assigned each one to the stage they f e l t was most c l e a r l y suggested by each statement. They put any statements about which they were unsure i n t o a p i l e to one s i d e u n t i l a f t e r they had been through the complete deck of cards. They s o r t e d the remaining cards i n t o stages i f they c o u l d . Judges then looked over t h e i r i n i t i a l placements and moved any items they wished to other stages. Each judge assigned a l l the cards to one stage or another. Judges were asked f o r t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n s regarding the item-statements. A few comments i n d i c a t e d that c e r t a i n statements might be t r u e of more than one stage because inmates had been heard to make s i m i l a r comments, but ( i n the view of the judges) f o r q u i t e d i f f e r e n t reasons. However, none of these o b s e r v a t i o n s prevented them from a s s i g n i n g each of the 70 items to a stage. The p i l e s of cards f o r each stage were i n s e r t e d i n t o envelopes marked w i t h the corresponding stage headings. These f i v e s m a l l e r envelopes were i n s e r t e d i n t o a l a r g e r envelope which was then s e a l e d and l a b e l l e d w i t h the judge's name. Judges' placements of 70 items i n t o stages were entered i n t o computer f i l e s f o r storage and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Table 66 1 summarizes the agreement of judges i n p l a c i n g items i n t o stages of the model. With respect to 18 items, the judges showed unanimous agreement i n p l a c i n g them i n s t a g e s . F i f t y - e i g h t of 70 items (83 percent) e l i c i t e d agreement about t h e i r stage placements from three or more judges. Table 1 INTER-JUDGE AGREEMENT ON 70 ITEMS Judges Agreement No. of Items Percent Cumulative % 5/5 18 26 26 4/5 17 24 50 3/5 23 33 83 2/5 12 17 100 K e n d a l l ' s c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance (W) was c a l c u l a t e d on i n t e r - j u d g e placements and y i e l d e d a c o e f f i c i e n t of W=.81 (p<.000l). There was thus a h i g h consensus among judges i n a s s i g n i n g each of the 70 items to i t s r e s p e c t i v e stage of the model. Appendix A l i s t s the 70 items under the f i v e stages of r o l e development. 67 Inmate and Stage Meanings The face v a l i d i t y of each item was a s s e s s e d at each stage of item c o n s t r u c t i o n and j u d g i n g . Each judge was asked to comment on the language and e x p r e s s i o n s used i n the statements. Apart from changes to some items made a f t e r the i n i t i a l involvement of one judge, no f u r t h e r changes appeared n e c e s s a r y . I f the f i v e stages of r o l e development are p l a u s i b l e , t h a t i s , meaningful f o r inmate-students, they w i l l choose items from each stage t o r e p r e s e n t how they f e e l toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. Whereas judges' agreements on item placements w i t h i n the f i v e s t a g e s of r o l e development should be f r e e of b i a s towards any p a r t i c u l a r stage, inmate-students' responses may be b i a s e d i n favour of items t h a t best d e s c r i b e t h e i r c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. Consequently, any p a r t i c u l a r sample of inmates may v a l i d a t e c e r t a i n stages more s t r o n g l y than o t h e r s . T h i s i s the p a t t e r n r e v e a l e d i n F i g u r e 5. F i g u r e 5 p l o t s i n t e r - j u d g e consensus and the ext e n t of inmate p a r t i c i p a n t s ' agreement about which of the 70 items r e p r e s e n t s how they f e e l toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. T h i s f i g u r e p r o v i d e s two d i f f e r e n t bases (judges; inmate-students) f o r a s s e s s i n g congruence w i t h i n the s t a g e s of r o l e development. The v e r t i c a l a x i s d i s p l a y s the 70 items ( i n a b b r e v i a t e d p h r a s i n g ) i n f i v e stages of r o l e development. The h o r i z o n t a l a x i s i n d i c a t e s percentage agreements i n judges' placements of each item i n t o a stage and i n inmates' c h o i c e s of each item as an i n d i c a t o r of "how I f e e l " about the u n i v e r s i t y program. For example, judges d i s p l a y e d 100 p e r c e n t consensus i n p l a c i n g item R E C R U I T M E N T S T A G E 1 . C a n ' t be a n y u o r < « t h a n o t h e r p r o g r a m s 2 . D o n ' t p l a n t o w o r k t o o h a r d i n p r o g r a m 3 . M a y b e c a n - f r a u d i t a w h i l e 4 . N o t I n t e r e s t e d i n a n y s u b j e c t 5 . D o n ' t c a r e w h a t i s t a u g h t 6 . D o n ' t e x p e c t m u c h o u t o f p r o g r a m 7 . C u r i o u s w h a t p r o g r a m i s l i k e 3 . P r o g r a m I s some s o r t o f s c a m 9 . P r o g r a m l I K e a l l t h e o t h e r s 1 0 . D o n ' t c a r e w h a t 1 s t u d y 1 1 . N o w a y p r o g r a m c h a n g e me 1 2 . O n l y t a k e c o u r s e s I p r e f e r 1 3 . O n l y o n e s u b j e c t i n t e r e s t e d In 1 4 . N o t g e t t o o i n v o l v e d i n p r o g r a m I S . A l l I n s t r u c t o r s t h e same 1 6 . A l l c o u r s e s t h e same D I S O R I E N T A T I O N S T A G E 1 7 . M o r e w o r k t h a n I e x p e c t e d 1 3 . I n s t r u c t o r s e x p e c t a l o t 1 9 . S u r p r i s e d how I n v o l v e d I n s t r u c t o r s a r e 2 0 . D o n ' t Know I f l i k e p r o g r a m 2 1 . P r o g r a m d i f f e r e n t f r o m I e x p e c t e d 2 2 . H a r d t o be a s t u d e n t 2 3 . N o t s u r e I s h o u l d c o n t i n u e 2 4 . F e e l t o o I s o l a t e d In a c a d e m i c a r e a 2 5 . O t h e r s t u d e n t s m o r e s e r i o u s t h a n me 2 6 . H a v e n ' t f i g u r e d o u t p r o g r a m 2 7 . D o n ' t k n o w w h a t t o m a k e o f p r o g r a m 2 3 . O t h e r s t u d e n t s t a k e p r o g r a m s e r i o u s l y 2 9 . D o n ' t k n o w w h a t t o d o a s s t u d e n t 3 0 . B e i n g s t u d e n t I n c r e a s e p r e s s u r e S E P A R A T I O N S T A G E 3 1 . H a r d e r t o p u t up w i t h b u l l s h i t 3 2 . L o t o f s t u d e n t v s . I n m a t e r o l e c o n f l i c t 3 3 . F e e l c u t o f f f r o m r e s t o f i n m a t e s 3 4 . F e e l p r e s s u r e n o t t o g e t I n v o l v e d 3 5 . L e s s t o d o w i t h i n m a t e s , b e t t e r f o r me 36. S t a r t i n g t o h a n d l e b e i n g s t u d e n t 3 7 . L i k e l e s s c o n t a c t w i t h g e n e r a l i n m a t e s 3 8 . F o u n d o n e s u b j e c t t o s p e n d a l l my t i m e 3 ? . F e d up w i t h p r i s o n g a m e s 4 0 . L e s s I n t e r e s t e d i n n o n - s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s T R A N S I T I O N S T A G E 4 1 . P r o g r a m i s h e l p i n g me c o n t r o l my l i f e 4 2 . M a k i n g c h a n g e s In my l i f e a s s t u d e n t 4 3 . P r o g r a m h a s v a l u e f o r me 4 4 . A c c e p t d e m a n d s o f b e i n g s t u d e n t 4 5 . G e t t i n g s o m e t h i n g u s e f u l f r o m p r o g r a m 4 6 . D i f f e r e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a n b e f o r e 4 7 . S t u d e n t s t a t u s a s s e t i n p r i s o n 4 8 . G e t t i n g s o m e t h i n g f o r s e l f In p r o g r a m 4 9 . S t u d e n t e x p e r i e n c e h e l p s w i t h p r o b l e m s 5 0 . L e a d me t o d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s 5 1 . S p e n d m u c h t i m e o n s t u d e n t I n t e r e s t s 5 2 . M o r e i n v o l v e d w i t h a l l a s p e c t s 5 3 . L i k e m o r e c o u r s e s In s u b j e c t s 3 4 . E n j o y l e a r n i n g m a n y s u b j e c t s 5 5 . B e s t t o s t a y i n v o l v e d i n p r o g r a m 5 6 . B e i n g s t u d e n t I s c h a n g i n g t h i n g s 5 7 . C o n f i d e n t o f my a b i l i t y t o l e a r n S O L I D A R I T Y S T A G E 5 8 . F e e l i n v o l v e d w i t h p r o g r a m 5 9 . C a n r e l y o n s t u d e n t c o m m u n i t y 6 0 . S e e p r o g r a m a s m e a n s t o e x p r e s s s e l f 6 1 . F e e l r e s p o n s i b l e t o s u p p o r t p r o g r a m 6 2 . B e s t t h i n g t o h a p p e n i n p r i s o n 6 3 . G o o d w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s 6 4 . E q u a l t o a n y c h a l l e n g e i n p r o g r a m 6 5 . H a v e s o m e t h i n g t o a d d t o p r o g r a m 6 6 . C a n g e t s u p p o r t f r o m o t h e r s t u d e n t s 6 7 . M o r e t o l e r a n t t o w a r d o t h e r s 6 B . U o u I d d e f e n d p r o g r a m t o i n m a t e s 6 9 . F e e l s u p p o r t e d b y s t u d e n t c o m m u n i t y 7 0 . O t h e r s t u d e n t s w a n t same a s me Percentage Agreement 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (•) Judges' agreement - items to each stage (+) Inmates' agreement - Items to "how I feel now" Judges (»)=89% Inmates + • * + • + • *• • * • +• * • * + • * +• • + • Judges>84Z Inmates«15X • • •f * • • » + • • +• * + • + * • + * + • • * * Judges-58Z Inmates-281 + • • • • • » • f +• • * • Judges (»)-62Z Inmates (+)-79% • • •*• • *• • + • • • 4- + • * + * • • • Judges-60X Inmates"75Z + « » +• » +• » +• • • * + * * +• 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 5. Inter -Judge And Inmate Agreements On Items 69 1 — "can't be any worse than other programs" -- i n t o the Recruitment stage, whereas o n l y about 12 p e r c e n t of 33 inmates i n d i c a t e d t hat i t d e s c r i b e d how they f e e l toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. At the top of each stage are two a d d i t i o n a l percentages ("J" f o r judges; " I " f o r in m a t e s ) . The judges (J) percentage r e p r e s e n t s t h e i r agreement i n a s s i g n i n g a l l items t o a stage. These percentages were c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g the number of items i n each stage by the number of judges to o b t a i n a value r e p r e s e n t i n g the maximum p o s s i b l e agreement per stage. Then the a c t u a l number of judges' agreements on the items w i t h i n a stage was d i v i d e d by t h i s maximum v a l u e t o o b t a i n a percentage agreement f o r each st a g e . Responses ( i n pe r c e n t a g e s ) t o the 70 items by 33 inmate-students were c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g SPSS:X MULTRESPONSE. The " I " percentages r e p r e s e n t inmate-students' "agreement" about the number of items from each stage that d e s c r i b e how they f e e l toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. Judges' consensus on items f o r Recruitment (J=89 p e r c e n t ) and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n (J=84 p e r c e n t ) were h i g h e r than f o r items i n S e p a r a t i o n (J=58 p e r c e n t ) , T r a n s i t i o n (J=62 pe r c e n t ) and S o l i d a r i t y (J=60 p e r c e n t ) . Thus, judges s t r o n g e s t v a l i d a t i o n of stage d e s c r i p t i o n s o c c u r r e d w i t h Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n . O v e r a l l , the judges' consensus i n a s s i g n i n g 70 items to f i v e stages of r o l e development was c a l c u l a t e d t o be W=.83. One element i n the j u d g i n g p r o c e s s concerns the d i v e r s e p r i s o n e x p e r i e n c e of the judges. A l l had e x p e r i e n c e w i t h s t u d e n t s i n p r i s o n s w i t h s e c u r i t y l e v e l s r a n g i n g from maximum to low-medium. 70 T h e i r judgements were i n f l u e n c e d by the d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s under which the program o p e r a t e s i n v a r i o u s p r i s o n s . T h i s balanced p e r s p e c t i v e on the p l a u s i b i l i t y of s t a t e s expressed i n the items c o u l d not be expected of inmates i n the program. These d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on the items (overview - judges; s u b j e c t i v e - inmates) p r o b a b l y i n c r e a s e d the l i k e l i h o o d of o b t a i n i n g the r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n F i g u r e 5 — l a c k of congruence between judges and inmates. About seven p e r c e n t of inmate-students' responses to the 16 Recruitment items were f o r "how I f e e l " toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. Inmate-students' support f o r items d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r p r e s e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to the u n i v e r s i t y program i n c r e a s e d to 15 perc e n t f o r the D i s o r i e n t a t i o n stage and 28 p e r c e n t f o r the S e p a r a t i o n s t a g e . They a s s i g n e d much h i g h e r percentages of items from T r a n s i t i o n (1=79 p e r c e n t ) and S o l i d a r i t y (1=75 pe r c e n t ) t o "how I f e e l " than from the f i r s t t h r e e s t a g e s . Thus, inmate-students' most s t r o n g l y s u s c r i b e d to T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y items. These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t t h i s sample of inmate-students f e l t i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the u n i v e r s i t y program i n terms best c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y stages of r o l e development. Another way of r e p r e s e n t i n g inmate responses d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 5 i s by c a l c u l a t i n g mean s c o r e s f o r a l l items w i t h i n each stage . Inmate-students s o r t e d the 70 item statements i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s . When coded "how I f e e l now" = 3, "how I used to f e e l " = 2, "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " and "don't know" = 1, they c o n s t i t u t e a t h r e e p o i n t o r d i n a l or rank-ordered s c a l e . 71 The s c a l e i s o r d i n a l because the c a t e g o r i e s s a t i s f y the o r d i n a l t r a n s i t i v i t y p o s t u l a t e ( K e r l i n g e r , 1973). That i s , statements l i k e "a has more of a p r o p e r t y than b; b has more of the p r o p e r t y than c; t h e r e f o r e a has more of the p r o p e r t y than c" p e r t a i n t o the c a t e g o r i e s ( K e r l i n g e r , 1973, p. 435). In t h i s case, "a" r e f e r s to "how I f e e l now", "b" to "how I used to f e e l " , and " c " to both "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " and "don't know." The p r o p e r t y b e i n g measured i n each of 70 items i s a stu d e n t ' s p r e s e n t s e l f - p e r c e i v e d f e e l i n g s t a t e toward the u n i v e r s i t y program and p r i s o n . F e e l i n g s t a t e s r e f l e c t the c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e development of inmates, as w e l l as the i n f l u e n c e of the s o c i a l e c o l o g y of p r i s o n and academic program with t h e i r i n t e r a c t i v e and mut u a l l y d e t e r m i n i n g s o c i a l dynamics. S t a t e s change as s t u d e n t s d e v e l o p t h e i r r o l e s . For example, an inmate d e c i d e s an item (number 26) — " I haven't f i g u r e d out t h i s program" — i s "how I f e e l now" about the u n i v e r s i t y program. H i s c h o i c e means t h i s item d e s c r i b e s h i s c u r r e n t s e l f - p e r c e i v e d s t a t e . Had h i s response been "how I used to f e e l " , the item would not r e f e r d i r e c t l y to h i s p r e s e n t s t a t e . However, i n t h i s c ase, the item i s not without meaning f o r the s t u d e n t . H i s past f e e l i n g s are i n t e g r a l t o h i s l i v e d e x p e r i e n c e and are a p a r t of h i s p r e s e n t . Statements a s s i g n e d t o the past may not r e f l e c t h i s c u r r e n t s t a t e , but they do p r o v i d e an o r i e n t a t i o n to changes he i s e x p e r i e n c i n g . On the o t h e r hand, items a s s i g n e d to "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " and "don't know" do not co r r e s p o n d at a l l to the l i v e d (present or p a s t ) e x p e r i e n c e of s t u d e n t s . They do not r e f l e c t a 72 st u d e n t ' s c u r r e n t s e l f - p e r c e i v e d s t a t e the way items l a b e l l e d "how I f e e l now" or "how I used t o f e e l " do. T h e r e f o r e , the response s c a l e s a t i s f i e s the major c r i t e r i o n of o r d i n a l i t y i n tha t i t pe r m i t s a p l a u s i b l e r a t i o n a l e f o r r a n k i n g responses. In c a l c u l a t i n g means i t i s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t o r d i n a l s c a l e s do not n e c e s s a r i l y p r o v i d e e q u a l i n t e r v a l s . On t h i s i s s u e K e r l i n g e r (1973) argues t h a t u s i n g i n t e r v a l s t a t i s t i c s with o r d i n a l measures i s commonplace i n e d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h and f r e q u e n t l y y i e l d s s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . For the purpose of c a l c u l a t i n g item and stage sc o r e means t h e r e does not appear t o be a t o o - s e r i o u s r i s k of d i s t o r t i o n or e r r o r that would r e s u l t i n f a u l t y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of d a t a . T a b l e 2 d i s p l a y s stage s c o r e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the sample of 33 inmate-students. Stage s c o r e means as w e l l Table 2 OVERALL ITEM SCORE MEANS BY ROLE DEVELOPMENT STAGES Stage Mean S.D. No. of Items Recruitment 1. 35 .21 16 Disorientation 1. 52 .28 14 Separation 1. 70 .36 10 Transition 2. 64 .38 17 S o l i d a r i t y 2. 54 .38 13 73 as s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s i n c r e a s e from the Recruitment stage (X=1.35, S.D.=.21) to the T r a n s i t i o n stage (X=2.64, S.D.=.38). The stage s c o r e mean f o r the S o l i d a r i t y stage (X=2.54) i s s l i g h t l y lower than i t s c o u n t e r p a r t i n the T r a n s i t i o n s t a g e . An o v e r a l l stage score mean i s c a l c u l a t e d by a v e r a g i n g the 33 inmate-students' responses t o the "n" items a s s i g n e d t o t h a t s t a g e . Scores w i l l be h i g h when many inmates d e s i g n a t e most of the items i n a stage t o d e s c r i b e how they " f e e l now" toward the u n i v e r s i t y program, because a l l such items are coded "3." A stage score mean w i l l be lower when many inmates i n the sample say most items stand f o r "how I used t o f e e l " (coded 2), "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " or "don't know" (both coded 1). An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these stage s c o r e means i s o u t l i n e d i n F i g u r e 6. The histo g r a m d i s p l a y s percentage responses t o items w i t h i n a stage by c a t e g o r y of c h o i c e . The v e r t i c a l a x i s d i s p l a y s , f o r each stage of r o l e enactment, stage s c o r e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , and the four response c a t e g o r i e s used i n the c a r d s o r t . The h o r i z o n t a l a x i s r e p r e s e n t s percentages of responses by 33 inmate-students to items w i t h i n each s t a g e . Recruitment's stage score mean i s 1.35, the lowest of a l l the f i v e s t a g e s . I t s low mean c o u p l e d w i t h a st a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of .21 i n d i c a t e s t h a t inmates c o n c u r r e d i n p i c k i n g o n l y a few of the 16 Recruitment items as v a l i d d e s c r i p t o r s of t h e i r p r e s e n t f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. I n s t e a d , most items were a s s i g n e d t o "never f e l t t h i s way" (65.3 p e r c e n t ) and "don't know" (6.8 p e r c e n t ) . "High" item s c o r e s may be due to v a l u e s added by a s u b s t a n t i a l number of items coded "2" ("how I used t o Legend 'Now' - Feel t h i s way now 'Past' - Used to f e e l t h i s way 'Nv' - Never f e l t t h i s way 'DK' - Don't know SOLIDARITY X=2.54 S.D.=.38 TRANSITION X=2.64 S.D.=.38 SEPARATION X=1.70 S.D.=.36 DISORIENTATION X=1.52 S.D.=.28 RECRUITMENT X=1.35 S.D.=.21 Now Past Nv DK Now Past Nv DK Now Past Nv DK Now Past Nv DK Now Past Nv DK 75.1 % 4.2 % 7.0 % 13, 8 % 79.3 % 5.0 % 8.2 % 7.5 % 27.6 % 14.8 % 10.9 % 46.7 % 15.4 % 21.6 % 8.2 % 54.8 % 6.8 % 21.0 % 65.3 % 6.8 % Figu: .re 6. Inmate Responses By Stage And Category 75 f e e l " - 21 p e r c e n t ) r a t h e r than from a number of items coded "3" ("how I f e e l now" - 6.8 p e r c e n t ) . T h e r e f o r e , when d e s c r i b i n g the meaning of h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s , r e a d e r s s h o u l d keep i n mind t h a t a s m a l l number of items may t y p i f y Recruitment f o r t h i s sample of inmate-students. F i g u r e 6 shows almost seven p e r c e n t of inmates' responses i n d i c a t e d t h a t they were "now" i n the Recruitment s t a g e . F i g u r e 5 showed which items f o r each of the stages were chosen most f r e q u e n t l y by inmate-students to d e s c r i b e how they f e e l toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. In g e n e r a l , inmates with h i g h Recruitment stage s c o r e s r e p o r t e d f e e l i n g c u r i o u s about the program (item 7), t h a t they o n l y wanted to take a course i n a p r e f e r r e d s u b j e c t (item 12), and thought a l l i n s t r u c t o r s were p r e t t y much the same (item 15). Up to one t h i r d of the 33 s t u d e n t s d e f i n e d t h e i r f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program i n terms of one or more of these items. A s m a l l e r number of inmates w i t h h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s (7 to 12 p e r c e n t of 33 inmates) i n d i c a t e d f e e l i n g t h a t the u n i v e r s i t y program c o u l d n ' t be worse than other p r i s o n programs (item 1), they were very sure the program wouldn't change them (item 11), and d i d n ' t p l a n to get too i n v o l v e d with i t (item 14). Inmates with low Recruitment s c o r e s were more l i k e l y than those w i t h h i g h s c o r e s to deny or a t t r i b u t e to the past a r e l a t i o n s h i p to the u n i v e r s i t y program based on these 16 items. Thus, Recruitment appears to p l a y a minor r o l e as r e p o r t e d by t h i s sample of inmate-students. Those items a s s o c i a t e d with h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s r e p r e s e n t c u r i o s i t y about the u n i v e r s i t y 76 program tempered by an i n t e n t i o n not to be "sucked i n " or changed by i t , and an uninformed view of c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t o r s . The D i s o r i e n t a t i o n stage s c o r e mean (X=1.52, S.D.=.28) i n d i c a t e s t h a t most inmate-students chose few of i t s 14 items t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r p r e s e n t o r i e n t a t i o n toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. F i g u r e 6 shows the response r a t e to be 15.4 p e r c e n t , w e l l below the 54.8 per c e n t f o r "never f e l t l i k e t h a t " , and moderately lower than the 21.6 p e r c e n t f o r "how I used t o f e e l . " F i g u r e 5 shows about 45 per c e n t of the 33 p a r t i c i p a n t s r e p o r t e d f e e l i n g s u r p r i s e at how i n v o l v e d i n s t r u c t o r s were wi t h s t u d e n t s (item 19). Those wi t h h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h e r e was more work than they expected ( i t e m 17), t h a t other s t u d e n t s were more s e r i o u s about the program than they (item 28), t h a t the program was d i f f e r e n t from what they expected (item 21), and t h a t b e i n g a student i n c r e a s e d the p r e s s u r e on them (item 30). As w i t h low Recruitment s c o r e r s , those w i t h low D i s o r i e n t a t i o n stage s c o r e s e i t h e r c o n signed these f e e l i n g s about the program t o the p a s t , or more f r e q u e n t l y , d e n i e d they ever had them. Though the percentage of D i s o r i e n t a t i o n items i n d i c a t i n g s t u d e n t s ' c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s was more than twice t h a t of R e c r uitment's, the o v e r a l l importance of " d i s o r i e n t a t i o n " i n d e f i n i n g the s o c i a l e c o l o g y of these 33 students appears minor. S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n ' s stage s c o r e mean (X=1.70) i n d i c a t e s t h a t s t u d e n t s chose a few more of these items than from the p r e c e d i n g two stages to d e s c r i b e t h e i r present f e e l i n g s toward 77 the u n i v e r s i t y program. An increase i n the standard d e v i a t i o n from .28 i n D i s o r i e n t a t i o n to .36 i n Separation i n d i c a t e s a greater degree of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the "high" and "low" s c o r e r s i n S e p a r a t i o n , and consequently more d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s as a stage of r o l e development compared to Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n . F i g u r e 6 shows the response r a t e f o r "how I f e e l now" (27.6 percent) to be higher than that f o r "how I used to f e e l " (14.8 percent) and moderately lower than f o r "never f e l t l i k e t h a t " (46.7 p e r c e n t ) . In g e n e r a l , inmates w i t h high Separation scores chose items to i n d i c a t e they were at the p o i n t of f e e l i n g they c o u l d "handle being a student" (item 36). Moreover, they were "fed up wi t h p r i s o n games" (item 39), wanted even l e s s contact w i t h the general inmate p o p u l a t i o n (items 35, 37) and found i t harder to "put up w i t h p r i s o n b u l l s h i t " (item 31). A sm a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of inmates w i t h high Separation stage scores a l s o f e l t they had found a subject i n the c u r r i c u l u m they would l i k e to devote a l l t h e i r time to (item 38), were l e s s i n t e r e s t e d i n a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e of school (item 40), and f e l t a s u b s t a n t i a l c o n f l i c t between t h e i r inmate and student r o l e s (item 32). For the most p a r t , inmates w i t h low Separation scores denied f e e l i n g " s e p a r a t i o n - a l i e n a t i o n " or "didn't know" about some of i t s component items. A few i n d i c a t e d f e e l i n g that a number of statements c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s stage were t r u e f o r them i n the past. Moreover, i t i s probable that a number of inmate- students w i t h low to average Separation scores d i d f e e l , i n common w i t h high s c o r e r s , that they were at the p o i n t where they 78 c o u l d "handle being a student" (item 36 - p i c k e d as " t r u e " by 70 p e r c e n t of i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s ) . However, they were l e s s l i k e l y than h i g h s c o r e r s on S e p a r a t i o n to a s s o c i a t e " g e t t i n g a handle" on being a student with a f e l t need f o r d i s t a n c i n g themselves from o t h e r non-student inmates and p r i s o n a c t i v i t i e s . Some low S e p a r a t i o n stage s c o r e r s were a l s o " f e d up w i t h p r i s o n games" (item 39 - " t r u e " f o r 49 p e r c e n t of i n m a t e - s t u d e n t s ) . S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n appears to be a moderately d i s t i n c t " r e a l i t y " f o r inmate-students w i t h h i g h stage s c o r e means. The h i g h e s t of the f i v e stage s c o r e s o c c u r s i n the T r a n s i t i o n stage (X=2.64). Many inmate-students chose a m a j o r i t y (79.3 p e r c e n t response) of these 17 items to r e p r e s e n t t h e i r c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s t a t e toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. C o r r e s p o n d l y , much lower response r a t e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d T r a n s i t i o n items as d e s c r i b i n g past f e e l i n g s (5 percent) or n o n - p e r t a i n i n g statements ("never f e l t l i k e t h i s " - 8.2 p e r c e n t ; "don't know" - 7.5 p e r c e n t ) . The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of .38 c o u p l e d w i t h a stage score mean of 2.64 i n d i c a t e s t h a t inmate-students w i t h h i g h stage s c o r e s chose v i r t u a l l y a l l T r a n s i t i o n items to d e s c r i b e t h e i r f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. In g e n e r a l , h i g h s c o r e r s r e p o r t e d f e e l i n g the u n i v e r s i t y program was h e l p i n g them get c o n t r o l over and make changes i n t h e i r l i v e s (items 41, 42), had v a l u e (item 43), and was u s e f u l (item 45). In a d d i t i o n , they f e l t c o n f i d e n t of t h e i r a b i l i t y t o l e a r n ( i t e m 51), enjoyed l e a r n i n g about many d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s (item 54), f e l t more a c c e p t i n g of demands made on them as students (item 44), and saw 79 t h e i r student s t a t u s as an a s s e t i n the p r i s o n ( i t e m 47). Inmates w i t h low T r a n s i t i o n stage s c o r e s d e s i g n a t e d a number of these items to d e s c r i b e p a s t f e e l i n g s , and o t h e r s as not d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r f e e l i n g s at any time. The h i g h stage s c o r e s suggest most inmates shared common elements of a " t r a n s i t i o n " o r i e n t a t i o n . However, F i g u r e 5 suggests that respondents w i t h low and average stage s c o r e s were l e s s l i k e l y than h i g h s c o r i n g respondents to r e p o r t f e e l i n g t h a t the program was h e l p i n g them get c o n t r o l over and make changes i n t h e i r l i v e s (items 41, 42), t h a t i t had v a l u e f o r them (item 43), or t h a t they had d i f f e r e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s than b e f o r e (item 46). In a d d i t i o n , low s c o r i n g respondents on T r a n s i t i o n were l e s s l i k e l y than h i g h s c o r i n g respondents to f e e l l i k e spending as much time as p o s s i b l e on student i n t e r e s t s ( i t e m 51), or to want to become i n v o l v e d with other a s p e c t s of the program. However, most respondents viewed t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the u n i v e r s i t y program i n terms of the f o r w a r d - l o o k i n g , p o s i t i v e - v a l u i n g stance of the T r a n s i t i o n stage items. The stage s c o r e f o r S o l i d a r i t y (X=2.54, S.D.=.38) was m a r g i n a l l y s m a l l e r than f o r T r a n s i t i o n , but s t i l l q u i t e h i g h and the p a t t e r n of responses i s s i m i l a r . Many respondents s e l e c t e d most (75.1 p e r c e n t response) of these 13 items to d e s c r i b e how they f e l t toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. A g a i n , r a t e s of response to these items by other c a t e g o r i e s were low -- "how I used to f e e l " - 4.2 p e r c e n t ; "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " - 7 p e r c e n t ; "don't know" - 13.8 p e r c e n t . A s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of .38 i n d i c a t e s t h a t respondents with 80 high scores s e l e c t e d v i r t u a l l y a l l of the S o l i d a r i t y items t o de s c r i b e t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the u n i v e r s i t y program. This i s because high stage scores approached 3.00, p o s s i b l e only when most S o l i d a r i t y items were chosen to represent c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s t a t e s . In g e n e r a l , these respondents reported f e e l i n g completely i n v o l v e d w i t h the program (item 58), saw i t as a means to express themselves (item 60), f e l t a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o support i t (item 61), that i t was the best t h i n g to happen f o r them i n p r i s o n (item 62), and b e l i e v e d they c o u l d add something to i t (item 64). In a d d i t i o n , they report e d f e e l i n g more t o l e r a n t of other peoples' views (item 67), equal to any cha l l e n g e posed by the program (item 64), and able to defend i t to other inmates (item 68). They f e l t good about t h e i r working r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s (item 63) and about support from the student community (item 69). On the other hand, inmates wi t h low S o l i d a r i t y stage scores were l e s s l i k e l y than high s c o r i n g respondents to report f e e l i n g that other students wanted the same t h i n g s they d i d (item 70), that they c o u l d r e l y on the student community (item 59) or tha t the student community supported them (item 69). In g e n e r a l , respondents w i t h low S o l i d a r i t y stage scores d i d not repo r t complete involvement w i t h the program (item 58), d i d not see i t as a means to express themselves (item 60), nor f e e l i t was the best t h i n g to happen to them i n p r i s o n (item 62). However, the o v e r a l l m a j o r i t y of respondents viewed t h e i r c u r r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the program i n strong " s o l i d a r i t y " terms. Table 3 summarizes d i f f e r e n c e s between high and low scores 81 w i t h i n each stage of r o l e development. A n o t i c e a b l e f e a t u r e i n Tab l e 3 i s the p o l a r i t y c r o s s o v e r i n stage meanings between D i s o r i e n t a t i o n and S e p a r a t i o n . Item meanings i n Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with h i g h s c o r e s expressed o p p o s i t i o n a l , r e a c t i v e s t a t e s . , In c o n t r a s t , S e p a r a t i o n , T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y meanings a s s o c i a t e d with h i g h s c o r e s suggested emerging a s p i r a t i o n s , commitment to l e a r n i n g and to the program. The " n e g a t i v e " or " p o s i t i v e " p o l a r i t y of items i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to the item c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e s s which was d e l i b e r a t e l y anchored i n the the c h a r a c t e r of d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s of r o l e development proposed i n the model. (Chapter 3 p r o v i d e s a f u l l d i s c u s s i o n of the model's stages of r o l e development.) To r e c a p i t u l a t e the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n F i g u r e 6 , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of item responses w i t h i n each stage showed t h a t most s t u d e n t s s t r o n g l y s u s c r i b e d to c u r r e n t s t a t e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f e e l i n g s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r o l e development at the T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y s t a g e s . F i g u r e 6 i n d i c a t e d weaker support among st u d e n t s f o r the t h r e e i n i t i a l stages — Recruitment, D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , and S e p a r a t i o n . However, th e r e was no reason to expect t h a t a l l f i v e stages would e q u a l l y r e f l e c t c u r r e n t s t a t e s f o r t h i s or any sample of inmates. D i f f e r e n t item s e t s d e f i n e d v a r i o u s p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l l y d i s t i n c t s t a g e s of r o l e development. Moreover, respondents acknowledged the s a l i e n c y of some items w i t h i n the i n i t i a l t h r e e stages i n d e s c r i b i n g p r e v i o u s l y h e l d f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. As such these items had meaning f o r respondents and, though not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 82 Table 3 SUMMARY AND CONTRASTS OF STAGE SCORE MEANINGS Stage High Scores Low Scores RECRUITMENT - curious about program - interested i n 1 subject only - instructors a l l the same - program couldn't be worse than others - won't be changed by program - won't get too involved - not curious about program - interested in more than 1 subject - see differences i n instructors - not against being changed by program - becoming involved not an issue DISORIENTATION - surprised at l e v e l of in s t r u c - tor involvement - more work than expected - other students believed more serious - program d i f f e r e n t than expected - being student increases pressure - accept instructors' involvement - amount of work anticipated - serious about student role - aware of program - pressure not dependent on student role SEPARATION - can handle being a student - fed up with prison games - less contact with other inmates wanted - harder to put up with prison b u l l s h i t - less Interested i n non-school a c t i v i t i e s - substantial c o n l i c t between inmate and student roles - already managing student role or not yet confident about i t - n o t bothered by prison games - not concerned about contact with non-student inmates - coping with prison - not exclusively interested i n school - not f e e l i n g much c o n f l i c t between inmate and student roles TRANSITION - program helping to get control over and change l i v e s - program has value for them - program i s useful to them - confident of a b i l i t y to learn - enjoyed learning about d i f f e r e n t subjects - accepting of demands made on them as students - student status an asset in prison - program not viewed as resulting i n control or change i n l i v e s - no p a r t i c u l a r value to program - program not necessarily useful - not concerned about or confident of a b i l i t y to learn - not turned on by dif f e r e n t subjects - not reconciled to demands made on them as students - student status unimportant or a l i a b i l i t y i n prison SOLIDARITY - f e l t completely involved with program - program means to express s e l f - f e l t responsible to support pro- gram - best thing to happen i n prison - f e l t they had something to add to program - more tolerant of others' views - equal to any challenge in program - able to defend program to other inmates - f e l t good about working r e l a t i o n - ships with instructors - confident of support from student community - not deeply involved in program - program instrumental rather than expressive - not responsible for supporting program - unaware of making an impact on program - unaware of any change in tolerance towards others - not prepared to defend program to other non-student inmates - not confident about a b i l i t y to meet future program requirements - unsure about quality of relationships with instructors - not confident about intentions of fellow students toward self 83 of c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s , enhanced the p l a u s i b i l i t y of the t h e o r e t i c a l stages of r o l e development n o n e t h e l e s s . A s t r i k i n g f e a t u r e of F i g u r e 6 i s the c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of " d e n i a l " shown by respondents toward items w i t h i n the i n i t i a l t h r e e s t a g e s . " D e n i a l " response r a t e f o r Recruitment was 65.3 perc e n t "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " , f o r D i s o r i e n t a t i o n 54.8 p e r c e n t , and f o r S e p a r a t i o n 46.7 p e r c e n t . The e x t e n t t o which t h i s " d e n i a l " r e p r e s e n t e d a t h r e a t t o the v a l i d i t y of the i n i t i a l t h r e e stages warrants c o n s i d e r a t i o n . D i f f e r e n t assumptions y i e l d d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s . One assumption i s t h a t respondents r e a l l y d i d not ever f e e l more " r e c r u i t m e n t " , " d i s o r i e n t a t i o n " , or " s e p a r a t i o n " than was i n d i c a t e d by responses to "how I f e e l now" and "how I used to f e e l . " In other words, the "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " response percentages were a v a l i d r e f l e c t i o n of s t a t e s f e l t by these respondents w i t h i n the l i m i t s of c a r d s o r t s performed on 70 items. I f , on the other hand, t h e r e i s concern t h a t inmates d i d f e e l more " r e c r u i t m e n t " , " d i s o r i e n t a t i o n " and " s e p a r a t i o n " than was i n d i c a t e d by responses t o "how I f e e l now" and "how I used to f e e l , " then the response r a t e s f o r "never f e l t l i k e t h i s " c o n s t i t u t e d " d e n i a l " of the " t r u t h . " D e n i a l can take the forms of d e l i b e r a t e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n or s e l f - d e c e p t i o n . Some items i n the t h r e e i n i t i a l stages expressed n e g a t i v e sentiments about the program, p r i s o n , other inmates, and respondents' own c a p a c i t y t o l e a r n . Respondents c o u l d have d e l i b e r a t e l y m i s r e p r e s e n t e d the extent to which these more n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s d e f i n e d t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the 84 u n i v e r s i t y program, p r i s o n , or other inmates. They might have been l o a t h e to g i v e the program "bad p r e s s " , f e a r i n g t hat c o r r e c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s might somehow use t h i s r e s u l t a g a i n s t the program or i t s s t u d e n t s . There was no sure defence a g a i n s t d e l i b e r a t e m a n i p u l a t i o n of item responses. Any e d u c a t i o n a l or s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h attempted i n p r i s o n f a c e s a d i f f i c u l t job i n "winning" the c o o p e r a t i o n of inmates who d i s t r u s t the r o l e and purposes of r e s e a r c h . Even a f t e r inmates consent to p a r t i c i p a t e they remain wary to s a f e g u a r d t h e i r p e r c e i v e d best i n t e r e s t s , i f n e c e s s a r y at the expense of d i s c l o s i n g what they r e a l l y t h i n k or f e e l . From t h e i r p o i n t of view, long a f t e r the r e s e a r c h e r has gone they w i l l s t i l l be s t r u g g l i n g to m a i n t a i n t h e i r w e l l b e i n g i n an o f t e n t r e a c h e r o u s s o c i a l environment. Steps were taken to minimize inmates' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h r e a t a r i s i n g from the methods of o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , the purposes of the study, and the l i k e l y uses of i t s f i n d i n g s . Each concern shaped the approach taken to t h i s study. Assurances about the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n used were g i v e n to inmates. There was no evidence t h a t respondents d e l i b e r a t e l y m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i r f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. The p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e i n the study was very h i g h r e l a t i v e to a v a i l a b l e s u b j e c t s (see Chapter 5 ) . A second " d e n i a l " p r o p o s i t i o n concerns respondents' s e l f - d e c e p t i o n about t h e i r " t r u e " f e e l i n g s . They c o u l d have u n w i t t i n g l y d e n i e d to themselves some of the more n e g a t i v e f e a t u r e s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the u n i v e r s i t y program. In 85 an unpleasant p r i s o n environment, any " p a i n " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h being an inmate-student might seem l i k e " p l e a s u r e " r e l a t i v e to other p r i s o n r o l e s . Yet, the p r o s p e c t t h a t inmate-students were out of touch with themselves i s count e r t o the program's focus on c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l development. Inmate-students p u r p o r t e d l y become more i n s i g h t f u l about themselves i n the u n i v e r s i t y program, and thus more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g about t h e i r t r u e f e e l i n g s . F i n a l l y , t h e r e a re two e x p l a n a t i o n s not based on the " d e n i a l " assumption. One p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t the measurement of the c o n s t r u c t s i n the Recruitment, D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , and S e p a r a t i o n stages was flawed, r e s u l t i n g i n flawed f i n d i n g s . The development of measures proceeded through a number of c a r e f u l s t e p s which are o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . Moreover, the judges' c o n c u r r e d on items used to measure Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , and to a l e s s e r degree, S e p a r a t i o n . The other e x p l a n a t i o n takes i n t o account the type of p r i s o n environment w i t h i n which the u n i v e r s i t y program was l o c a t e d . A low-medium s e c u r i t y p r i s o n l i k e W i l l i a m Head p e r m i t s inmates more movement and imposes l e s s s t r i n g e n t s e c u r i t y measures on them than maximum s e c u r i t y i n s t i t u t i o n s . T y p i c a l l y , inmate " o p p o s i t i o n " t o a u t h o r i t y and programs i n medium i s l e s s pronounced than i n maximum s e c u r i t y . The r e l a t i v e absence of inmate o p p o s i t i o n to the u n i v e r s i t y program a t W i l l i a m Head f a c i l i t a t e s inmate-students' r a p i d s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n t o t h e i r new r o l e s . For these inmate-students, f e e l i n g s of " r e c r u i t m e n t " , " d i s o r i e n t a t i o n " , and " s e p a r a t i o n " q u i c k l y g i v e way to 86 " t r a n s i t i o n " and " s o l i d a r i t y . " Thus, inmate-students' responses represented the " t r u t h " r a t h e r than a " d e n i a l " of t h e i r f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. R e l i a b i l i t y Estimates S e r v i c e a b l e estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y f o r t h i s study were obtained from Standardized Item Alphas. Table 4 provides s c a l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Estimates ranged from moderate (.57) f o r Table 4 RELIABILITIES FOR FIVE STAGES OF ROLE DEVELOPMENT Stages Mean Stage Score S.D. Observed Range Possible Range No. of Items R e l i a b i l i t y Standardized Item Alphas Recruitment 1.35 .21 1.0--1.8 1--3 16 .75 Disorientation 1.52 .28 1.0--2.1 1--3 14 .65 Separation 1.70 .36 1.2--2.4 1--3 10 .57 Transition 2.64 .38 1.6--3.0 1--3 17 .85 S o l i d a r i t y 2.54 .38 1.5-•3.0 1--3 13 .75 n=33 Separation to high (.85) f o r T r a n s i t i o n . T r a n s i t i o n (.85), S o l i d a r i t y (.75) and Recruitment (.75) measures (items) are s u f f i c i e n t l y homogeneous ( i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t ) i n accounting f o r " t r u e " v a r i a n c e i n s u b j e c t s ' responses to allow reasonably c o n f i d e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of subsequent an a l y s e s . Greater c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d i n 87 i n t e r p r e t i n g r e s u l t s f o r D i s o r i e n t a t i o n (.65) and p a r t i c u l a r l y S e p a r a t i o n (.57) due to i n c r e a s e d l e v e l s of e r r o r v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d by moderate alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s . Q u e s t i o n s D e r i v e d From the Stage Model The c r e a t i o n of an instrument to t e s t the model of r o l e development r e q u i r e d the framing of a number of q u e s t i o n s . These, a l o n g w i t h q u e s t i o n s a l r e a d y i m p l i c i t l y put and answered, conclude t h i s c h a p t e r . The i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n asked: 1. What are the stages? The stages were f i r s t t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e f i n e d , and subsequently e m p i r i c a l l y anchored (see Chapter 3 ) . The j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r e x i s t e n c e and sequencing comes from the t h e o r e t i c a l framework w i t h i n which they were d e r i v e d . Judges endorsed the adequacy of 70 statements used t o d e s c r i b e the f i v e stages of r o l e development. They d i d not t e s t the " t r u t h " or " r e a l n e s s " of the s t a g e s except i n s o f a r as 70 items corresponded to them. With the f i v e stages of the model o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d , the q u e s t i o n became: 2. Were the f i v e stages of r o l e development, as c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and measured, a f a i r a p proximation of inmates' s e l f - p e r c e i v e d f e e l i n g s t a t e s ? D i s c u s s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of these f i v e s t a g e s f o r inmates o c c u r r e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . The 88 r e s u l t s of a d d i t i o n a l s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s of t h i s q u e s t i o n are given i n Chapter 6. The stage model of r o l e development suggested t h a t inmates r e l a t e to the u n i v e r s i t y program i n terms of one dominant stage, r a t h e r than through m u l t i p l e s t a g e s . Thus, the q u e s t i o n about the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of s t a g e s f o r inmates became: 3. D i d inmate-students " r e s i d e " w i t h i n o n l y one stage of r o l e development a t a time? T h i s posed the i s s u e of inmate-students' d i s t r i b u t i o n through the f i v e s t a g e s based on t h e i r responses to the 70 statements i n the c a r d s o r t . Moreover, t h i s q u e s t i o n r a i s e d a r e l a t e d one: 4. Were the f i v e stages of r o l e development r e l a t e d t o o t h e r v a r i a b l e s ? The next c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s the method employed i n the study and the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s performed. D i s c u s s i o n of t e s t r e s u l t s r e g a r d i n g the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s o c c u r s i n Chapter 6. 89 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY Choice of Research S e t t i n g S e v e r a l c r i t e r i a r e s u l t e d i n the s e l e c t i o n of a s i n g l e p r i s o n as the s e t t i n g f o r the study. F i r s t , i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the importance a t t a c h e d by the model to the e x i s t e n c e of an academic community w i t h i n p r i s o n , a d e s i r a b l e s e t t i n g i s one i n which the g r e a t e s t o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t s f o r a c h i e v i n g f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study by inmates i n th a t community. P a r t i c i p a t i o n by a m a j o r i t y of members a f f o r d s the best o p p o r t u n i t y to understand the s o c i a l . e c o l o g y w i t h i n which r o l e s are enacted. Secondly, a p r e f e r r e d s e t t i n g i s one i n which inmate members of the academic community occupy the f u l l spectrum of academic s t a t u s e s , from "new" to " s e n i o r " s t u d e n t s . T h i r d l y , the s e t t i n g ought to be l o c a t e d w i t h i n a p r i s o n with a g e n e r a l p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a " t y p i c a l " range and v a r i e t y of o f f e n c e s . The SFU u n i v e r s i t y program o p e r a t e s i n fou r f e d e r a l p r i s o n s i n the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia and on Vancouver I s l a n d . The s e c u r i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of the four p r i s o n s v a r i e s . Canadian f e d e r a l p r i s o n s and oth e r c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s are c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o s e c u r i t y l e v e l s that range from "1" and "2" (minimum s e c u r i t y ) up to "6" (maximum s e c u r i t y ) and "7" (super-maximum). Two of the four p r i s o n s i n which the u n i v e r s i t y program o p e r a t e s are c l a s s i f i e d at l e v e l 90 "3" or low medium s e c u r i t y . One of these i s h e a v i l y p o p u l a t e d by inmates c o n v i c t e d of s e x - r e l a t e d o f f e n c e s and as such, c o n s t i t u t e s something of a s p e c i a l c a s e . Two o t h e r p r i s o n s are c l a s s i f i e d a t l e v e l s "5" and "6" r e s p e c t i v e l y . These l a t t e r two, a l o n g w i t h the remaining l e v e l "3" p r i s o n , c o n t a i n inmates c o n v i c t e d of a broad c r o s s - s e c t i o n of o f f e n c e s w i t h i n l i m i t s s e t by the CSC f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n a l placement of inmates a c c o r d i n g to benchmark c r i t e r i a (e.g. escape r i s k , v i o l e n c e r i s k , age) and s e v e r i t y of o f f e n c e (Appendix B). Thus, h i g h r a t h e r than low s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s c o n t a i n a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of inmates c o n v i c t e d of major o f f e n c e s such as murder and h o s t a g e - t a k i n g . One of the t h r e e " g e n e r a l " p r i s o n s ( W i l l i a m Head) i n which the u n i v e r s i t y program o p e r a t e d met the " p r e f e r r e d s e t t i n g " c r i t e r i a c o n s i d e r a b l y b e t t e r than the other two (Kent, M a t s q u i ) . W i l l i a m Head I n s t i t u t i o n i s a l e v e l "3" or low medium s e c u r i t y p r i s o n l o c a t e d on Vancouver I s l a n d . D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l i n v o l v e d w i t h the SFU p r i s o n program i n d i c a t e d t h a t inmate-students at W i l l i a m Head would be more l i k e l y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study, and i n g r e a t e r numbers, than inmate- students i n the other two h i g h e r s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s . Moreover, the u n i v e r s i t y program at W i l l i a m Head had a l a r g e r and more comprehensive range of "new" to " s e n i o r " students than e i t h e r of the other two " g e n e r a l " p r i s o n s . U n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l i n v o l v e d w i t h the program at W i l l i a m Head d i s c u s s e d the f e a s i b i l i t y of doing the study t h e r e and i n d i c a t e d t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to f a c i l i t a t e i t . D i s c u s s i o n s with the a s s i s t a n t wardens f o r E d u c a t i o n and T r a i n i n g and O f f e n d e r 91 Programs at W i l l i a m Head i d e n t i f i e d the a p p r o p r i a t e steps to o b t a i n a p p r o v a l f o r the study by the C o r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e of Canada. Approval f o r the study f o l l o w e d the submission of a formal r e s e a r c h a p p l i c a t i o n to the Re g i o n a l C h i e f P l a n n i n g & A n a l y s i s ( P a c i f i c ) of the CSC. In h i s absence, the R e g i o n a l Manager, P l a n n i n g & A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( P a c i f i c ) t o g e t h e r with the Research Committee of the CSC ( P a c i f i c ) reviewed and approved the r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l . S u b j e c t S e l e c t i o n Procedures About 40 inmates were e n r o l l e d i n u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e s at W i l l i a m Head a t the time of the study. As many of these inmate- s t u d e n t s as p o s s i b l e p a r t i c i p a t e d , s u b j e c t t o t h e i r own con s e n t . The u n i v e r s i t y c o - o r d i n a t o r at W i l l i a m Head o f f e r e d to "spread the word" about the p r o j e c t and he l p e d get inmates t o l i s t e n t o an e x p l a n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g i t . The c a r d s o r t i n g e x e r c i s e performed by inmate-students o c c u r r e d i n the f i r s t week of October 1984 over t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e days. The academic c e n t r e a t W i l l i a m Head i s l o c a t e d i n a s e l f - c o n t a i n e d b u i l d i n g w i t h i n the p r i s o n compound. A l l meetings w i t h inmates took p l a c e w i t h i n the c e n t r e . The u n i v e r s i t y c o o r d i n a t o r c r e a t e d a schedule f o r inmate-students w i l l i n g t o l i s t e n t o a d e s c r i p t i o n of the study. She i n t r o d u c e d one or two a t a time, g i v i n g them t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ' s name and h i s a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, and the f a c t the study c o n s t i t u t e d a d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . She mentioned t h a t the study concerned inmates' views of the 92 u n i v e r s i t y program i n p r i s o n . At t h i s p o i n t , the u n i v e r s i t y c o - o r d i n a t o r withdrew. Inmates read a p r i n t e d form (see Appendix C) which e x p l a i n e d the p r o j e c t , o u t l i n e d the Q tec h n i q u e procedures, a f f i r m e d t h e i r r i g h t t o d e c l i n e or withdraw from the e x e r c i s e at any time, and as s u r e d them of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y r e g a r d i n g t h e i r i d e n t i t i e s . Some inmates asked q u e s t i o n s about the purposes to which the r e s e a r c h would be put. Qu i t e a few v o l u n t e e r e d " t e s t i m o n i a l " types of comments r e g a r d i n g the b e n e f i t s or v a l u e of the u n i v e r s i t y program. Inmates g e n e r a l l y expressed v i e w p o i n t s about the program t h a t i n v o l v e d comparisons with other kinds of p r i s o n e x p e r i e n c e s or programs. Of the numerous comments made, o n l y two or th r e e were n e g a t i v e about the program in any way. T h i r t y - f i v e inmates agreed to do the Q - s o r t . Three who had been asked by the c o - o r d i n a t o r of the u n i v e r s i t y program to l i s t e n to the p r e s e n t a t i o n on the study d e c l i n e d to do so. Two inmates d i d not t u r n i n t h e i r Q - s o r t s , r e s u l t i n g i n 33 completed Q - s o r t s . A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Q-Sorts Each p a r t i c i p a n t r e c e i v e d an envelope c o n t a i n i n g a stack of p l a i n f i l e c a r d s on which the 70 statements were p r i n t e d . Cards were sequenced i n no p a r t i c u l a r o r d e r . Each envelope c o n t a i n e d four s m a l l e r envelopes, each l a b e l l e d w i t h a d i f f e r e n t heading. The f o u r headings were: - How I f e e l now 93 - How I used t o f e e l , but not now - Never f e l t l i k e t h i s - Don't know P a r t i c i p a n t s were t o l d the items r e p r e s e n t e d a wide range of v i e w p o i n t s about the u n i v e r s i t y program. They were i n s t r u c t e d to read and s o r t them i n t o the headings which best r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i r f e e l i n g s about the statements. The s o r t i n g procedure was u n f o r c e d . That i s , inmates d i d not s o r t c a r d s i n t o a r e q u i r e d normal or quasi-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . They were t o l d to put as many c a r d s as they wanted under each heading, t h a t no heading was " r i g h t " or any more p r e f e r a b l e than the o t h e r s . Once the c a r d s were s o r t e d , p a r t i c i p a n t s were t o l d t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e i r s e l e c t i o n s and to r e a s s i g n statements to other headings i f they wished. Most p a r t i c i p a n t s completed the s o r t w i t h i n 10 t o 15 minutes. A few took l o n g e r , up to, about 30 minutes. Upon co m p l e t i o n , the s t a c k s of s o r t e d c a r d s were i n s e r t e d i n t o l a b e l l e d envelopes which then went i n t o the l a r g e r envelope. A number code c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the name of each p a r t i c i p a n t marked the c o r n e r of each of the l a r g e r e n v e l o p e s . P a r t i c i p a n t s were thanked f o r t h e i r involvement. 94 C a r c e r a l and Demographic In f o r m a t i o n I n f o r m a t i o n about c a r c e r a l and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s came from the r e c o r d s of the T r a n s f e r Board at the R e g i o n a l Headquarters ( P a c i f i c ) of the C o r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e of Canada. P a r t i c i p a n t s ' year and term of enrolment i n the u n i v e r s i t y program came from u n i v e r s i t y r e g i s t r a t i o n forms a t W i l l i a m Head. The i n i t i a l d e f i n i t i o n of year of enrolment (year 1 to year 4) posed a problem. Inmate-students vary c o n s i d e r a b l y i n the number of courses they take per term. Some inmates e n r o l l e d f o r one or two c o u r s e s per term while o t h e r s e n r o l l e d i n four or f i v e when co u r s e s were a v a i l a b l e . Thus, t h e r e was wide v a r i a t i o n i n the number of terms inmates spent i n any one year b e f o r e amassing the r e q u i r e d number of c r e d i t s to advance to the next h i g h e r " u n i v e r s i t y y e a r . " T h i s study assumed t h a t time spent i n the u n i v e r s i t y program p r o v i d e s the o p p o r t u n i t y to develop c o g n i t i v e l y and s o c i a l l y , t o work out r o l e c o n f l i c t s , and to a c h i e v e new s t a g e s of r o l e development. New s t u d e n t s , a t the b e g i n n i n g of t h e i r f i r s t term i n the u n i v e r s i t y program, were l e s s l i k e l y than other f i r s t year s t u d e n t s i n second or t h i r d terms to have worked out the nuances of the student r o l e and a s s o c i a t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s of o t h e r s . Numerous c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h inmates i n t h i s and another study ( B o s h i e r & C l a r k e , 1983) r e v e a l e d t h a t many inmates new to the program r e q u i r e at l e a s t two terms to f i n d out whether or not they are going or want to "make i t " i n the program. 95 Most f i r s t year s t u d e n t s were e n r o l l e d i n f i r s t or second terms, with s e v e r a l i n t h i r d terms. A c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n about the number of u n i v e r s i t y terms taken by inmate-students c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d i n y e a r s two, t h r e e and four was not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , i n p a r t because most of them had begun the program at other p r i s o n s under a two semester system i n c o n t r a s t t o t h i s program's t r i m e s t e r system. T h e r e f o r e , the minimum number of terms an inmate-student r e q u i r e d b e f o r e advancing to y e a r s two, t h r e e or fo u r was based on the number of c r e d i t s r e q u i r e d and the maximum p o s s i b l e c o u r s e l o a d per term. Thus, "year of enrolment" was recoded as "term of enrolment" as f o l l o w s : 1,2,3,5,7. F i r s t year s t u d e n t s were coded "1","2" or "3" a c c o r d i n g to the a c t u a l term o c c u p i e d . Second year s t u d e n t s were coded "3", f o r a minimum of t h r e e terms, t h i r d year s t u d e n t s were coded "5" (minimum terms t a k e n ) , and f o u r t h year s t u d e n t s were coded "7" (minimum terms t a k e n ) . C a r c e r a l and demographic i n f o r m a t i o n concerned age, date of most r e c e n t sentence, l e n g t h of sentence, mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n date (MSD), warrant e x p i r y date (WED), s e v e r i t y of most s e r i o u s p r e s e n t o f f e n c e , p r e v i o u s p e n i t e n t i a r y ( f e d e r a l ) term served, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l and o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s a t the s t a r t of the presen t sentence. Some of the i n f o r m a t i o n came from the T r a n s f e r Board's c a r d index, the remaining i n f o r m a t i o n from P e n t e n t i a r y Placement Forms i n the Board's inmate f i l e s . A f t e r r e c e i v i n g p e r m i s s i o n to o b t a i n the i n f o r m a t i o n , two p a r t i a l days a t the R e g i o n a l Headquarters of the CSC were r e q u i r e d t o gather the data from 96 the c a r d s and forms. The c o d i n g schedule used to gather c a r c e r a l and demographic data i s shown as Appendix D. P r e v i o u s f e d e r a l p e n i t e n t i a r y term s e r v e d was coded dichotomously, yes or no. "Yes" meant the P e n i t e n t i a r y Placement Form i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n a d d i t i o n to the p r e s e n t sentence being served, the inmate i n q u e s t i o n had a l s o served at l e a s t one p r i o r term i n a f e d e r a l p r i s o n . E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l at the s t a r t of p r e s e n t sentence was coded a c c o r d i n g to the a c t u a l grade l e v e l i n d i c a t e d i n the Pen Placement Form. Years 4-12 c o r r e s p o n d to p u b l i c and secondary s c h o o l i n g , 13-15 to p a r t i a l u n i v e r s i t y i n c l u d i n g p o st-secondary diplomas, 16 to u n i v e r s i t y g r a d u a t i o n . In some cases the extent of an inmate's post-secondary e d u c a t i o n had to be i n f e r r e d from l e s s than p r e c i s e i n d i c a t i o n s i n the r e c o r d s . Concerning p r e v i o u s o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , P e n i t e n t i a r y Placement Forms were sometimes e x p l i c i t , at o t h e r times not. Lack of p r e c i s i o n i n the r e c o r d s was common where i n d i v i d u a l s had no c l e a r l y d e f i n e d job h i s t o r y or t r a i n i n g . The c a t e g o r i e s used to code o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s were: - u n s k i l l e d = 1 - s k i l l e d = 2 - c l e r i c a l / s a l e s = 3 - m a n a g e r i a l / a d m i n i s t r a t i v e = 4 - p r o f e s s i o n a l / t e c h n i c a l = 5 S e v e r i t y of "most s e r i o u s p r e s e n t o f f e n c e " was coded a c c o r d i n g to the O f f e n c e S e v e r i t y S c a l e ( i n c l u d e d as Appendix B) employed by the CSC to determine i n s t i t u t i o n a l placement of 97 inmates. O f f e n c e c a t e g o r i e s a r e : Minor=1; Moderate=2; Serious=3; Major=4. Examples of "major" o f f e n c e s are murder, kidnapping, espionage, and v i o l e n t t e r r o r i s t a c t i v i t i e s . " S e r i o u s " o f f e n c e s i n c l u d e robbery w i t h v i o l e n c e , v i o l e n t s e x u a l a s s a u l t s , a r s o n , and t r a f f i c k i n g i n dangerous drugs. "Moderate" o f f e n c e s i n c l u d e f o r g e r y , break and e n t e r , c r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e c a u s i n g death or b o d i l y harm, t h e f t over 200 d o l l a r s , and t r a f f i c k i n g i n s o f t drugs. "Minor" o f f e n c e s i n c l u d e common a s s a u l t , p u b l i c m i s c h i e f , c r i m i n a l n e g l i g e n c e not r e s u l t i n g i n b o d i l y harm, and p o s s e s s i o n of a r e s t r i c t e d or p r o h i b i t e d weapon. Present o f f e n c e s of p a r t i c i p a n t s observed on the P e n i t e n t i a r y Placement Forms were c o n v e r t e d t o the a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g to the l i s t of o f f e n c e s c o n t a i n e d under "each heading on the O f f e n c e S e v e r i t y S c a l e . Because s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s had been gi v e n l i f e sentences, i t was not p o s s i b l e to code Mandatory S u p e r v i s i o n or Warrant E x p i r y dates f o r them. " L i f e r s " have n e i t h e r l e g a l l y . S e t t i n g an approximate l e n g t h of sentence r a i s e d a d d i t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . T e c h n i c a l l y , the sentence i s l i f e . However, many l i f e r s do get out on p a r o l e e v e n t u a l l y . The i s s u e became one of e s t i m a t i n g a minimum p e r i o d of i n c a r c e r a t i o n b e f o r e the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e a r o s e . Records f o r two of the four l i f e r s i n the study i n d i c a t e d they had to serve a minimum of 10 y e a r s b e f o r e being e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e . No such i n d i c a t i o n was given f o r the other two l i f e r s . T h e r e f o r e , an "informed" guess p r o v i d e d a p o s s i b l e p a r o l e r e l e a s e d a t e , t a k i n g i n t o account the time a l r e a d y served on the sentence, the s e v e r i t y of the o f f e n c e 98 (eg. second-degree murder v e r s u s f i r s t - d e g r e e murder), and the c u r r e n t c o n v e n t i o n s governing sentence l e n g t h f o r major crimes (eg. 10, 15, or 25 year minimums f o r major o f f e n c e s ) . Data A n a l y s i s Data from the 70 Q-sort items were coded i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s as f o l l o w s : 1 = How I f e e l now 2 = How I used to f e e l , but not now 3 = Never f e l t l i k e t h a t 4 = Don't know The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers a s s i g n e d to p a r t i c i p a n t s upon co m p l e t i o n of the Q-sort e x e r c i s e l i n k e d the Q - s o r t i n f o r m a t i o n to t h e i r c a r c e r a l and demographic i n f o r m a t i o n . Data r e c o r d s were checked a g a i n s t the o r i g i n a l data c o l l e c t i o n f o r e r r o r s . None were found. D e s c r i p t i v e and i n f e r e n t i a l methods of a n a l y s i s were employed u s i n g the SPSS:X package of s t a t i s t i c a l programs. T e s t s of q u e s t i o n s a r i s i n g from the model (see Chapter 4) and i n i t i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of those r e s u l t s are the t o p i c s of Chapter 6. 99 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS T h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s f i n d i n g s i n f i v e s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t d e s c r i b e s the p a r t i c i p a n t s , the second d e s c r i b e s stage score d a t a , the t h i r d d e s c r i b e s p a r t i c i p a n t s ' responses a c r o s s s t a g e s , the f o u r t h r e p o r t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s between stage s c o r e s and background v a r i a b l e s , and the f i f t h s e c t i o n r e p o r t s t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e on the a s s o c i a t i o n s between d u r a t i o n of program enrolment and h i s t o r y of p r e v i o u s i n c a r c e r a t i o n w i t h c a r c e r a l and demographic c o v a r i a t e s on stage of the model. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a r t i c i p a n t s T h i r t y - f i v e inmates of W i l l i a m Head I n s t i t u t i o n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study. Two inmates d i d not complete or r e t u r n t h e i r Q - s o r t s , r e s u l t i n g i n 33 u s a b l e c a s e s . As i s the case f o r a l l but one f e d e r a l p r i s o n , W i l l i a m Head has o n l y male inmates. A l l respondents were e n r o l l e d as stu d e n t s i n the u n i v e r s i t y programs a d m i n i s t e r e d by Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y . T a b l e 5 p r e s e n t s the year of b i r t h (age), year i n which the sentence was handed down, l e n g t h of sentence, warrant e x p i r y date ( y e a r ) , and mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n date (year) f o r respondents. Warrant e x p i r y dates and mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n dates were not given f o r the f i v e " l i f e r s " i n the study, f o r whom no r e l e a s e dates are are mandated. Table 5 ITEM CHARACTERISTICS FOR FIVE CARCERAL VARIABLES Variables n Mean S.D. Range Age (years) 32 34.3 10.16 22 - 65 Year of sentencing 33 1982 .1 2.53 1974 - 1984 Length of sentence (days) 33 2513 1408 500 - 5475 Warrant expiry date (year) 29 1988 .6 2.82 1985 - 1995 Mandatory supervision date 29 1986 .9 2.54 1984 - 1995 (year) The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' average age was 34.3 years (year of b i r t h X=1948.66, S.D.=10.16 years) w i t h ages ranging from 22 to 65. The average respondent was sentenced to p r i s o n i n the e a r l y e i g h t i e s (X=1982.18, S.D.=2.53 years) to a sentence of about 6.8 years (X=2513 days, S.D.=1408). Sentences ranged from 500 to an estimated 5475 days. B a r r i n g changes to the r e g u l a t i o n s governing r e l e a s e on mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n , and i n the absence of e a r l i e r p a r o l e , the average " n o n - l i f e r " respondent w i l l be re l e a s e d l a t e i n 1986 (year X=1986.97, S.D.=2.54 years) a f t e r s e r v i n g two t h i r d s of h i s sentence. The warrant b i n d i n g him to a p r i s o n term, should mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n or par o l e be revoked, e x p i r e s l a t e i n 1988 (year X=1988.69, S.D.=2.82 y e a r s ) . Table 6 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents by category of offence and previous f e d e r a l p r i s o n term served. Most respondents (51.5 percent) had been c o n v i c t e d of s e r i o u s 101 Table 6 SEVERITY OF OFFENCES AND PREVIOUS FEDERAL TERM SERVED Variable n Percent Severity of worst present offence Moderate 12 36.4 Serious 17 51.5 Major 4 12.1 Minor 0 0 Previous term served i n a federal penitentiary No 20 60.6 Yes • 13 39.4 o f f e n c e s , i n c l u d i n g armed robbery and drug t r a f f i c k i n g , or p o s s e s s i o n f o r the purpose of t r a f f i c k i n g . The remaining respondents had been c o n v i c t e d of moderate o f f e n c e s (36.4 p e r c e n t ) such as f r a u d and break and enter or major o f f e n c e s (12.1 p e r c e n t ) such as murder. None of the respondents were i n p r i s o n because of a c o n v i c t i o n f o r a minor o f f e n c e . T h i r t e e n respondents (39.4 p e r c e n t ) had s e r v e d at l e a s t one p r e v i o u s term i n a f e d e r a l p r i s o n . T a b l e 7 r e p o r t s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s — o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s ; e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l at s t a r t of sentence; and u n i v e r s i t y term. Ten respondents (30.3 p e r c e n t ) were c l a s s i f i e d as u n s k i l l e d . The remaining o c c u p a t i o n a l groups r e p r e s e n t e d were s k i l l e d (24.2 p e r c e n t ) , c l e r i c a l and s a l e s (15.2 p e r c e n t ) , p r o f e s s i o n a l and t e c h n i c a l (21.2 p e r c e n t ) , and 1 02 Table 7 OCCUPATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Variables n Percent Cumulative X Occupational status Unskilled 10 30.3 30.3 S k i l l e d 8 24.2 54.5 C l e r i c a l & sales 5 15.2 69.7 Managerial & administrative 3 9.1 78.8 Professional & technical 7 21.2 100.0 Years of education at st a r t of sentence 9 1 3.0 3.0 10 4 12.1 15.2 12 14 42.4 57.6 13 6 18.2 75.8 14 5 15.2 90.9 15 2 6.1 97.0 18 1 3.0 100.0 University term f i r s t 12 36.4 36.4 second 5 15.2 51.6 t h i r d 7 21.2 72.8 f i f t h 4 12.1 84.9 seventh 5 15.2 100.0 managerial and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e (9.1 p e r c e n t ) . E d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s at the s t a r t of c u r r e n t sentences ranged from 9 to 18 years of s c h o o l i n g . The l a r g e s t group (42.4 p e r c e n t ) had completed grade 12. Another c l u s t e r (42.5 p e r c e n t ) had c r e d i t f o r a t l e a s t one year of post-secondary e d u c a t i o n at the s t a r t of t h e i r s e ntences. In terms of the p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n program i t s e l f , the l a r g e s t c l u s t e r of respondents (36.4 p e r c e n t ) were e n r o l l e d i n the f i r s t term of t h e i r u n i v e r s i t y program. Inmates i n advanced 103 terms (those i n f i f t h or seventh terms) r e p r e s e n t e d under a t h i r d (27.2 p e r c e n t ) of a l l respondents. The next s e c t i o n r e p o r t s i n t e r - s t a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and measures of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y f o r each s t a g e . A d d i t i o n a l support f o r f i v e d i s t i n c t stages would r e s u l t from stages t h a t are more i n t e r n a l l y c o h e s i v e than they a re e x t e r n a l l y r e l a t e d to other s t a g e s . Stage I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s and I n t e r n a l C o n s i s t e n c y T h i s s e c t i o n r e p o r t s the extent to which the f i v e stages of r o l e enactment, as they were c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and measured (see Chapter 4 ), approximated inmate-student s e l f - p e r c e i v e d f e e l i n g s t a t e s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program and p r i s o n . To t e s t t h i s q u e s t i o n , c o r r e l a t i o n s among the stages and measures of i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y were compared. C o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a i s a s t a t i s t i c t h a t e s t i m a t e s how t i g h t l y items w i t h i n each stage cohere. Pearson's r shows the s t r e n g t h of a s s o c i a t i o n between any two s t a g e s . Some degree of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n was expected because the stages a re p a r t s of one c o n c e p t u a l model and share common u n i t s of i n t e r a c t i o n and fundamental c o n c e p t s . T a b l e 8 d i s p l a y s stage i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n v a l u e s w i t h c o e f f i c i e n t alphas i n the d i a g o n a l . Alpha v a l u e s are h i g h e r than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t Pearson r ' s f o r a l l stages which means t h a t items c o m p r i s i n g each stage had more i n common with each other as a s e t than w i t h s e t s of items c o m p r i s i n g o t h e r s t a g e s . Of the f i v e h y p o t h e t i c a l s t a g e s , T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y share the most i n common (r=.71, p<.0l) but have 104 Table 8 STAGE SCORE INTERCORRELATIONS AND RELIABILITIES Recruitment Disorientation Separation Transition S o l i d a r i t y Stages r r r r r Recruitment .73* Disorientation .62 .64* Separation .21 .21 .59* Transition .04 .04 .46 .85* S o l i d a r i t y -.02 .15 .47 .71 .76* Correlations above .45 are s i g n i f i c a n t of the .01 l e v e l for 33 cases. * The entries i n the diagonal are c o e f f i c i e n t alpha estimates. moderately (.85) and m a r g i n a l l y (.76) h i g h e r a l p h a v a l u e s r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y . Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n o v e r l a p moderately (r=.62, p<.0l) but a l s o have moderately (.73) and m a r g i n a l l y (.64) h i g h e r a l p h a v a l u e s r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y . Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n are both u n r e l a t e d t o T r a n s i t i o n or S o l i d a r i t y . S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n , the middle stage, i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to both T r a n s i t i o n (r=.46, p<.0l) and S o l i d a r i t y (r=.47, P<.01) but shows a moderately h i g h e r a l p h a v a l u e (.59) than e i t h e r c o r r e l a t i o n . So f a r , these f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t the model, even though i t has f i v e p u t a t i v e s t a g e s , r e a l l y has t h r e e "themes" roughly d e f i n i n g the " l o o s e n i n g " , " r e s t r u c t u r i n g " and " t i g h t e n i n g - u p " of one's r o l e s t r u c t u r e r e m i n i s c e n t of K e l l y ' s (1955) th e o r y of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . What Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n (the " l o o s e n i n g " stages) have i n common with each other but not with other stages i s an " o p p o s i t i o n a l " theme or p e r s p e c t i v e on r o l e i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y program and p r i s o n as a 105 whole. Cynicism,. s k e p t i c i s m , c o n f u s i o n and u n c e r t a i n t y are some of the p r i n c i p a l dynamics of these s t a g e s . T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y (the " t i g h t e n i n g - u p " ) e x e m p l i f y a f o r w a r d - l o o k i n g , p o s i t i v e commitment to the u n i v e r s i t y program and the va l u e of e d u c a t i o n and l e a r n i n g f o r changing p e r s o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s . They have t h i s i n common w i t h each other but not with the other s t a g e s , except S e p a r a t i o n . C e r t a i n t y , s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and accommodation of inmate-student t e n s i o n s c h a r a c t e r i z e these s t a g e s . S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n (the " r e s t r u c t u r i n g " ) has some common elements w i t h the " t i g h t e n i n g - u p " s t a g e s , p r i n c i p a l l y disengagement ( a l i e n a t i o n ) from the p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s of the inmate code. The model suggests t h a t occupants of S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n a re a l r e a d y moving away from the c o n v e n t i o n a l inmate s o c i a l system toward the commitment of T r a n s i t i o n . What d i s t i n g u i s h e s S e p a r a t i o n from T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y i s the growing urgency of c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n and inmate-student r o l e c o n f l i c t . The r e s o l u t i o n of t h a t c o n f l i c t , as p o i n t e d out i n the c o n c e p t u a l framework of t h i s study, may l e a d to a t r a n s i t i o n s t a g e . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the S e p a r a t i o n , T r a n s i t i o n , and S o l i d a r i t y o v e r l a p i s the i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t inmates with h i g h S e p a r a t i o n s c o r e s were r e s o l v i n g the c o n f l i c t of the " r e s t r u c t u r i n g " stage as w e l l as " t i g h t e n i n g - u p " t h e i r r o l e s t r u c t u r e s i n p o s i t i v e terms. From the s t a n d p o i n t of the u n i v e r s i t y , p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s , and respondents themselves, t h i s would be a p r e f e r r e d outcome. 1 06 To r e i t e r a t e the f i n d i n g s of t h i s s e c t i o n , c o e f f i c i e n t a lpha v a l u e s i n d i c a t e t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g c l e a r stage i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , s u b j e c t s ' responses to items p r o v i d e moderate support f o r f i v e p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l l y d i s t i n c t stages of r o l e development. The moderate stage i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s (Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n ; T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y ) suggest t h a t respondents p e r c e i v e d commonalities between items c o m p r i s i n g these s t a g e s , making more d i f f i c u l t the task of stage demarcation. However, these stage i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s suggest a " l o o s e n i n g " , " r e s t r u c t u r i n g " and " t i g h t e n i n g - u p " of inmate- s t u d e n t s ' r o l e s t r u c t u r e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the model of f i v e s tages of r o l e development. Although support f o r f i v e p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y d i s t i n c t s t a g e s i s l e s s e n e d by the e x i s t e n c e of shared v a r i a n c e , the degree to which items cohered w i t h i n stages based on s u b j e c t s ' and judges' responses (see Chapter 4) j u s t i f i e s the use of f i v e stage s c o r e s i n f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . The next s e c t i o n d e a l s w i t h the extent to which respondents i d e n t i f i e d w i t h one stage more than another. P r i n c i p a l Stage O r i e n t a t i o n s The model suggests t h a t an inmate-student, at any given p o i n t i n time, i d e n t i f i e s p r i n c i p a l l y with one of the f i v e stages — Recruitment, D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , S e p a r a t i o n , T r a n s i t i o n , or S o l i d a r i t y . The p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n and Chapter 4 showed that a l l f i v e stages have meaning f o r these s u b j e c t s , as determined by t h e i r responses to 70 items. T h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the 1 0 7 extent to which p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study i d e n t i f i e d with one p a r t i c u l a r s t a g e . F i g u r e 7 shows how 33 inmate-students s o r t e d 70 items i n t o four response c a t e g o r i e s . D i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t e s of response to these c a t e g o r i e s were d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 4. C o n s i d e r e d by stage, s u b j e c t s ' d e s i g n a t i o n s of items as d e s c r i b i n g "how I f e e l now" about the u n i v e r s i t y program i n c r e a s e from Recruitment to T r a n s i t i o n . Only 6.8 p e r c e n t of s u b j e c t s ' responses to Recruitment items d e s c r i b e d t h e i r "present f e e l i n g s . " The p r o p o r t i o n of responses i n t h i s c a t e g o r y more than doubled to 15.4 p e r c e n t f o r D i s o r i e n t a t i o n stage items. The p r o p o r t i o n i n c r e a s e d to 27.6 p e r c e n t f o r S e p a r a t i o n . I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t any of these i n i t i a l t h r e e s t a g e s c o n s t i t u t e s a dominant or p r i n c i p a l stage o r i e n t a t i o n f o r these p a r t i c u l a r inmate- s t u d e n t s . Inmate-students i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program with a s u b s t a n t i a l l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of items from T r a n s i t i o n (79.3 p e r c e n t ) and S o l i d a r i t y (75.1 p e r c e n t ) compared to the i n i t i a l t h r e e s t a g e s . I t i s l i k e l y t h a t one of these stages i s dominant f o r most of these inmate- s t u d e n t s and, w i t h an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of .71 between them, the other next most dominant. However, because the p r o p o r t i o n s i n F i g u r e 7 are c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l 33 respondents, they do not c o n c l u s i v e l y s e t t l e the i s s u e of dominant stage o r i e n t a t i o n . T a b l e 9 g i v e s the p r o p o r t i o n of items i n each stage t h a t i n d i v i d u a l respondents d e s i g n a t e d as d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r "present f e e l i n g s " toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. 108 S w 04 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Legend 'NOW' - Feel this way now 'PAST' - Used to f e e l this way 'NEVER' - Never f e l t this way 'DON'T KNOW' - Don't know NOW 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 *4 Figure 7. Inmate Item Responses By Category And Stage In every case but one, the dominant stage i s e i t h e r T r a n s i t i o n or S o l i d a r i t y . S u b j e c t 33 d e s i g n a t e d 100 perc e n t of items from both T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y to i n d i c a t e h i s "present f e e l i n g s . " A T r a n s i t i o n stage o r i e n t a t i o n was dominant f o r 21 and S o l i d a r i t y f o r 11 respondents. P e r c e n t s f o r dominant T r a n s i t i o n stage o r i e n t a t i o n ranged from 29 t o 100 p e r c e n t ; f o r S o l i d a r i t y , 46 to 100 p e r c e n t . In o n l y two ca s e s d i d the next most dominant stage occur i n the i n i t i a l t h r e e s t a g e s ( s u b j e c t s 4 and 20). The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s s e c t i o n show t h a t , based on the p r o p o r t i o n of responses d e s c r i b i n g "present f e e l i n g s " toward the u n i v e r s i t y program, 32 of 33 inmates had one dominant stage o r i e n t a t i o n . However, t h a t n u m e r i c a l f a c t must be r e c o n s i d e r e d i n view of the r e l a t i v e s i m i l a r i t y i n s i z e of most T r a n s i t i o n Table 9 PERCENTAGES OF ITEMS DESCRIBING PRESENT FEELINGS Stage Respondent Recruitment Disorientation Separation Transition S o l i d a r i t y (16 items) (14 items) (10 items) (17 items) (13 items) 33 0 7 60 100 100 32 0 7 40 100 92 31 13 7 20 88 85 30 6 7 10 100 77 29 6 29 20 47 92 28 6 21 20 88 77 27 0 7 30 82 92 26 0 0 40 88 85 25 0 0 30 94 77 24 19 21 50 82 62 23 0 14 30 100 85 22 6 21 20 76 92 21 13 21 20 88 62 20 25 43 40 41 54 19 25 29 10 65 54 18 0 0 30 71 77 17 6 29 50 100 92 16 6 7 70 100 85 15 0 14 30 100 85 14 6 36 20 53 62 13 6 7 10 53 62 12 0 14 60 94 100 11 19 14 40 100 92 10 13 29 20 82 92 9 0 21 10 100 92 8 6 7 40 76 85 7 0 7 20 88 77 6 6 21 10 76 69 5 0 7 10 88 62 4 13 36 20 71_ 31 3 13 14 10 41 .46 2 0 0 0 53 46 1 13 0 20 29 23 Note: Dominant stage i s under l ined 1 10 and S o l i d a r i t y percentages (Table 9) compared to those c o m p r i s i n g the i n i t i a l t h r e e s t a g e s . I t appears t h a t a l l respondents were " t i g h t e n i n g - u p " t h e i r r o l e s t r u c t u r e s and t h a t f o r most, the demarcation between T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y f e e l i n g s , as r e p r e s e n t e d i n the 30 items f o r those two s t a g e s , was n e g l i g i b l e . Furthermore, the range between the h i g h e s t and lowest percentages f o r a dominant T r a n s i t i o n or S o l i d a r i t y o r i e n t a t i o n suggests t h a t inmates i n t e r p r e t t h e i r commitments to the program d i f f e r e n t l y , even when viewed from w i t h i n a common r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n stage of r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n and item response p a t t e r n s , 29 of the 30 items most f r e q u e n t l y a s s i g n e d to d e s c r i b e " p r e s e n t f e e l i n g s " r e f e r r e d to T r a n s i t i o n or S o l i d a r i t y . T a b l e 10 l i s t s the top 10 items f o r "how I f e e l now", "how I used to f e e l " , and "never f e l t l i k e t h i s . " The f i r s t t h r e e items r e f e r r i n g t o p r e s e n t f e e l i n g s (1. l i k e more c o u r s e s i n d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s ; 2. c o n f i d e n t of my a b i l i t y t o l e a r n ; 3. enjoy l e a r n i n g ) suggest t h a t above a l l , these inmate-students v a l u e d l e a r n i n g f o r i t s own sake and had c o n f i d e n c e i n themselves as l e a r n e r s . Item four r e f e r s to f e e l i n g a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o support the program. Items four ( f e e l a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) , f i v e (good working r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) , s i x (more t o l e r a n t toward o t h e r s ) , and seven (would defend t h i s program) p l a c e the respondent i n a p o s i t i o n of b eing e x t e r n a l l y e v a l u a t e d . They appear to i n d i c a t e a w i l l i n g n e s s t o be c a l l e d on to demonstrate support f o r the program, to p r a c t i c e t o l e r a n c e of o t h e r s ' views, to "go on r e c o r d " w i t h o t h e r , p o s s i b l y 111 Table 10 ITEMS DESCRIBING FEELINGS: PRESENT, PAST OR NEVER Response Category Items Present Feelings: "How I Feel Now" 1. 2. I'd l i k e more courses i n d i f f e r e n t subjects. I'm confident of my a b i l i t y to learn. 3. I enjoy learning about many d i f f e r e n t subjects. 4. I f e e l a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to support the program. 5. I have good working relationships with in s t r u c t o r s . 6. I f e e l more tolerant toward other peoples' views. 7. I would defend this program to other inmates. 8. I f e e l l i k e I'm s t a r t i n g to get something useful out of this program. 9. I'm looking forward to getting something for myself out of thi s program. 10. I f e e l l i k e my student experiences w i l l help me deal with problems more e f f e c t i v e l y . Past Feelings: "How I Used to Fe e l " 1. 2. I'm curious to see what the program i s l i k e . There i s more work than I expected. 3. I only want to take courses i n the subject I prefer. 4. Other students take thi s program more seriously than I do. 5. It's getting harder to put up with prison b u l l s h i t . 6. I don't know what to make of this program. 7. I f i n d i t hard to be a student. 8. I'm surprised at how Involved the instructors are with students. 9. X think a l l courses are pretty much the same. 10. Being a student increases the pressure on me. Never F e l t : "Never Fe l t Like This" 1. As a student, I f e e l too cut o f f from the rest of the inmate population. 2. I f e e l l i k e I'm too isolated here i n the academic area. 3. This program i s some sort of scam. 4. Maybe I can fraud i t for awhile i n this program. 5. I think a l l courses are pretty much the same. 6. I don't know i f I l i k e this program. 7. I f e e l pressure not to get too involved with student roles. 8. I don't care what i s taught i n this program. 9. This program i s probably l i k e a l l the others. 10. I don't care what I have to study. 1 12 unsympathetic inmates to defend the program, and to r i s k having i n s t r u c t o r s deny the q u a l i t y of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These f i r s t seven items suggest e x p r e s s i v e r a t h e r than i n s t r u m e n t a l concerns and e n t a i l the p o s s i b i l i t y of going a g a i n s t the g r a i n of p r e v a i l i n g inmate norms, the s i t u a t i o n of g r e a t e s t r i s k f o r p e r s o n a l s a f e t y . Past f e e l i n g s about the program ranged from c u r i o s i t y and s u r p r i s e to acknowledgements t h a t i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h being a s t u d e n t . Inmates i n t h i s study f o r the most p a r t d e n i e d f e e l i n g cut o f f from the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , c a t e g o r i z i n g the program as a scam, or having an u n c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e toward t h e i r student r o l e s . T h i s s e c t i o n r e p o r t e d t h a t respondents i n t h i s study, though o s t e n s i b l y i d e n t i f i e d with a dominant, f r e q u e n t l y endorsed a second r e l a t e d stage o r i e n t a t i o n to d e s c r i b e t h e i r "present f e e l i n g s " toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. Moreover, stages were found to be more i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t than i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each o t h e r . The next s t e p determined whether background and c a r c e r a l v a r i a b l e s were r e l a t e d t o stage s c o r e s . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n r e p o r t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s between stage s c o r e s and respondents' background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Stages and Respondent Background So f a r , inmate responses have been used to c a l c u l a t e stage s c o r e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s t a g e s . The l a s t r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n concerned the e x t e n t to which stage s c o r e s a r e r e l a t e d t o respondents' c a r c e r a l and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The 1 1 3 model suggested t h a t c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s , such as d u r a t i o n of time spent i n the u n i v e r s i t y program s h o u l d r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to respondents' stage scores and r e s u l t i n s y s t e m a t i c v a r i a n c e i n those s c o r e s . T e s t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of background and c a r c e r a l v a r i a b l e s f o r stage s c o r e s i n v o l v e d c o r r e l a t i o n a l and a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e p r o c e d u r e s . T a b l e 11 d i s p l a y s Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n s among the f i v e s tages with ten background v a r i a b l e s . Recruitment c o r r e l a t e d Table 11 STAGE, CARCERAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CORRELATIONS Recruitment Disorientstion Separation Transition Solidarity Variables r r r r r Year of birth .12 .25 .06 .01 .01 Year of sentence -.13 -.14 -.03 -.06 -.35* Length of sentence .10 -.05 -.16 .06 .24 Warrant expiry date .01 -.11 -.16 .07 .11 Mandatory supervision date -.12 -.18 -.28* .09 -.03 Occupational status -.17 -.12 -.22 -.17 -.12 Educational l e v e l at start -.14 -.10 -.27 -.06 -.18 of sentence Previous federal tern served .58*** .39** .35* .29* -.02 University term .35* .15 .10 .25 .36* Severity of offence -.05 -.08 -.04 -.10 .19 * p<.05 ** p <.01 *** p<.001 w i t h two background v a r i a b l e s : "previous f e d e r a l term (r=.58, p<.00l) and " u n i v e r s i t y term" (r=.35, p<.02). s e r v e d " Inmates 1 1 4 with h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s were more l i k e l y to have served a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l p r i s o n sentence and to have taken a few more terms of u n i v e r s i t y than were inmates with low Recruitment s c o r e s . These r e s u l t s suggested t h a t Recruitment stage o r i e n t a t i o n , c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f e e l i n g s of c y n i c i s m , s k e p t i c i s m and n e g a t i v i t y toward the u n i v e r s i t y and p r i s o n programs g e n e r a l l y , most s t r o n g l y c o r responds to the e x p e r i e n c e of r e p e a t e d i n c a r c e r a t i o n s i n the f e d e r a l p r i s o n system. T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the view t h a t r epeated imprisonment i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of p r i s o n e r s i n t o inmate s u b c u l t u r e s t h a t e xpress o p p o s i t i o n t o a u t h o r i t y and to p r i s o n programs. The c o r r e l a t i o n between Recruitment and u n i v e r s i t y term was c o n t r a r y to what the model i m p l i e s , t h a t inmates h i g h on Recruitment would more l i k e l y be i n t h e i r f i r s t u n i v e r s i t y term than would inmates low on Recruitment. Perhaps fewer inmates i n t h e i r f i r s t u n i v e r s i t y term had s e r v e d a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentence than inmates w i t h s e v e r a l terms of u n i v e r s i t y behind them. For these l a t t e r inmates, a Recruitment o r i e n t a t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d with a h i s t o r y of p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n and with a longer d u r a t i o n of involvement i n the u n i v e r s i t y program. D i s o r i e n t a t i o n c o r r e l a t e d moderately with " p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l term s e r v e d " (r=.39, p < . 0 l ) . Inmates h i g h on D i s o r i e n t a t i o n were more l i k e l y t o have s e r v e d a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l p r i s o n sentence than were inmates with low D i s o r i e n t a t i o n s c o r e s . D i s o r i e n t a t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f e e l i n g s of u n c e r t a i n t y about the demands of the u n i v e r s i t y program. T h i s f i n d i n g suggested 115 t h a t f e e l i n g s of D i s o r i e n t a t i o n are most s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to the e x p e r i e n c e of repeated i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n f e d e r a l p r i s o n s . S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n a l s o c o r r e l a t e d moderately with " p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l term s e r v e d " (r=.35, p<.02), and modestly with "mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n d a t e " (r=-.28, p<.05). Inmates h i g h on S e p a r a t i o n ( i e . those who s e l e c t e d a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of these items t o i n d i c a t e " c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s " than those low on S e p a r a t i o n ) were more l i k e l y to have se r v e d a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentence and to be c l o s e r to r e l e a s e on mandatory s u p e r v i s i o n than were inmates w i t h low S e p a r a t i o n s c o r e s . S e p a r a t i o n - A l i e n a t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f e e l i n g s of c o n f l i c t over the demands of inmate and student r o l e s , but w i t h an emerging p r e f e r e n c e f o r student s t a t u s . These f i n d i n g s suggested t h a t f e e l i n g s of S e p a r a t i o n , say i n terms of r o l e c o n f l i c t , were most s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d with a h i s t o r y of p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n . Moreover, s e p a r a t i o n b e h a v i o u r s ( d i s t a n c i n g from inmate norms) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h imminent r e l e a s e have been observed i n p r i s o n s t u d i e s . The l i t e r a t u r e on the " i m p o r t a t i o n model" (see Chapter 2) and a d a p t i v e p a t t e r n s of inmates behaviour i n v a r i o u s segments of t h e i r sentences, supports t h i s f i n d i n g . As inmates near r e l e a s e , they tend to disengage from inmate s o c i e t y and from b e h a v i o u r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the inmate code i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r l i f e o u t s i d e . T r a n s i t i o n - R e f r a m i n g c o r r e l a t e d modestly with " p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l term s e r v e d " (r=.29, p<.04). Inmates h i g h on T r a n s i t i o n were more l i k e l y to have s e r v e d a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentence than were those w i t h low T r a n s i t i o n s c o r e s . T r a n s i t i o n i s 116 c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f e e l i n g s of c o n s o l i d a t i o n of one's student s t a t u s and an a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r the b e n e f i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h being i n v o l v e d i n the program. This f i n d i n g suggested that T r a n s i t i o n f e e l i n g s were most s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a h i s t o r y of previous f e d e r a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n . Perhaps inmates i n t h i s study who had a p r i o r f e d e r a l sentence spent a longer time i n the program than inmates i n t h e i r f i r s t f e d e r a l sentence. A marginal c o r r e l a t i o n between T r a n s i t i o n and " u n i v e r s i t y term" (r=.25, p<.08) suggested that inmates high on T r a n s i t i o n more of t e n had a few terms i n the u n i v e r s i t y program behind them than inmates w i t h low T r a n s i t i o n s c o r e s . S o l i d a r i t y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h " u n i v e r s i t y term" (r=.36, p<.02) and "year of sentence" (r=.35, p<.02). Inmates high on S o l i d a r i t y o f t e n had r e l a t i v e l y more terms of u n i v e r s i t y program behind them and were more l i k e l y t o have been sentenced longer ago than were inmates w i t h low S o l i d a r i t y s cores. S o l i d a r i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f e e l i n g s of support f o r and l e a d e r s h i p i n the program. These f i n d i n g s suggested that f e e l i n g s of S o l i d a r i t y are most s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d u r a t i o n of time spent i n the u n i v e r s i t y program and w i t h the l e n g t h of time a l r e a d y spent i n p r i s o n on the c u r r e n t sentence. Inmates i n higher u n i v e r s i t y terms n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e d more time t o achieve them, unless they entered p r i s o n w i t h u n i v e r s i t y c r e d i t s . A l a r g e m a j o r i t y of these inmates d i d not. Perhaps t h i s f a c t accounted f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h how long they have a l r e a d y been i n p r i s o n . The model suggested that inmates' achievement of S o l i d a r i t y i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the d u r a t i o n of time they spend i n the program. 1 1 7 T h i s f i n d i n g o f f e r e d support f o r the p a r t that d u r a t i o n of time i n the program i s presumed to p l a y i n the development of student r o l e s . In summary, s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between stage and background v a r i a b l e s stood out. There appeared to be two stages a s s o c i a t e d with being a more s e n i o r s t u d e n t . The f i r s t s t a ge, Recruitment, was " o p p o s i t i o n a l " to the program, the second, S o l i d a r i t y , was " s o l i d " w i t h i n the program. Se n i o r s t u d e n t s w i t h h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s may a l s o have served a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentence. A g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d view i s that r e p e a t e d e x p e r i e n c e of imprisonment "hardens" the inmate and s o c i a l i z e s him more deeply i n t o an inmate code which i s o p p o s i t i o n a l to attempts by a u t h o r i t i e s to change ( r e h a b i l i t a t e ) him. C o n v e r s e l y , inmates with low Recruitment s c o r e s were more o f t e n a t the b e g i n n i n g of t h e i r programs and without a p r i o r f e d e r a l sentence than those with h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s . S e n i o r s t u d e n t s w i t h h i g h S o l i d a r i t y s c o r e s i n d i c a t e d f e e l i n g s of support f o r the program. T h i s r e s u l t was c o n s i s t e n t with the stage model of r o l e enactments and at odds with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Recruitment and student " s e n i o r i t y . " However, based on the p r o p o r t i o n of items used to d e s c r i b e p r e s e n t f e e l i n g s , h i g h S o l i d a r i t y s c o r e s were c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r n u m e r i c a l l y than h i g h Recruitment s c o r e s , and t h e r e f o r e i n d i c a t i v e of a more dominant s t a t e f o r inmates. T h e r e f o r e , s e n i o r s t u d e n t s were not " s p l i t " i n t o those w i t h dominant Recruitment or S o l i d a r i t y s c o r e s . The next s e c t i o n r e p o r t s how d u r a t i o n of program 1 18 involvement and p r e v i o u s h i s t o r y of f e d e r a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n accounted f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n inmates' stage s c o r e s . I n c l u d e d are the e f f e c t s of background v a r i a b l e s on response p a t t e r n s . E f f e c t s of Background V a r i a b l e s on Stage S c o r e s T h i s s e c t i o n r e p o r t s the e x t e n t to which d u r a t i o n of program involvement and p r e v i o u s h i s t o r y of f e d e r a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n p r e d i c t e d stage s c o r e s . The model proposed that d u r a t i o n of program involvement (measured as u n i v e r s i t y term) i s a p r e d i c t o r of stage o r i e n t a t i o n . The g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n concerned the ext e n t to which t h i s and other c a r c e r a l (such as p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n ) and demographic v a r i a b l e s , when t r e a t e d as independent, p r e d i c t stage s c o r e s . To t e s t these e f f e c t s , s e v e r a l a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e were performed u s i n g SPSS:X ANOVA. Table 12 r e p o r t s the r e s u l t s of the main e f f e c t s of u n i v e r s i t y term on stage s c o r e s . The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between stage and u n i v e r s i t y term o c c u r r e d w i t h r e g a r d t o Recruitment ( p < . 0 l ) . Because t h e r e were f i v e l e v e l s of u n i v e r s i t y term, a f u r t h e r c o m p a r i s i o n between Recruitment and u n i v e r s i t y term was performed to determine whether l e v e l s of term v a r i e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y . SPSS:X ONEWAY with the Tukey procedure t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s amongst term l e v e l s . The Tukey t e s t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t mean Recruitment s c o r e s f o r inmates i n terms 1 and 3 were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Inmates e n r o l l e d i n term 3 of the u n i v e r s i t y program had Recruitment 1 19 Table 12 EFFECTS OF ENROLLMENT TERM ON ROLE STAGE SCORES Stage University Term C e l l Means 1 2 3 4 5 Sums of Squares D.F. F Prob. R 2 Recruitment 1, .24 1. .26 1, .52 1. .42 1. .38 .39 4 3.95 .01 .28 Disorientation 1, .43 1, .57 1. .63 1. .54 1. ,53 .19 4 .51 .72 .07 Separation 1. .62 1. .82 1. .70 1. .82 1. .68 .22 4 .37 .82 .05 Transition 2. .53 2. .67 2. .59 2. .84 2. .76 .40 4 .60 .66 .08 S o l i d a r i t y 2, .38 2, .63 2. .46 2. .75 2, .78 .84 4 1.37 .28 .18 * denotes pair of groups s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 l e v e l s c o r e s t h a t were .28 p o i n t s h i g h e r than t h e i r peers i n term 1. Inmate-students i n term 3 expressed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o p p o s i t i o n i n t h e i r p r e s e n t f e e l i n g s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program and p r i s o n than d i d respondents i n term 1 of the program, p o s s i b l y because more inmates i n term 3 had served p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentences than those i n term 1. Recruitment has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d by items which embody o p p o s i t i o n a l and c y n i c a l a t t i t u d e s toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. Tab l e 13 shows the c o v a r i a t e e f f e c t s of c a r c e r a l and background v a r i a b l e s on stage of r o l e enactment. The main e f f e c t s were c a l c u l a t e d f i r s t (as shown i n T a b l e 12) without r e g a r d f o r the i n f l u e n c e of the c o v a r i a t e s . Then the c o v a r i a t e e f f e c t s were c a l c u l a t e d . One g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t the c o v a r i a t e s r a i s e d the R Squared v a l u e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y f o r each stage, by as much as a f a c t o r of t h r e e . The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t 1 20 Table 13 CARCERAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC EFFECTS ON STAGE SCORES Stage Sums of Squares D.F. F Prob. R 2 Best Predicting Covariate Prob. Recruitment .53 9 2.41 .05 .66 Previous federal term served .003 Disorientation .48 9 .57 .80 .27 Separation 1.08 9 .81 .60 .31 Transition 1.08 9 .71 .68 .31 So l i d a r i t y .84 9 .66 .73 .37 o v e r a l l c o v a r i a t e e f f e c t was on Recruitment (p<.05). I n c l u d i n g a l l the c o v a r i a t e s i n c r e a s e d the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e s u b s t a n t i a l l y (from .28 to .66). Only one c o v a r i a t e ( p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l term served) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o Recruitment ( p < . 0 l ) . Based on these r e s u l t s , " p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l term s e r v e d " c o u l d be used t o p r e d i c t a Recruitment stage o r i e n t a t i o n . T h i s r e s u l t a l s o suggests t h a t respondents who had se r v e d more than one f e d e r a l term were more l i k e l y than those who had not to express " o p p o s i t i o n " to the u n i v e r s i t y program and the student r o l e . Recruitment, more than the other s t a g e s , embodied " o p p o s i t i o n a l " statements. A second a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed to t e s t more d i r e c t l y the e f f e c t s of " p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l term s e r v e d " on stage s c o r e s . T a b l e 14 c o n f i r m e d t h a t " p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l term s e r v e d " 121 Table 14 EFFECTS OF FEDERAL PRISON EXPERIENCE ON STAGE SCORES Stage Previous Served 1 (No) Federal Term C e l l Means 2 (Yes) Sums of Squares D.F. 1 Prob. R2 Recruitment 1.25 1.50 .47 1 19 05 .0001 .33 Disorientation 1.44 1.65 .36 1 4 39 .04 .14 Separation 1.60 1.85 • 50 3 79 .06 . 12 Transition 2.55 2.77 .40 1 2 50 . 12 .08 S o l i d a r i t y 2.55 2.53 .01 1 01 .90 .01 p r e d i c t e d (p<.000l) high Recruitment s c o r e s . Furthermore, i t s e f f e c t on D i s o r i e n t a t i o n stage scores was s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.04). These f i n d i n g s suggested that inmates-students who served another f e d e r a l sentence were l i k e l y to have f e e l i n g s of o p p o s i t i o n and n e g a t i v i t y toward the u n i v e r s i t y program. While not proving the view t h a t repeated i n c a r c e r a t i o n s "harden" inmates and r e i n f o r c e norms and values r e s i s t a n t to change, these f i n d i n g s d i d show that inmates' negative f e e l i n g s toward a program they otherwise value are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h previous experience i n f e d e r a l p r i s o n s . 1 22 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS T h i s c h a p t e r r e c a p i t u l a t e s the framework w i t h i n which the study was d e s i g n e d and conducted, p r e s e n t s c o n c l u s i o n s , and c o n s i d e r s l i m i t a t i o n s . The P r i s o n Context T h i s study p o r t r a y e d p r i s o n s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n as important f a c t o r s i n the growth of inmate s o c i a l systems which l a r g e l y oppose the p r o - s o c i a l g o a l s of c o r r e c t i o n a l programs. Some inmates were c o n j e c t u r e d to "import" i n t o the p r i s o n c r i m i n a l v a l u e s h e l d on the o u t s i d e t h a t were not a t t r i b u t a b l e to p r i s o n i z a t i o n brought about by i n c a r c e r a t i o n . A u t h o r i t a r i a n run p r i s o n s and o p p o s i t i o n from inmates prese n t f o r m i d a b l e o b s t a c l e s t o c o r r e c t i o n a l programs des i g n e d to a c h i e v e p o s i t i v e change. S u c c e s s f u l programs were d e s c r i b e d as m u l t i f a c e t e d . They manage to engage or n e u t r a l i z e the inmate s o c i a l system w h i l e f o s t e r i n g c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l development. The SFU p r i s o n program met these c r i t e r i a of s u c c e s s . Inmates i n the SFU program appeared to develop p o s i t i v e s o c i a l i d e n t i t i e s through t h e i r student r o l e s . Role and c o g n i t i v e development a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the program appeared to c o u n t e r a c t the p r i s o n i z a t i o n e f f e c t s of i n c a r c e r a t i o n . The r o l e theory of S a r b i n and A l l e n (1968) p r o v i d e d a 1 23 framework f o r understanding the importance of r o l e i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n the p r i s o n and academic e c o l o g i e s . Drawing on t h e i r p r i n c i p l e s , a model was developed t o e x p l a i n s t a g e s of inmate r o l e development i n the SFU program. P r e v i o u s accounts of t h i s program's success r e l i e d p r i m a r i l y on a n e c d o t a l reviews and p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s . The i n t e r a c t i o n between inmate c o g n i t i v e development and s o c i a l environment had been acknowledged but not o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d . T h i s gap was b r i d g e d by d e v e l o p i n g and t e s t i n g a s p e c t s of a f i v e - s t a g e model which p u r p o r t s to p o r t r a y r o l e development among p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program. The Model Each c o n c l u s i o n p e r t a i n s t o one or more of the thr e e purposes of the study. They c o n t r i b u t e to the debate over d i f f e r i n g views of the inmate s o c i a l system (see Chapter 2 — D e p r i v a t i o n and Imp o r t a t i o n models) and the n o t i o n t h a t " n o t h i n g " or "some t h i n g s " work (see Chapter 1). T h i s s e c t i o n r e c a l l s the th r e e purposes and l i s t s c o n c l u s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to each. Subsequent s e c t i o n s p r o v i d e d i s c u s s i o n s of each c o n c l u s i o n . The f i r s t purpose was to e x p l i c a t e a t h e o r e t i c a l model to i d e n t i f y student r o l e s (and a s s o c i a t e d f e e l i n g s t a t e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s ) o c c u p i e d by inmates who p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program. Two c o n c l u s i o n s r e s u l t e d . 1. Role theory i s an a p p r o p r i a t e framework f o r a r t i c u l a t i n g a model of p r i s o n e c o l o g y . 1 24 2. Inmates e x p e r i e n c e f i v e d i s t i n c t and s e q u e n t i a l stages of r o l e development. The second purpose was to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the model wi t h expert judges and inmates. Three c o n c l u s i o n s r e s u l t e d . 1. Judges found the o v e r a l l model p l a u s i b l e and workable. 2. Judges were a b l e to d i s c r i m i n a t e items i n t o s t a g e s . 3. Inmates' responses c o n f i r m e d i n t r a - s t a g e r e l i a b i l i t y . The t h i r d purpose was to examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s c o r e s o b t a i n e d from o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the model and v a r i o u s s o c i o - demographic and p r i s o n - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s . Four c o n c l u s i o n s r e s u l t e d . 1. The expected a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h c a r c e r a l and s o c i o - demographic v a r i a b l e s were not c o n f i r m e d . 2. Inmates' fo r w a r d i n g of f e e l i n g s from p r e v i o u s i n c a r c e r a t i o n s s u p p o rts the i m p o r t a t i o n model. 3. A c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e f i n d i n g ( u n i v e r s i t y term by Recruitment) i s p r o b a b l y an a r t i f a c t of p r e v i o u s p e n i t e n t i a r y e x p e r i e n c e . 4. The u n i v e r s i t y program does f o s t e r p r o - s o c i a l r o l e development. T h e r e f o r e , "some t h i n g s " do work. 125 E x p l i c a t i o n of the Model I t was concluded t h a t r o l e theory i s an a p p r o p r i a t e framework f o r a r t i c u l a t i n g a model of p r i s o n e c o l o g y . The l i t e r a t u r e on p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n , the inmate s o c i a l system, and the u n i v e r s i t y program a l l a l l u d e to the importance of inmate r o l e s i n a n a l y z i n g p r i s o n dynamics. P r i n c i p l e s and concepts of r o l e t h e o r y are e a s i l y a p p l i e d to p r i s o n s e t t i n g s . Drawing on r o l e t h e o r y , l i t e r a t u r e on the u n i v e r s i t y program and c o n v e r s a t i o n s with inmate-students, i t was concluded t h a t inmates e x p e r i e n c e f i v e d i s t i n c t and s e q u e n t i a l stages of r o l e development (Recruitment, D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , S e p a r a t i o n , T r a n s i t i o n , and S o l i d a r i t y ) . The f i v e s t a g e s of r o l e development were p o r t r a y e d as consequences of the d u r a t i o n of inmate p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the program. The model assumes t h a t the program f o s t e r s inmates' achievement of p o s i t i v e r o l e development. O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the Model A f t e r the model was developed, f o u r expert judges f a m i l i a r w i t h the SFU p r i s o n program a s s i g n e d a p o o l of 70 items i n t o f i v e s t a g e s of r o l e development. Agreement among judges v a r i e d from stage to stage, but was moderately h i g h o v e r a l l , and l e d to s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s . F i r s t , i t was concluded that judges found the o v e r a l l model p l a u s i b l e and workable. I t had f a c e v a l i d i t y . Judges endorsed the f i v e stages of r o l e development on the b a s i s of t h e i r 1 26 ex p e r i e n c e with inmate-students i n the v a r i o u s p r i s o n s i n which the u n i v e r s i t y program o p e r a t e s . The stages made sense to them, they c o u l d work on task w i t h i n t h a t framework. Secondly, i t was co n c l u d e d t h a t judges were a b l e to r e l i a b l y d i s c r i m i n a t e items i n t o s t a g e s . The items e x p r e s s i n g f e e l i n g s toward the program and p r i s o n were w r i t t e n i n phrases the judges s a i d were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the inmates they knew. Moreover, i n t e r - j u d g e concordance on p l a c i n g items i n t o stages was h i g h . F i n a l l y , with r e g a r d to e x p l i c a t i n g the model, inmates' responses c o n f i r m e d i n t r a - s t a g e coherence. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s showed t h a t inmates d i f f e r e n t i a t e d among f i v e s e t s of items i n t h e i r responses, c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the stages of the model. I n t r a - s t a g e were h i g h e r than i n t e r - s t a g e c o r r e l a t i o n s (Table 8 ) . Moderate i n t e r - s t a g e c o r r e l a t i o n s suggested t h a t respondents viewed many Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n , and T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y items, as s i m i l a r . A moderate and s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between S e p a r a t i o n , T r a n s i t i o n , and S o l i d a r i t y items as w e l l . These f i n d i n g s suggested there were t h r e e pronounced "themes" among the f i v e stages of the model, resembling a t h r e e - s t a g e p e r s p e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s (Chapter 3) or K e l l y ' s (1955) n o t i o n of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . However, the i n t e r - s t a g e c o r r e l a t i o n s c o u l d w e l l be an a r t i f a c t of the s m a l l sample. Before c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h r e e stages might be more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e than f i v e , a d d i t i o n a l s u b j e c t s from the fo u r p r i s o n s i n which the program o p e r a t e s 127 should be o b t a i n e d i n a f o l l o w - u p study. R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the Model The model suggested t h a t stage of r o l e development should vary by d u r a t i o n of involvement i n the program ( u n i v e r s i t y term) and p o s s i b l y by other c a r c e r a l and background v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h inmates. S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t e d between stage s c o r e s and s e v e r a l i n m a t e - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s (Table 11). Subsequent a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e f u r t h e r t e s t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these background v a r i a b l e s and stage s c o r e s (Tables 12, 13, 14). I t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t the expected a s s o c i a t i o n s with c a r c e r a l and socio-demographic v a r i a b l e s were not c o n f i r m e d . Age, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l at s t a r t of sentence, and o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , s e v e r i t y of o f f e n c e , l e n g t h of sentence, warrant e x p i r y date were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h stage s c o r e s . I t was expected t h a t inmates c l o s e s t t o r e l e a s e might show s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r o - s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n s than those i n mid- sentence. However, no sentence or r e l e a s e - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the development of student r o l e s does not p a r a l l e l the changes i n inmate r o l e s over the l i f e s p a n of a sentence d e s c r i b e d by Garabedian (1963). I t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t inmates' " f o r w a r d i n g t h e i r f e e l i n g s " from p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentences served supports the Importation model. Inmates who had p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d another f e d e r a l p r i s o n term had h i g h e r Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n s c o r e s , t y p i f i e d as o p p o s i t i o n a l f e e l i n g s c l o s e l y a l l i e d to inmate norms and 1 28 codes, than inmates without t h a t e x p e r i e n c e . The i m p o r t a t i o n model proposes t h a t an inmate's p a s t , p r e s e n t , and f u t u r e e x p e r i e n c e s w i l l shape h i s r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and v a l u e s while i n p r i s o n . Thus, p r i s o n i z a t i o n e f f e c t s appear to p e r s i s t from sentence to sentence. However, inmates d i d not s t r o n g l y s u s c r i b e t o e i t h e r Recruitment or D i s o r i e n t a t i o n items as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e i r c u r r e n t f e e l i n g s . The dominant stages f o r a l l inmates, i n c l u d i n g those with p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentences, were T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y , t y p i f i e d as p r o - s o c i a l and l e a r n i n g - o r i e n t e d . These inmates appeared to f e e l only a l i t t l e o p p o s i t i o n toward the u n i v e r s i t y program they o t h e r w i s e s t r o n g l y i d e n t i f i e d with through p r o - s o c i a l s t a g e s of r o l e development. One c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e f i n d i n g ( u n i v e r s i t y term by Recruitment) was p r o b a b l y an a r t i f a c t of p r e v i o u s p e n i t e n t i a r y or o t h e r p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e . Inmates i n term 3 had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r Recruitment s c o r e s than t h e i r peers i n term 1. I t was expected t h a t as u n i v e r s i t y term i n c r e a s e d , so would the dominant stage s c o r e , moving from Recruitment to S o l i d a r i t y . Thus, t h i s f i n d i n g i s a t odds w i t h the assumptions of the model. There i s no c l e a r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between u n i v e r s i t y term and Recruitment. Moreover, w i t h a sample of 33 inmates and a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l r a t h e r than l o n g i t u d i n a l study, i t would be premature to abandon the model's p r o p o s i t i o n about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between u n i v e r s i t y term and dominant stage s c o r e . T h e r e f o r e , the i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l development (the 129 program g o a l s and d e s i r e d outcomes), the time r e q u i r e d t o develop these s k i l l s ( d u r a t i o n of program i n v o l v e m e n t ) , and the a c q u i s i t i o n of r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and v a l u e s ( p o s s i b l y i n advance of c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l s k i l l development) need to be s t u d i e d l o n g i t u d i n a l l y w i t h a l a r g e r sample. I t was con c l u d e d t h a t the u n i v e r s i t y program does f o s t e r p r o - s o c i a l r o l e development, and thus supports the p o s i t i o n t h a t "some t h i n g s work" i n c o r r e c t i o n a l programming. The model and evidence from judges and inmates g e n e r a l l y supported the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the SFU p r i s o n program f o s t e r e d a s h i f t from past ("how I used to f e e l " ) f e e l i n g s t y p i f i e d by statements l i k e "I f i n d i t hard to be a s t u d e n t " t o p r e s e n t ("how I f e e l now") f e e l i n g s t y p i f i e d by statements l i k e "I'm c o n f i d e n t of my a b i l i t y to l e a r n " , and "I f e e l more t o l e r a n t toward other p e o p l e s ' views." Respondents most s t r o n g l y s u s c r i b e d to T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y ( F i g u r e 6; T a b l e 9 ) . These l a t t e r two stages embodied the n o t i o n of a commitment to l e a r n i n g and to the program. The r e l a t i v e l a c k of p r e s e n t but s t r o n g e r past support f o r Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n b u t t r e s s e s the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the SFU program f o s t e r e d p o s i t i v e r o l e development i n the respondents. The model and methodology employed i n t h i s study appear to p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r study, e s p e c i a l l y i n a wider v a r i e t y of i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . 1 30 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study A l l these c o n c l u s i o n s are s u b j e c t to c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s . There were two p r i n c i p a l i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g l i m i t s to t h i s study: (1) S t r u c t u r a l — what are the s t a g e s , and (2) F u n c t i o n a l — do inmates pass through them, and what demonstrates the passage? Concerning s t r u c t u r e , the stages were d e r i v e d u s i n g r o l e theory as a framework. Items were based on an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r o l e t h e o r y , p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programs, and p r i s o n dynamics. Judgements about the elements p a r t i c u l a r to each stage depended on u n d e r s t a n d i n g how p e r s o n a l , s o c i a l and environmental v a r i a b l e s i n p r i s o n i n t e r a c t . Subsequent t e s t i n g of the stage model c o u l d o n l y occur i f the stage d e s c r i p t i o n s were adequate. They appeared s u f f i c i e n t l y adequate f o r the judges to d i s c e r n f i v e d i s t i n c t stages i n t o which items were a s s i g n e d . Secondly, a more e x t e n s i v e p o o l of items at the item c o n s t r u c t i o n stage might have m o d i f i e d the emphasis p r e s e n t e d i n the set of items f i n a l l y d e s i g n a t e d f o r each s t a g e . However, items d i d not j u s t "happen." Many were suggested by comments made by inmate-students. Items were c r e a t e d on the b a s i s of d e f i n e d concepts and p r o p o s i t i o n s . Items were c u l l e d from f r e q u e n t reviews of each of these elements. D i d the judges e q u a l l y understand the task they performed? I n s o f a r as p o s s i b l e , the task was p r e s e n t e d to each judge i n the same f a s h i o n , g i v e n t h a t the p r e s e n t a t i o n s took p l a c e i n a v a r i e t y of s e t t i n g s . The consensus among judges on which stages the 70 items best r e p r e s e n t e d was s t r o n g but not unanimous. Moreover, judges were i n f l u e n c e d i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n s by the need 131 to r e c o n c i l e d i s p a r i t i e s i n the program a c c o r d i n g to i t s l o c a t i o n i n a h i g h or lower s e c u r i t y p r i s o n . How they b a l a n c e d these p o s s i b l y d i s p a r a t e o b s e r v a t i o n s should be more c l o s e l y s t u d i e d , perhaps l e a d i n g to a more e x p l i c i t o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n on the b a s i s of p r i s o n d i f f e r e n c e s . Some ambiguity was i n t r o d u c e d by u s i n g items t h a t l a c k e d t o t a l agreement on t h e i r placements i n t o s t a g e s . The stages themselves were not p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d by "pure" items a l o n e . How then c o u l d the items form a b a s i s f o r t e s t i n g the model w i t h respondents i n t h i s study? The d e c i s i o n to employ a l l the items was based on r easonable i n t e r - j u d g e agreement. A l a r g e r p o o l of e q u a l l y r i g o r o u s items would have i n c r e a s e d r e l i a b i l i t i e s o b t a i n e d f o r each stage w h i l e p e r m i t t i n g items t h a t l a c k e d unanimous consensus to be d i s c a r d e d . However, a f t e r a number of i t e r a t i o n s generated no s i g n i f i c a n t l y new items, a l l items i n the p o o l were i n c l u d e d . Moreover, ju d g i n g i n v o l v e d s u b j e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s by judges. J u s t because an item d i d not e l i c i t unanimous placement by the judges was not a s u f f i c i e n t reason to d i s c a r d i t . The inmates c o n s t i t u t e d another set of judges f o r the same 70 items. Thus, a l l 70 items were r e t a i n e d f o r use i n the c a r d s o r t . Concerning f u n c t i o n , a l i m i t a t i o n a r i s e s from the s m a l l and r e s t r i c t e d sample of inmates i n one p r i s o n . G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s based on f i n d i n g s w i t h t h i s group of respondents are l i m i t e d . However, t h i s i n i t i a l t e s t of the model concerned the power of i t s p r o p o s i t i o n s to e x p l a i n s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n s i n the p r i s o n u n i v e r s i t y program r a t h e r than i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y 132 to d i f f e r e n t p r i s o n s e t t i n g s . The sample of respondents made up 87 p e r c e n t of the u n i v e r s i t y inmate-student p o p u l a t i o n at W i l l i a m Head and about 25 p e r c e n t of a l l inmates i n the p r i s o n . T h e i r c a r c e r a l and demographic backgrounds were q u i t e v a r i e d and appeared to be t y p i c a l of inmates i n the g e n e r a l p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n i n the P a c i f i c Region. Moreover, t h i s inmate p o p u l a t i o n was known to have the best b a l a n c e of new to c o n t i n u i n g and s e n i o r s t u d e n t s i n t h i s u n i v e r s i t y program compared to a l l other p r i s o n s i n the r e g i o n . A f i n a l l i m i t a t i o n concerned the "snapshot i n time" or c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l approach to data c o l l e c t i o n used i n t h i s study. I t was argued t h a t the p r i s o n environment e x e r t s an u n r e l e n t i n g i n f l u e n c e on the minds of inmates. The c o n f i g u r a t i o n of p e r s o n a l h i s t o r i e s respondents brought to the data c o l l e c t i o n c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y have been s u b j e c t to a number of m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s beyond the scope of the t a s k s performed, but c e n t r a l to the m o t i v a t i o n with which they were done. F a c t o r s such as being denied or granted p a r o l e , r e c e i v i n g or not r e c e i v i n g correspondence, or any other of the r e c u r r i n g i n c i d e n t s which a f f e c t mood i n a p r i s o n , c o u l d have c o l o u r e d the t a s k s w i t h o p p o s i t i o n or optimism. However, the g o a l of t h i s study was not to c h a r t f l u c t u a t i o n s t h a t inmate-students e x p e r i e n c e but l e v e l s or stages of r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n to the u n i v e r s i t y program t h a t they i d e n t i f y w i t h . W i t h i n these l i m i t s , the f u n c t i o n of the stages was l e g i t i m a t e l y d e s c r i b e d i n terms of dominant and a s s o c i a t e d minor but i n t e r e s t i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s . Due to the c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l 133 approach used i n t h i s study, passage from stage to stage was not measured. Only p r e d i c t o r s of i n d i v i d u a l stage o r i e n t a t i o n were i n v e s t i g a t e d . The f i n a l c h a p t e r p r o v i d e s a broader d i s c u s s i o n of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s study f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , the c o r r e c t i o n a l system, and the t r a i n i n g of i n s t r u c t o r s . 1 34 CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION Concerning F u t u r e Research F u t u r e s t u d i e s s hould i n v e s t i g a t e the s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n of the model. For example, a study t o t e s t the model with inmate-students i n p r i s o n s which d i f f e r i n s e c u r i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n would t e s t the g e n e r a l i z e a b i l i t y of i t s s t r u c t u r e . Another study should i n v e s t i g a t e the e x t e n t to which inmates t r a n s f e r t h e i r student r o l e s i n t o the community a f t e r r e l e a s e . A f i r s t s t e p i n such a study would be to i d e n t i f y a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t o r s of a t r a n s f e r e f f e c t . The s t a b i l i t y of the s t a g e s , e s p e c i a l l y S o l i d a r i t y , needs to be i n v e s t i g a t e d . How do inmate-students who f a c e long-term i n c a r c e r a t i o n m a i n t a i n a r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the u n i v e r s i t y program t h a t e x e m p l i f i e s S o l i d a r i t y ? Do they ever " f a l l o f f the wagon" -- pass from S o l i d a r i t y back t o Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n ? Moreover, competing hypotheses need t o be c o n s i d e r e d . Inmate " c y c l e s " of discouragement and d e s p a i r and hope and renewal, and t h e i r impact on stage of student r o l e development, s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the i n e v i t a b l e f l u c t u a t i o n s and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l behaviour to l o n g e r - t e r m s o c i a l i d e n t i t y (such as l e a r n e r , student) c o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d by case study or 1 35 l o n g i t u d i n a l study. Is t h e r e a " c o n v e r s i o n " t h a t happens p r i o r to e n t e r i n g the program, or even a f t e r , t h a t r e f l e c t s something l i k e an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o p i n g mechanisms r a t h e r than a s o c i a l l y powered t r a n s i t i o n ? There are s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h which flow from t h i s study. W i l l i a m Head was c l a s s i f i e d as a low- medium s e c u r i t y p r i s o n . Most respondents f e l t they were more i n v o l v e d i n p o s i t i v e student r o l e s than i n " o p p o s i t i o n a l " inmate r o l e s as p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the u n i v e r s i t y program. T h i s r e s u l t c o n c u r r e d w i t h the view t h a t p r i s o n p r a c t i c e s vary by l e v e l of s e c u r i t y and produce c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y d i f f e r e n t degrees of " o p p o s i t i o n " i n inmate s o c i e t y . Lower s e c u r i t y r e s u l t s i n l e s s o p p o s i t i o n , h i g h e r s e c u r i t y , more o p p o s i t i o n . Thus, a l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n to t h i s study i s i t s r e p l i c a t i o n i n a h i g h e r s e c u r i t y p r i s o n . More " o p p o s i t i o n " would be expected of inmate-students in a maximum s e c u r i t y p r i s o n l i k e Kent than i n W i l l i a m Head. The e x t e n t to which g r e a t e r " o p p o s i t i o n " i n h i g h s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s a f f e c t s stage of r o l e development needs to be t e s t e d . How s u c c e s s f u l are inmates i n h i g h e r s e c u r i t y p r i s o n s i n m a i n t a i n i n g a p o s i t i v e r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n to the u n i v e r s i t y program, p e r s o n n e l , and to other p r i s o n s t a f f ? I f they m a i n t a i n a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to the u n i v e r s i t y program absent i n other formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s or o f f i c i a l accounts of t h e i r backgrounds, what a t t r i b u t e s of the u n i v e r s i t y program account f o r i t and c o u l d a s i m i l a r e f f e c t be a c h i e v e d i n o t h e r program areas? "Having served a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l p r i s o n term" emerged as 1 36 an important c o r r e l a t e , most n o t a b l y with Recruitment. A study should be made of f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h repeated i n c a r c e r a t i o n as an a d u l t and j u v e n i l e to determine the r a t e of success and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the u n i v e r s i t y program of those who may be most th o r o u g h l y s o c i a l i z e d i n t o the v a l u e s of an o p p o s i t i o n a l inmate s u b c u l t u r e . Although Recruitment and D i s o r i e n t a t i o n s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r f o r inmates who had s e r v e d a p r e v i o u s f e d e r a l sentence than f o r those who had not, the amount of " o p p o s i t i o n " t o the program expressed i n these stage s c o r e s was c o m p a r a t i v e l y minor. Even r e c i d i v i s t inmates developed dominant p r o - s o c i a l , l e a r n i n g - o r i e n t e d r o l e s t y p i f i e d by T r a n s i t i o n and S o l i d a r i t y . The apparent f a i l u r e of " u n i v e r s i t y term" to account f o r s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n " s t a g e s c o r e s (with the e x c e p t i o n of Recruitment) needs f u r t h e r study. A l o n g i t u d i n a l study where inmates are f o l l o w e d from Recruitment to S o l i d a r i t y should be undertaken. T h i s type of study would p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n about how q u i c k l y new inmate-students a r e s o c i a l i z e d i n t o r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with the u n i v e r s i t y program. A number of case s t u d i e s conducted i n t h i s f a s h i o n would enable r e s e a r c h e r s t o compare inmate-students' changing p e r s p e c t i v e s of t h e i r stage of r o l e development and i n s t r u c t o r s ' assessments of t h e i r development. Moreover, t h i s type of approach would l e a d to a d e f i n i t i o n of what inmates do w h i l e occupying the v a r i o u s stages of r o l e development and c o u l d be used to v a l i d a t e the Q- s o r t s as w e l l . S t u d y i n g t h e i r behaviour as w e l l as s e l f - p e r c e i v e d f e e l i n g s t a t e s should h e l p e x p l a i n the f u n c t i o n s of 137 student r o l e stages i n r e l a t i o n t o the demands of p r i s o n e x i s t e n c e . In a d d i t i o n to a l o n g i t u d i n a l study of the u n i v e r s i t y program, an e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o j e c t s h o u l d i n v e s t i g a t e r o l e development i n environments employing democratic p r i n c i p l e s espoused by the SFU program, but without the humanities c u r r i c u l u m as c o n t e n t . The purpose of t h i s study would be to determine whether a " c o n t e n t - f r e e " s o c i a l environment (at l e a s t i n s o f a r as academic content i s concerned) f o s t e r s stages of r o l e development analogous to those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the SFU program. The u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e i s t h i s : What accounts f o r v a r i a n c e i n the development of p r o - s o c i a l r o l e s ? Do the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of the u n i v e r s i t y c u r r i c u l u m and the a l t e r n a t i v e community of the program account f o r more v a r i a n c e i n the development of pro- s o c i a l r o l e s than would a non-academic s o c i a l e c o l o g y run on s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e s ? C o n v e r s e l y , a study should be conducted on s t a g e s of r o l e development a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the u n i v e r s i t y , or other academic programs, independent of the s o c i a l support engendered by a p h y s i c a l l y d i s t i n c t , a l t e r n a t i v e academic community to which inmates b e l o n g . Comparison s t u d i e s c o n c e r n i n g the unique and j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s of academic c o n t e n t , s o c i a l l y s u p p o r t i v e communities, and i n t e r a c t i o n s between them would i n c r e a s e our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of "what works" i n c o r r e c t i o n a l programming and why. 1 38 C oncerning P r i s o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n What does t h i s study say to p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s who have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p l a n n i n g and implementing programs i n p r i s o n ? I f t h e i r g o a l s are to f o s t e r p o s i t i v e , p r o - s o c i a l changes i n inmates, s e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s flow from t h i s study. The u n i v e r s i t y program i s s u c c e s s f u l because i t m a i n t a i n s a s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t e x i s t e n c e w i t h i n p r i s o n . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the u n i v e r s i t y program and p r i s o n appears to be an e x c e p t i o n to the n o t i o n of h o r i z o n t a l i n t e g r a t i o n i n l i f e l o n g e d u c a t i o n . The c o n t r a s t between the norms and r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the program and p r i s o n f o s t e r s r o l e c o n f l i c t which' has the p o t e n t i a l to r e s u l t i n the f o r m a t i o n of p r o - s o c i a l v a l u e s and r o l e s . T h e r e f o r e , i t would be c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e to a s s i m i l a t e the academic program i n t o the p r e v a i l i n g p r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n . Rather, p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s s h o u l d t o l e r a t e and r e i n f o r c e , w i t h due r e g ard f o r r easonable i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e c u r i t y , the autonomy of the SFU and s i m i l a r programs. P r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s s h o u l d reduce o b s t a c l e s to inmate p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the SFU program. Moreover, they should e s t a b l i s h o t h e r programs t h a t embody the a c t i v e s o c i a l p r i n c i p l e s of the SFU program i f not the focus on academic c o n t e n t . A l t h o u g h t h e r e can be no guaranteed success i n c o r r e c t i o n a l programming, the n o t i o n of n e u t r a l i z i n g inmate s o c i a l r o l e s and p r o v i d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s to d evelop p r o - s o c i a l a l t e r n a t i v e s e x e m p l i f i e s the "some t h i n g s work" p o s i t i o n . P r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s s h o u l d encourage a l l inmates to e n r o l 1 39 ( i f they meet the l i t e r a c y requirements) i n the SFU program. Being a student i n t h i s program f o r a time may w e l l a m e l i o r a t e the n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s of p r i s o n i z a t i o n the r e c i d i v i s t inmate c a r r i e s from sentence to sentence. F i n a l l y , a u t h o r i t i e s need to r e c o g n i z e t h a t some inmates c o n t i n u e on as s t u d e n t s a f t e r t h e i r r e l e a s e . They use t h e i r c o n t i n u i n g student r o l e s to c o n s t r u c t a b r i d g e to the o u t s i d e world. By m a i n t a i n i n g student r o l e s they may be a b l e to b e t t e r a v o i d the c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t l e d to i n c a r c e r a t i o n . T h i s t r a n s f e r of student r o l e s to a s e t t i n g o u t s i d e p r i s o n suggests t h a t p r o - s o c i a l r o l e development a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the SFU program i s not j u s t an a r t i f a c t of c o p i n g w i t h p r i s o n l i f e t h a t d i s a p p e a r s upon r e l e a s e , but i n d i c a t i v e of l a s t i n g and s u b s t a n t i v e change i n inmates. I t d e serves support from c o r r e c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s . C oncerning T r a i n i n g of C o r r e c t i o n a l E d u c a t o r s S e v e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s i n g from t h i s study s h o u l d inform the t r a i n i n g of c o r r e c t i o n a l e d u c a t o r s . F i r s t , the model of r o l e development h i g h l i g h t s the importance a d u l t educators a s c r i b e t o c l i m a t e - s e t t i n g i n i t s broadest sense. The d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of the SFU community i s a key f a c t o r i n i t s s u c c e s s . Democratic p r i n c i p l e s are put i n t o the c r u c i b l e of e x p e r i e n c e . I n s t r u c t o r s i n t h a t environment must be a b l e to guide and t o l e r a t e the e x p e r i m e n t a l p r a c t i c e of t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . The model of r o l e development suggests no a l t e r n a t i v e to the e f f e c t i v e p r a c t i c e of student r o l e s w i t h i n a 1 40 community run on democratic p r i n c i p l e s . Content-bound i n s t r u c t o r s are l i k e l y to f a r e l e s s w e l l i n the s o c i a l experiment of the SFU program than those who a l l o w inmate- st u d e n t s to take ownership of t h e i r l e a r n i n g . I n s t r u c t o r s should be made aware of the importance of the r o l e s they p l a y (eg. complementary, audience) i n r e l a t i o n to the o v e r a l l i n t e g r i t y of the SFU program by means of the s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t they p r o v i d e to inmates. They s h o u l d be aware of the importance of m o d e l l i n g a t t i t u d e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the pro- s o c i a l g o a l s of the program. Moreover, i n s t r u c t o r s s hould be w e l l - c e n t r e d i n d i v i d u a l s who are a b l e to a c t as c o n s i s t e n t models i n a p r i s o n environment t y p i f i e d by m a n i p u l a t i o n . F i n a l l y , they should c o n s i d e r t h a t the SFU program i s capable of t r a n s f o r m i n g the l i v e s of inmates j u s t as l i b e r a l i z i n g e d u c a t i o n does f o r l e a r n e r s everywhere. 141 REFERENCES Akers, R., G r u n i g e r , W., & Hayner, N. (1976). P r i s o n inmate r o l e s : i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and c r o s s c u l t u r a l comparisons. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y and Penology, 365- 381 . Ayers, J . D., Duguid, S., Montagne, C , & Wolowydnik, S. (1980). E f f e c t s of U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a program: A p o s t - r e l e a s e s tudy. Report to the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada. B e l l , R. M. (1982, May 16). An approximation to the c o n v o c a t i o n a d d r e s s : Tenth a n n i v e r s a r y of the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programme. Pr e s e n t e d t o the Second Annual R e c o g n i t i o n and Awards Ceremonies, W i l l i a m Head I n s t i t u t i o n , B r i t i s h Columbia. B o s h i e r , R. W. (1983). E d u c a t i o n i n s i d e : M o t i ves f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programmes. Report to the S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada. Vancouver, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. B o s h i e r , R.W. & C l a r k e , G. S. (1983). P s y c h o - b e h a v i o u r a l c o r r e l a t e s of motives f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programmes. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Study of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , 1, 1-14. Boyanowsky, E. 0. (1977). The psychology of i d e n t i t y change: A t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r review and a n a l y s i s of the s e l f - r b l e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s . Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 18(2), 115-127. Burns, H. (1969). A m i n i a t u r e t o t a l i t a r i a n s t a t e : Maximum s e c u r i t y p r i s o n . Canadian J o u r n a l of C o r r e c t i o n s , 11(3), 153-164. Clemmer, D. (1958). The p r i s o n community. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. Cloward, R. (1968). S o c i a l c o n t r o l i n the p r i s o n . In L. E. H a z e l r i g g ( E d . ) , P r i s o n w i t h i n s o c i e t y : A reader i n penology (pp. 78-112). Garden C i t y , NY: Doubleday. 142 Cohen, S. & T a y l o r , L. (1972). P s y c h o l o g i c a l s u r v i v a l ; The e x p e r i e n c e of long-term imprisonment. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Conrad, J . P. (1983). What p r o s p e c t s f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ? A d i s s e n t from academic wisdom. In L. F. T r a v i s , M. D. Schwartz, & T. R. C l e a r ( E d s . ) , C o r r e c t i o n s : An i s s u e s approach (2nd ed.) (pp. 216-226). C i n c i n n a t i : Anderson. Cosman, W. (1981). P e n i t e n t i a r y e d u c a t i o n i n Canada. In L. Morin ( E d . ) , On p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n (pp. 34-42). Ottawa: Supply & S e r v i c e s Canada. Cousineau, F. D. & P l e c a s , D. B. (1982). J u s t i f y i n g c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e p o l i c y with m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y inadequate r e s e a r c h . Canadian J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , 24, 307-321. Cr e s s e y , D. ( i 9 6 0 ) . L i m i t a t i o n s on o r g a n i z a t i o n of treatment i n the modern p r i s o n . In R. A. Cloward, D. R. C r e s s e y , G. H. G r o s s e r , R. McCleery, L. E. O h l i n , G. M. Sykes, & S. L. Messinger ( E d s . ) , T h e o r e t i c a l s t u d i e s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the p r i s o n (pp. 78-110). New York: S o c i a l S c i e n c e Research C o u n c i l . D a v i s , M. (1976). The p r i s o n dilemna. In W. T. McGrath (Ed . ) , Crime and i t s treatment i n Canada (pp. 370-375). To r o n t o : M a c M i l l a n . Dubin, R. (1978). Theory b u i l d i n g . New York: The F r e e P r e s s . Duguid, S. (1979). H i s t o r y and moral e d u c a t i o n i n c o r r e c t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . Canadian J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , 4, 81-92. Duguid, S. (1980). Post-secondary e d u c a t i o n i n a p r i s o n : Theory and p r a x i s . The Canadian J o u r n a l of Higher E d u c a t i o n , 10, 29-35. Duguid, S. (1981). Moral development, j u s t i c e and democracy i n the p r i s o n . Canadian J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , 23, 147-162. Duguid, S. (1981a). P r i s o n e d u c a t i o n and c r i m i n a l c h o i c e : The c o n t e x t of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Canadian J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , 23, 421-438. 1 43 Duguid, S. ( 1 9 8 l b ) . R e h a b i l i t a t i o n through e d u c a t i o n : A Canadian model. In L. Morin (E d . ) , On p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n . Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada. Duguid, S. (1983). O r i g i n s and development of u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n a t Matsqui i n s t i t u t i o n . Canadian J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , 25, 295-308. Duguid, S. ( E d . ) . (1985). The p r i s o n e r as student ( O c c a s i o n a l Papers on P r i s o n E d u c a t i o n ) . Burnaby: P r i s o n E d u c a t i o n Program and I n s t i t u t e f o r the Humanities, Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y . Eichman, C. (1981). Humanizing punishment: The f u t u r e of c o r r e c t i o n s . J o u r n a l : John Howard S o c i e t y of Quebec, 2 ( 1 ) , 1-7. E k s t e d t , J . W. & G r i f f i t h s , C. T. (1984). C o r r e c t i o n s i n Canada: P o l i c y and p r a c t i c e . T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s . Fawcet, B. (1983). [ E d i t o r i a l ] . P r i s o n J o u r n a l 83, 3, 4-5. Garabedian, P. (1963). S o c i a l r o l e s and p r o c e s s e s of s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n the p r i s o n community. Soc i a l Problems, 11, 139-152. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1979). E f f e c t i v e c o r r e c t i o n a l treatment: B i b l i o t h e r a p y f o r c y n i c s . Crime and Delinquency , 25, 463-489. G l a s e r , D. & S t r a t t o n , J . (1961). Measuring inmate change i n p r i s o n . In D. Cressey ( E d . ) , The p r i s o n (pp. 381-392). New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t . Goffman, E. (1961). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s : The inmate w o r l d . In D. C r e ssey ( E d . ) , The p r i s o n (pp. 15- 67). New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t . Goffman, E. (1961a). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s : S t a f f - i n m a t e r e l a t i o n s . In D. Cressey ( E d . ) , The P r i s o n (pp. 68-106). New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t . G o s s e l i n , L (1982). P r i s o n s i n Canada. M o n t r e a l : Black Rose 1 44 Books. G r o s s e r , G. H. (1968). E x t e r n a l s e t t i n g and i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s of the p r i s o n . In L. H a z e l r i g g ( E d . ) , P r i s o n w i t h i n s o c i e t y : A reader i n penology (pp. 9-25). Garden C i t y , NY: Doubleday. Hepburn, J . & S t r a t t o n , J . (1977). T o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and inmate s e l f - e s t e e m . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , 17(3), 237-250. Ir w i n , J . & C r e s s e y , D. (1962). T h i e v e s , c o n v i c t s and the inmate c u l t u r e . S o c i a l Problems, j_0(2), 1 42-155. Jackson, M. (1983). P r i s o n e r s of i s o l a t i o n : S o l i t a r y confinement i n Canada. Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s . Kassebaum, G., Ward, D., & W i l n e r , D. (1971). P r i s o n treatment and p a r o l e s u r v i v a l • New York: W i l e y . K e l l y , G. A. (1955). The psychology of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s , (2nd e d . ) . New York: W. W. Norton. K e r l i n g e r , F. N. (1973). Foundations of b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h (2nd e d . ) . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. K n i g h t s , W. ( 1983). Bourgeois p u r i t y . P r i s o n J o u r n a l 83, 3_, 57-60. Law Reform Commission of Canada (1975). Working paper 11: Imprisonment and r e l e a s e . Ottawa: I n f o r m a t i o n Canada. Linden, R. & P e r r y , L. (1982). The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n programs. J o u r n a l of Offender C o u n s e l l i n g , S e r v i c e s & R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , 6(47, 43-57. Ma r t i n s o n , R. M. (1974). What works? Q u e s t i o n s and answers about p r i s o n reform. The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t , 35, 22-54. Mezirow, J . (1978). P e r s p e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , 28(2), 100-110. 1 45 Morin, L. (1981). Inmate r i g h t to e d u c a t i o n . In L. Morin (Ed . ) , On P r i s o n E d u c a t i o n (pp. 23-33). Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada. Murton, T. 0. (1976). The dilemma of p r i s o n reform. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. O h l i n , L. E. ( 1956). S o c i o l o g y and the f i e l d of c o r r e c t i o n s . New York: R u s s e l l Sage. O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n (1978). Review of p e n i t e n t i a r y e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g , Phase 1: Report to r e v i e w e r s . Ottawa: E d u c a t i o n and T r a i n i n g D i v i s i o n , Canadian P e n i t e n t i a r y S e r v i c e . Ouimet, R. (1969). Report of the Canadian committee on c o r r e c t i o n s — toward u n i t y : C r i m i n a l j u s t i c e and c o r r e c t i o n s . Ottawa: I n f o r m a t i o n Canada. Roebuck, J . (1963). A c r i t i q u e of t h i e v e s , c o n v i c t s and the inmate c u l t u r e . S o c i a l Problems, JM[(2), 193-200. Ross, R. R. (1980). S o c i o - c o g n i t i v e development i n the o f f e n d e r : An e x t e r n a l review of the u - v i c program a t m a t s q u i ~ p e n T t e n t i a r y . Ottawa: U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa. Ross, R. R. & Fabiano, E. (1981). Time to t h i n k c o g n i t i o n and c r i m e : L i n k and r e m e d i a t i o n . Ottawa: Department of C r i m i n o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa. Ross, R. R. & Fabiano, E. (1983). The c o g n i t i v e model of crime and d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n : Assessment Procedures. Toronto: M i n i s t r y of C o r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e s . Ross, R. R. & Fabiano, E. (1983a). The c o g n i t i v e model of crime and d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n : I n t e r v e n t i o n t e c h n i q u e s . Toronto: M i n i s t r y of C o r r e c t i o n a l S e r v i c e s . Ross, R. R. & McKay, H. B. (1978). B e h a v i o r a l approaches to treatment i n c o r r e c t i o n s : Requiem f o r a panacea. Canadian J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , 20, 279-295. 1 46 S a p s f o r d , R. J . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . L i f e sentence p r i s o n e r s : P s y c h o l o g i c a l changes d u r i n g sentences. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of C r i m i n o l o g y , J _ 8 ( 2 ) , 1 2 8 - 1 4 5 . S a r b i n , T. R. & A l l e n , V. L. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Role t h e o r y . In G. Li n d z e y & E. Aronsen ( E d s . ) , The handbook of s o c i a l p s ychology ( 2 n d ed., V o l . 1, pp. 4 8 8 - 5 6 7). Menlo Park, C a l i f o r n i a : Addison-Wesley. S a r b i n , T. R. & Scheibe, K. E. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A model of s o c i a l i d e n t i t y . In T. R. S a r b i n & K. E. Scheibe ( E d s . ) , S t u d i e s i n soc i a l i d e n t i t y . New York: Praeger. S c u l l , A. T. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . D e c a r c e r a t i o n : Community treatment and the d e v i a n t — a r a d i c a l view. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l . S o l i c i t o r - G e n e r a l of Canada ( 1 9 7 7 ) . A summary and a n a l y s i s of some major i n q u i r i e s on c o r r e c t i o n s , 1938 to 1977. Ottawa: Canadian Government P u b l i s h i n g C e n t r e . Stephenson, W. ( 1 9 5 3 ) . The study of b e h a v i o r . C h i cago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . Sykes, G. & Messinger, S. ( 1 9 6 0 ) . The inmate s o c i a l system. In R. A. Cloward, D. R. Cress e y , G. H. G r o s s e r , R. McCleery, L. E. O h l i n , G. M. Sykes & S. L. Messinger ( E d s . ) , T h e o r e t i c a l s t u d i e s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the p r i s o n (pp. 5 - 1 9 ) . New York: S o c i a l S c i e n c e s Research C o u n c i l . Sztompka, P. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . System and f u n c t i o n . New York: Academic P r e s s . Task Fo r c e on the C r e a t i o n of an I n t e g r a t e d C o r r e c t i o n s S e r v i c e ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The r o l e of f e d e r a l c o r r e c t ions i n Canada. Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada. Thomas, C. W. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . P r i s o n i z a t i o n or r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n ? A study of e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with the impact of imprisonment. J o u r n a l of Research i n Crime and Delinquency , 10 , 1 3 - 2 1 . Thomas, C. W. & F o s t e r , S. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . On the measurement of 147 s o c i a l r o l e s a d a p t a t i o n s i n the p r i s o n community. C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e Review, j_( 1) , 11-21. Thomas, C. W. & P e t e r s o n , D. M. (1977). P r i s o n o r g a n i z a t i o n and inmate s u b c u l t u r e s . I n d i a n a p o l i s , 1 1 1 . : B o b b s - M e r r i l l . Whetstone, K. (1981). How the p r i s o n e r sees e d u c a t i o n . In D. Ayers (E d . ) , P roceedings of the n a t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e on p r i s o n e d u c a t i o n (pp. 79-93). V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a . Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C. & J a f f e , D. (1977). The psychology of imprisonment: P r i v a t i o n , power and p a t h o l o g y . S t a n f o r d : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . 1 48 Appendix A: Seventy Items L i s t e d By Stage RECRUITMENT STAGE 1. This program can't be any worse than other p r i s o n programs. 2. I don't plan to work too hard i n t h i s program. 3. Maybe I can fraud i t f o r awhile i n t h i s program. 4. I'm not i n t e r e s t e d i n any subject i n p a r t i c u l a r . 5. I don't care what i s taught i n t h i s program. 6. I don't expect much out of the program. 7. I'm curious to see what the program i s l i k e . 8. This program i s some s o r t of scam. 9. This program i s probably l i k e a l l the others. 10. I don't care what I have to study. 11. No way i s t h i s program going to change me. 12. I only want to take courses i n the subject I p r e f e r . 13. There i s only one subject that I'm r e a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n . 14. I'm not going to get too involved with t h i s program. 15. I think a l l i n s t r u c t o r s are p r e t t y much the same. 16. I think a l l courses are p r e t t y much the same. DISORIENTATION STAGE 17. There i s more work than I expected. 18. I n s t r u c t o r s sure expect a l o t from me. 19. I'm surprised at how involved the i n s t r u c t o r s are with the students. 20. I don't know i f I l i k e t h i s program. 21. This program i s d i f f e r e n t from what I expected. 22. I f i n d i t hard to be a student. 23. I'm not sure I should continue i n the program. 24. I f e e l l i k e I'm too i s o l a t e d here i n the academic area. 25. Other students take t h i s program more s e r i o u s l y than me. 26. I haven't f i g u r e d out t h i s program. 27. I don't know what to make of t h i s program. 28. Other students take t h i s program more s e r i o u s l y than I do. 29. I don't know what I'm supposed ito do as a student. 30. Being a student increases the pressure on me. 149 SEPARATION-ALIENATION STAGE 31. I t ' s getting harder to put up with prison b u l l s h i t . 32. I f e e l a l o t of c o n f l i c t between student and inmate r o l e s . 33. As a student, I f e e l too cut off from the rest of the inmate population. 34. I f e e l pressure not to get too involved with student r o l e s . 35. The less I have to do with the general inmate population the better for me. 36. I'm s t a r t i n g to f e e l that I can r e a l l y handle being a student. 37. I would l i k e to have even less contact with the general inmate population. 38. I've found one subject I'd be happy to spend a l l my time studying. 39. I'm fed up with prison games. 40. I'm less interested i n a c t i v i t i e s outside of school. TRANSITION-REFRAMING STAGE 41. I f e e l l i k e t h i s program i s helping me get control over my l i f e . 42. I f e e l the p o s s i b i l i t y of making changes i n my l i f e because of my student experiences. 43. I'm beginning to f e e l that t h i s program has some value for me. 44. I'm finding i t easier to accept the demands of being a student. 45. I f e e l l i k e I'm s t a r t i n g to get something useful out of t h i s program. 46. I'm beginning to f e e l that I've got d i f f e r e n t opportunities than I've had before. 47. I f e e l my student status i s an asset i n the prison. 48. I'm looking forward to getting something for myself out of th i s program. 49. I f e e l l i k e my student experience w i l l help me deal with problem more e f f e c t i v e l y . 50. I f e e l t h i s program could lead me into d i f f e r e n t things. 51. I spend as much time as I can on my student i n t e r e s t s . 52. I want to be more involved with a l l aspects of the program. 53. I enjoy learning about many d i f f e r e n t subjects. 54. I'd l i k e more courses i n d i f f e r e n t subjects. 55. I f e e l the best thing w i l l be for me to stay involved with t h i s program. 56. Being a student i s changing some things for me. 57. I'm confident of my a b i l i t y to learn. 150 SOLIDARITY STAGE 58. I f e e l completely involved with t h i s program. 59. I know I can rely on the student community. 60. I see the program as a means to express myself. 61. I f e e l a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to support the program. 62. This program i s about the best thing that has happened to me i n prison. 63. I have good working relationships with i n s t r u c t o r s . 64. I f e e l equal to any challenge which might come up i n the program. 65. I f e e l l i k e I have something to add to the program. 66. I can gather support from other students for group projects; or a c t i v i t i e s . 67. I f e e l more tolerant toward other peoples' views. 68. I would defend t h i s program to other inmates. 69. I f e e l supported by the student community. 70. Other students want the same thing I do. Appendix B: O f f e n c e S e v e r i t y S c a l e OFFENCE SEVERITY SCALE MAJOR OFFENCES 1. F i r s t , Second-degree Murder and Attempted Murder. 2. Assault causing or intended to cause serious .injury d i s f i g u - rement, or m u t i l a t i o n . 3. Kidnapping, f o r c i b l e detention/abduction, and/or hostage- taking . 4. . Hijacking of a i r c r a f t and/or piracy of sea v e s s e l s . 5. Treason. 6. Espionage. 7. I l l e g a l possession and/or detonation of explosives which are l i k e l y to cause death. 8. V i o l e n t t e r r o r i s t a c t i v i t i e s . SERIOUS OFFENCES 1. Robbery with v i o l e n c e . 2. V i o l e n t sex offences ( i . e . , rape, attempted rape, c h i l d molestations, e t c . ) . 3. Arson. 4. Sabotage. 5. Conspiracy to t r a f f i c or import a dangerous drug. S. T r a f f i c k i n g and possession for the purpose of t r a f f i c k i n g (dangerous drugs) . 7. T r a f f i c k i n g in i l l e g a l firearms. 8. Manslaughter. 9. E x t o r t i o n . 10. Armed Robbery or Attempted Armed Robbery. 11. Prison breach. 12. Escape custody with v i o l e n c e . MODERATE OFFENCES 1. Possession of dangerous drugs. 2. T r a f f i c k i n g , conspiracy, possession for the purpose of t r a f - f i c k i n g ( s o f t drugs) . 3. Forgery. 4. Fraud. 5. B r i b e r y . 6. F o r c i b l e entry. 7. Break and Enter/Breaking Out. 8. Criminal negligence causing death or r e s u l t i n g in b o d i l y harm. 9. Non-violent sex offences ( i . e . , gross indecency, indecent as- sa u l t , i n c e s t ) . 10. Robbery (excluding armed robbery and robbery with v i o l e n c e ) . 11. Escape (n o n - v i o l e n t ) . 12. Theft over 200 d o l l a r s . 13. Obstruction of j u s t i c e and per j u r y . 14. Possession of stolen property over 200 d o l l a r s . 15. Possersion of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the p u b l i c peace. 16. Assault causing bodily harm. MINOR OFFENSES 1. Possession of stol e n property under 200 d o l l a r s . 2. Common a s s a u l t . 3. Possession of s o f t drugs . 4. Theft under 200 d o l l a r s . 5. Pu b l i c mischief. 6. Criminal negligence not r e s u l t i n g in bodily harm. 7. Possession of a r e s t r i c t e d or prohibited weapon. 8. Possession of forged currency, passports, cheques. 9. Unlawfully-at-Large. Appendix D: C a r c e r a l And Demographic Coding Sheet CARCERAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Card One Column No. 1 - 3 7 - 1 2 13 - 18 19 - 22 23 - 28 29 - 34 35 Variable I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number Date of birth- Date of most recent sentence Warrant expiry date Mandatory Supervision date Occupational status Code Day, month, year Day, month, year Length of sentence ( i n days) Actual no. Day, month, year Day, month, year -1—1 1 r I i ! Unskilled-1 Skilled»2 Clerical/sales=3 Managerial/ AriTninistrative-4 Professional/ Technical=5 36 - 37 Educational l e v e l at s t a r t of sentence Grade 4 • 4 5 = 5 6 = 6 P a r t i a l Univ. 12 » J,2 "13 - 13~ 14 - 14 _15 = L5_ Univ. 16 - 16 38 Previous federal penitentiary experience? No = 1 Yes = 2 39 Current year of enrolment i n university program 40 "Severity" of most serious Minor « 1 present offence Moderate = 2 Serious = 3 Major = 4

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Japan 4 0
United States 3 0
France 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
Sweden 1 0
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 4 0
Redmond 2 0
Unknown 2 2
Stockholm 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items