Work release and its affect [i.e. effect] on recidivism
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Durbin, Richard Louis, 1927-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 25/09/2021 12:58:31
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/317832 WORK RELEASE AND ITS AFFECT ON RECIDIVISM
by
Richard Louis Durbin
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1969 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposted in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author
SIGNEDV7^;
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
9^, A. 5 ~ - / S~- 6 ? RAYMOND A. MULLIGAN DATE Professor of Public Administration TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES © o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©. © © "v*
ABSTRACT © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © v m
I© INTRODUCTION © © © © © © © © © © © ©.© © ©.© © © © © © 1
IIe STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM <, ©. © © © © © . © © © © © © © © 4
III© HISTORY OF WORK RELEASE © ©. © © © . © © © © © © . © © © © 5
IV© PREVIOUS STUDIES © © © ©.© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 10
V© BUCKS COUNTY PRISON AND BUCKS COUNTY ©©©.©.©©©©© 17
The Rehabilitation Center ©©©©.©©© © © © © © 18 History of Pennsylvania Work Release Law © © © © 18 Selection for Work Release Program © © © © © © © 19 The S tudy © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 21 Methodology"Procedure Used in Selecting Cases 0 0 21 Methodology © ©.© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 22
VI© FINDINGS OF STUDY GROUP BY VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS AND SELECTED VARIABLES © .© © © © © © © © © © © © 24
Computer Program Findings © © © © © © © © © © © © 24 Recidivism and Education © © © © © •© © © © © © © 25 Age and Recidivism © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 25 Scars9 Tattoos, and Recidivism 0 . e 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 26 Recidivism and Offenses . © © © © © © © © © © © © 26 Race and Recidivism © © © © © © © © © © © © ©' © 27 Marital Statu is © © © © © ©.© © © © © © © © © © © * 27
VII© COMPARISONS OF THE WORK RELEASE AND NON-WORK RELEASE GROUPS - (COMPUTER PROGRAM) © . © ©© . © © © © © © © 28
Sentencing Work Release Versus Non-Work Release © 33
iii iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
VIII. FINDINGS- AND OBSERVATIONS ...... 35
Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work. Release on Inmates of Bucks County Prison by Types of Previous Offenses, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates .o..... 48
I3C o CONCLUS ION o.o o o o e o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o 61
APPENDIX A: WORK RELEASE AGREEMENT ...... 69
APPENDIX B: COMPUTER PROGRAM ...... 71
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 74 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
U The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa*, by Types of Previous Motor Vehicle Offenses, September 1968© © © © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © © 36
2 The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown. Pa®, September 1968 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 37
3 The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown. Pa©, by Types of Previous Sex Offenses, September 1968© © © © © © © © © © © © © © o© o© © © © © © 39
4 The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa®, by Total Offenses, September 1968 © ® © © © © © © 40
5 The Assignment of Work Release and Non^Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa®, by Types of Previous Property Offenses, September 1968 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 41
6 The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa©, by Marital Status, September 1968 © © © © © © © © 43
7 The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa®, by Types of Previous Non-Support Offenses, September 1968 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 44
The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa®, by Educational Level, September 1968 © © © © © © © 45
v vi
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table Page
9 The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown. Pa., by Age, September 1968 ...... 46
10 The Assignment of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown. Pa*, by Race, September 1968 ...... 47
11 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown. Pa*, by Types of Previous Motor Vehicle Offenses, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist, September 1968 0 0 49
12 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa*, by Types of Previous Personal Violence Offenses, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates, September
1968 o o • o o * e e o o oo o o o o © o © © © * © 50
13 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown. Pa*, by Types of Previous Sex Offenses, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates, September 1968 * * * 0 0 51
14 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa©, by Total Offenses (Including Present), Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates, September 1968 ...... 52
15 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa*, by Types of Previous Property Offenses, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates, September 1968 * * © * © 54
16 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa*, by Marital Status, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates, September 1968 * © © © © © *©***** © 55
Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown. Pa*, by Previous Non-Support Types of Offenses, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates, September
1968 o o © oo o © © © oo o © © © © © o © © * oo 56 vii:
LIST OF TABLES-»Continued
Table Page
18 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa*, by Educational Level, Recidivist and Non- Recidivist Rates, September 1.968 .oo.oooe. 57
19 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa0, by Age, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates,
September 1968 ooooo«„oo.o.00,000 58
20 Comparison of Work Release and Non-Work Release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pae, by Race, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates, September 1968©® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 59 ABSTRACT
This thesis addresses itself to the problem of work release and its effect on recidivisnio The work was done during the calendar year 1968 with the major work being done in September of 19680
The author uses a statistical approach and a straight com parative percentage approach in attempting to measure the effect of work release on recidivisnio
Two sample groups are compared - the one group being work release5 recidivism and non-recidivism and the second group non-work release, recidivism versus non-recidivismo
The hypothesis is that the Work Release Program will have a positive effect in reducing recidivism rates0 The author1s conclusion is that there may be a slight affect on recidivism by the use of work release, however, he points up the fact that there is very little scientific method used in selecting candidates for the two groups and, therefore, the results would be a matter of chance0
The author suggests some positive policies and discusses some social and economic factors which might be more important in the administration of the program than just an attempt to classify inmates into two broad general categories - work release and non-work release,, CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study was done at Bucks County Prison in Doylestown,
Pennsylvania, with the cooperation of Major John Do Case, who is the
Wardeno The prison is located close to Philadelphia and is one of a very few in Pennsylvania which has established some type of Work
Release Programs
One of the major handicaps involving the study was the inadequacy of the records0 This is in all likelihood a common short coming of prisonso No attempt was made in this study to evaluate the personnel or their methods in selecting work release candidates0 It remains for some future study to determine whether the people who really need work release are the ones who actually participate in itQ
This would mean more emphasis on the counselings
The problem was suggested by some of the findings in the literature which indicated that the Work Release Program could be used as a rehabilitative measure that could help the inmate adjust to the community and also help the community adjust to the inmate (Clemmer
1958, ps 290)o The idea of rehabilitation and resocialization of offenders has only in this century made progress over the prevailing attitude, which was one of revenge and retributions The history of prison reveals one of the more sordid chapters in man^ s treatment of \ his fellow man0
Even today legislators are primarily concerned with punitive
laws, rather than with any scientific knowledge that would permit them
to think and act positively toward individuals in trouble with the
lawo The judges who sentence criminals are likely to have many of the
nhang-ups?i that plague the lawmakers 0 However 5 the fact that many
states have now passed Work Release Laws is an encouraging sigru
Incarceration alone has done nothing to discourage crime, as we witness the percentage of recidivism0 Maintaining costly residences
for offenders does nothing but incapacitate them for a period of time9 and is becoming financially burdensome for the public who has to pay
for many such urgent problems in today1s worlds Ways of rehabilitat
ing offenders must be found and the Work Release Program is one of
them<,
The whole system of jails and prisons is in need of overhaul0
There is a great diversity among them depending on the population, the amount of tax support, as well as on the individuals who manage theim
Until very recently the whole idea of work was to help the inmate to pay for his own keep rather than to help him to adjust after his release from prison0
Work release is seen as only one part of an extensive prison and rehabilitation reform® There must be more emphasis on reentering
society with shorter periods of incarceration, particularly for young
offenders (Case 1967)o Prisons must be smaller and more strategically located* Probation in all forms must be expanded, such as halfway houses, hostels, group homes and training workshops0 The.Parole Board and sentencing procedures also need change and improvement0 If it were possible, and perhaps time will accomplish this, the community must change its attitude toward offenders0 Psychiatric counseling will have to be vastly expanded0 As with almost every institution of any size, there is a need for an information system using computer tech nology so that facts can be gathered and records kept on all individuals at all stages of their procedure through the correctional system* At the present time, there are no adequate records available that can be used as a scientific basis to make an intelligent decision about future policies0
Only recently the National Crime Commission focused attention on systems analysis as a method of studying attempts for improving correctional programs0 It is the intent of the Commission to allow a blueprinting or correctional planning for the prisoner from the time of his initial arrest until his last contact with the Parole Officero
Recognizing the fragmentation which exists within the correctional system, its recommendations include planning and coordination among services on all levels - state,federal and local0 The Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act which was passed in 1968 makes funds . available for such long-range planning0 CHAPTER II
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study of work release was begun with the hypothesis that work release reduces recidivism, and that the program at Bucks County
Jail, which allows inmates to work in the community during their
period of incarceration, will reduce recidivism in that group0
The problem was to use the limited amount of information
available from the prison records at Bucks County and using the sample
groups chosen at random, compare the recidivism rate of those on the
Work Release Program with the recidivism rate of those not on the Work
Release Program0
Intermediary steps and problems were also involved0 In order
to find' out how widespread the use of work had become, all states were
contacted to see if a work release was in operation, how it was run,
and whether any studies had been done on their programs0 The litera
ture was reviewed in an attempt to gather information regarding the
history of work release and any research that might have been done0
4 CHAPTER III
HISTORY OF WORK RELEASE
The use of work release as a method of prisoner rehabilitation began in Wisconsin in 1913 with the passage of the Huber Law0 This was a revolutionary concept in which certain types of prisoners were allowed to leave the confinement of the jail during working hours but returned to the jail for the rest of the time* The money earned was turned over to the sheriff who, in turn, disbursed it for room and board, personal expenses for the prisoner, and for support of the prisoner's dependents0
Through the years the law was modified and expanded to make it mpre liberal0 In 1919 women were included among those eligible for work release,, In 1927 the courts were given the authority to sentence prisoners under the provisions of the Huber Law, and was further expanded in 1945 to include the county workhouse0 Prisoners without dependents were allowed to keep half their earnings after room and board were deducted0 In 1947 and 1949 those convicted of Contempt of
Court for non-support of dependents were included among those eligible for work release* (An attempt was made to confine those eligible for work release in a jail in downtown Milwaukee that was close to trans portation and the source of work*) By 1957 a prisoner was allowed to
5 keep all of the money he had saved from work release employment, whereas previously he had been given only half - the other half going
to the countyo
In 1959 it became the duty of the courts to decide who would have the privilege of serving under work release0 It became possible
for the prisoner to conduct his own business if he was self-employed or to seek employment if he was unemployed0 In 1965 the privilege of work release was extended to felons, as well as misdemeanants (Long
1965, pp. 3-7).
The philosophy behind all these innovations was to keep as many prisoners as possible in touch with their families and communities and avoid the isolation which later makes rehabilitation so difficult.
In the years since the passage of the Huber Law, twenty-four states have passed similar work release legislation, others are in the planning
stage. All of the programs are very similar. They employ many of the
same basic rules and guidelines and are bounded by similar
limitations.
North Carolina adopted a Work Release Program in 1957 -
Pennsylvania and Maryland in 1963. The Federal Government adopted it
for Federal Prisons in 1965 as did the State of Oregon (Long 1965,
pp. 3-7). This was followed by Michigan in 1966 and many others in
1967: Indiana, Florida, Washington, Maine, Vermont, Nebraska and
others. Other state legislatures are in the process of studying legis
lation, and it seems likely that in the future every state will adopt
some form of work release. 7
Although studies relating to work release are still few, and those few have not been able to establish conclusively that work release has a marked beneficial effect on the recidivism rate, the
Work Release Program will most likely continue0 Until proven other wise, the prevailing theory today is that a jail experience frequently mars prisoners for life0 Work release, on the other hand, offers a prisoner the chance to maintain his skills, self-respect, earning power, and to adjust to his later role in the communityo
The method of implementing the Work Release Program varies among the states0 In North Carolina where misdemeanants, as well as felons, are sentenced to the State Prison Department, the Work Release
Program can be comparatively even0 In other states such as Wisconsin and California, work release is the responsibility of the county0 In
Wisconsin the sheriff administers the Work Release Program0 This means that there is a great variance among counties in the amount of partici pation in the programs The heavily populated counties where jobs and public transportation are available will have many prisoners participa ting in the programs The sparsely populated communities will not be able to furnish either jobs or transportation Furthermore, the factor of community acceptance may be hard to attain where employers are few and provincial attitudes prevail0 In California each county must adopt the Work Release Program by county ordinance or resolution before it is administered at that level0 In Pennsylvania the counties are authorized to institute their own Work Release Program, and five'have done soo In other states, the urban areas will be quicker to make use of the program than predominantly rural areas which have their own built-in 1imitationso
All states limit the type of prisoners who are permitted to participate. They must be able to benefit from the program; those with life sentences are usually excluded from participatingo They must show a high degree of stability and be in good healtho They.must be class ified as a minimum security risk* Those convicted of sex crimes or offenses of assult are usually excluded*, Participation in the program must be on a voluntary basis*. These rules are, more or less, uniform from state to stateo
In Pennsylvania a participant must sign an agreement whereby he promises to travel to and from work by the quickest route, with no stops; not to visit with family or friends; not to drink intoxicating beverages; and not to make any telephone calls while, away from prison*.
Any violation of the agreement brings a temporary or permanent halt in the participationo (See Appendix A)e
The entire salary is given to the sheriff or supervising offi cer who, in turn, disburses it in whichever order the state considers essential*, Usually it is for room and board, travel expenses to and from work, incidental expenses, support of dependents and other obliga tions acknowledged by the prisoner (Case 1963, 1965, pp*, 9-10) 0
One of the limitations is securing work*, Some prisoners are already employed and can continue to work*, Those who are unemployed but eligible for work release may have trouble finding work* Yet, this group may find real incentives for altering their behavior in a satisfactory work release experience»
This author is acquainted with the program in Baja, California, where conjugal visiting is permitted0 Work release would be an appropriate time to begin it in this country0 One far-out idea, and in conflict with our prevailing moral beliefs, is the contracting for services with "houses of ill repute" where surveillance could be maintained and social diseases could be controlledo CHAPTER IV
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Two studies have been conducted on Work Release Programs: one was at the Kings County Prison in the State of Washington and the other at the Bucks County Prison in Doylestown, Pennsylvaniao The Kings
County study does not consider the problem of recidivism, but is a comprehensive report on the way the Work Release Program is operated, the therapy and personality analysis which is used in connection with the work release participants and an analysis of the group on the basis of a) personal factors, b) family data, c) employment data, and d) crime data (King County, Washington 1965, ppo 1-4)o
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the system after its first year of operatione Their methods of collecting and interpreting the information were still being refined and after only one year gave the impression of keeping accurate and comprehensive records0 This is one aspect of prison administration which varies considerably from one prison to anothere Advanced research system planning is proposed for the second year in order to achieve a broader analysis of the data0
During the first year, 348 male inmates participated in the programe Their ages ranged from eighteen to thirty-two which was consistent with the belief that those under thirty-five would stand to benefit most from this type of therapy0 Most of the group
10 11 classified occupationally as having some kind of trade0 A small percentage were of sales or professional status and a very small percentage had no employment classification0
Under (A) personal data, the following picture emerged:
lo 98% were UoSe citizens*
2o 87% were white, 13% were colored*
3o 98% were from the State of Washington*
4o 63% had military service*
5* 12% had dishonorable discharges from the service which is
higher than normal *
6* 67% reported no religious affiliation*
7* 44% had their driver1s license suspended; 7% had been
revoked*
Under (B) family data:
1* 46% were married, 31% were single, 16% were divorced*
2* A high percentage of the parents were living and presented
a good picture of employment*
3* 93% had lived with their parents during the first 16 years
of their lives*
Under (C) employment data:
1* 73% worked from Monday to Friday, while 17% included
Saturday and Sunday schedules, which is a normal distribution*
2* 78% worked the day shift while 22% worked the swing or grave
yard shift* Also normal distribution* 12
3o 81% worked for an hqurly wage9 19% were salaried, and 9%.
worked on a commission basis0
The average income for the year was $463005, but it seems worthy of note that the most money was earned by those inmates whose work release extended from one to fifty-nine days0
Of the crimes for which the prisoners were incarcerated, 62% were committed in the city, 38% in the countyo Of the courts issuing
the sentences 40% were Justice, 31% Municipal, 25% State, and 4%
Federalo
Being the first year of operation, it was impossible to include any statistics on recidivism, and it is very likely to be studied in
future annual reports of this institution0
The second study on the Bucks County Prison was during the
summer of 1967 by Charles L 0 Newman, Head of the Center for Law Enforce ment and Corrections, College of Human Development, Pennsylvania State
University, and Thomas R 0 Bulen0 The objectives of their study were
(1) "to measure whether, as a whole," 0o0work release 0 o o" is as
effective a method as incarceration is for short term offenders in a
county jail, (2) "to develop an instrument which would provide accurate
predictions for selection of those subjects who might be assigned to
a Work Release Program, and who could be expected to become successful
participating members of the community, and (3) to have the study serve
as a pilot for a larger projected investigation of correctional
decision making insofar as the dispositions were concerned0 13
After completing the study the researchers came to the con clusion that work release is a successful means of returning prisoners to a community and they found no risk to community safety in the way the program was being handled@ They failed, however, in their last two objectives for lack of adequate information0 The records that were kept were not complete enough nor did they seem accurate enough since the information obtained from the inmates was never verifiedo
The first objective was carried out by comparing the recidivism rate for a work release group in 1965 with the recidivism rate of a similar non-work release group in 19610 Recidivism, according to this study, was the commission of a criminal act, "in any jurisdiction, for which he was convicted and served ninety days or more, within eighteen months after release from Bucks County Prison*"
All subjects studied were male, who had been sentenced for at least ninety days or more and had served ninety days or more* There were sixty-nine subjects in the 1961 group who extended from January
1, of that year to December 31* Ninety subjects were selected for
1965 who, in addition to the above criteria, had also participated in the Work Release Program*
The mean age of the 1961 group was twenty-nine years; the median twenty-five* The mean age of the 1965 group was thirty years; the median twenty^nine* No reason was given for the group being older in 1965.
In the 1961 group, 94% were white and 5% non-white* In 1965 the group was 76% white and 24% non-white* Again, no plausible explanation could be found for the difference in the makeup * 14
In both groups3 the average education level attained was the tenth gradeo Since there is no educational testing at the institution and the information taken from the inmates is not verified, it is reasonable to assume that at this young age they would hllohave had an opportunity to complete high school and probably many are dropouts0
Half of the 1961 group was single while a quarter of the 1 1965 group was singleo This is not enough information on the partici pants to know whether they were incarcerated for nonsupport or just what significance this statistic hado
In both groups the inmates had been sentenced for many differ ent crimes, but a higher percentage of them were against property and motor vehicleso In the 1965 group there was much higher percentage serving time for non-support and many fewer who were sentenced for sex crimes, suggesting that sex offenders were not good subjects for work release.
In both groups the minimum sentence was three months and the maximum sentence eight months. However, the actual time served in the
1961 group was two months and in the 1965 group, three months0 There was a feeling that the lower recidivism rate may have been due to the
longer period of incarceration,
The method of release and the number of prior offenses were very similar between the two groups,
The actual results of the study become slightly fuzzy when recidivism rates were compared, (Recidivism for the purposes of this 15 study was a new offense and incarceration within 18 months of their release0) By these standards the following figures emerge:
1961 Group
Committed new offenses within 18 months 10 (15%)
Charges made but no disposition 2 (2.8%)
Committed new offenses beyond 18 month limit 5 (7%)
Non-recidivists 50 (72%)
Charges made but no disposition made 2 (2.8%) beyond 18 months
i Group
Committed new offenses within 18 months 7 (8%)
Charged offenses but no disposition 6 (7%)
Committed new offenses beyond 18 month 2 (2.2%) limit ,
Charges lodged but no disposition beyond 5 (5.5%) 18 months
Cases pending 3 (3.3%)
Non-recidivists 67 (75%)
Through a process of factoring, an attempt was made to incor porate the nno disposition” into the figures0 The results came out
14% recidivist for the 1961 group and 8% recidivist for the 1965 group0
If all the ”no dispositions” were treated as cases of recidivism the results would be 16% for 1961 and 14% recidivism for 1965o
Analysis of the recidivists revealed that in the 1961 group, none committed more than one offense while in the 1965 group, five committed one offense within the 18 month period and two committed two 16 offenses o It was the younger group that committed the offenses
(18-31) o It is worthy to note that of the total of 17 offenders, 11 were convicted within 12 months and 6 were on parole at the time of their conviction for a new offense0 This indicates that supervision immediately after release may need to be intensified,, (There is a need for better trained parole workers0)
The conclusion in this study is that work release is safe for the community since there were no more recidivists in the work release group0 In fact, there may be a very slight decrease in recidivism in the work release group, but future studies will have to prove this conclusively0 CHAPTER V
BUCKS COUNTY PRISON AND BUCKS COUNTY
The institution selected for this study was the Bucks County
Prison and the Bucks County Rehabilitation Center located in
Doyles town, Pennsylvania^, The prison has an average daily occupancy of 240 inmates (Case 1967, pp0 9-17)<>
The function of the Bucks County Prison is to detain prisoners who are waiting trial and to keep those inmates who are legally sen tenced by a magistrate or the court0
Perhaps what is more important than the function of the institution is the philosophy which guides ito This philosophy expresses what the prison tries to do with those who find themselves within its wallse The Warden, Major John Do Case, UoSoMoCo (retired) believes firmly and practices the belief that his prison is in the salvage business - not the junk business0 Individuals are confined here as punishment, not for punishment0 Warden Case cites as a basis for his philosophy the point made by Warden Art Bernard of the Nevada
State Penitentiaryo ^People must realize people can't have their cake and eat it too* If.you want a man rehabilitated, you can't concent trate on punishing himQ When a human being is punished he becomes resentfulo Our orthodox program is a peculiar combination of
17 18 punishment9 restraint and half-hearted attempts to rehabilitate,.
These forms are all in conflict with each other» They generate friction and they impair efficiency0 n
At the Bucks County Prison the desire is to treat each person as an individual0. The aim is to assist the individual in solving his problem so that he can return to the community as a law abiding citizen@
The Rehabilitation Center
The Rehabilitation Center of the Bucks County Prison is uniqueo The question could be asked, "Why does a county jail need such a facility?" The Warden at Bucks County Prison believes that the county jail may be the most important unit in the correctional system in the United States0 He believes it is most important that rehabilitation efforts be started at the county jail level, and if we do not succeed at this level, approximately 80% of the inmates will revisit a penal institution at some future date*
A number of men housed in this center are on the Work Release
Program,, These men work at their regular jobs and return to the center at night0
History of Pennsylvania Work Release Law
The Work Release Bill No„ 309 became effective in Pennsylvania on October 13, 1963o To date, 5 counties in Pennsylvania have taken advantage of this law (Case 1965)„ 19
The Pennsylvania Work Release Law permits the court to allow
certain inmates to leave jail during necessary hours for occupational5 scholastic or medical purposeso At the present time only prisoners sentenced to one year or less are eligible for the progranu At the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter, the court will permit an inmate to participate in the program for the purpose of work ing at his employment, conducting his business, seeking employment,
attending an educational institution or securing medical treatment0
When an inmate is gainfully employed, he is required to turn
over his earnings to the Warden0 These deductions are then made from
his wages: 1) board of the inmate; 2) necessary travel expense to and from work, and other incidental expenses; 3) support of dependents, if
so ordered and in an amount determined by the court5 4) payment of
docket costs; and 5) payment of any obligation acknowledged by the inmate, including restitutiono The balance, if any, is given to the inmate upon releasee
Selection for Work Release Program
The criteria used for selection of inmates for the Work Release
Program is as follows:
The sentence handed down by the judge determines whether or
not the man is eligible for the Work Release Program0 If the man is sentenced for a maximum term of one year or less and if the judge
orders it, the inmate can be placed on work release0 20
In Bucks County the judge sometimes specifies work release at the time of sentencing^ however, the judge usually states that work release is recommendedo In the latter case he will wait for recommend ations from the Warden as to whether or not the individual is a fair risk for the program0
The Warden makes his recommendations on certain criteria0
1) Is the man a security risk? 2) Has he a record of running away?
3) Is he an alcoholic? 4) Does he need eduational benefits more than work? 5) Is he an addict? A man’s conduct in the prison is an important factor in the selection processe Work Release, likd parole, must be earned0
After a man is selected and approved for work release, he is transferred from the prison to the Rehabilitation Center where, with the aid of a counsellor, he must find a suitable job* The job should provide enough money to allow the inmate to pay off his fines • and other obligations within the time of his sentenceo
At first the inmates found their own jobs through the classi fied ads in the local papers,, As the program grew, a full-time counsellor was added to seek out prospective employers and match the inmates with the opportunities0 Before employment, the prospective employer is told that the applicant is an inmate of a minimum security institution0
' One of the most severe problems of the law and its administra tion is that the Pennsylvania law restricts work release to men sentenced for one year or less0 County jails such as Bucks County 21
may hold men sentenced up to five years* Two men, both with different
sentences and needing work release, are not afforded the same
privileges* Also, no privilege is made in the law for allowing work
release to men sentenced by a Justice of the Peace*
It is within this framework and legality that the Work Release
Program was conducted at Bucks County Prison* It was from this
environment that the study was undertaken and the sample of work
release participants and non-work release inmates were chosen*
The Study
In consultation with Dr* Raymond Mulligan it was decided to
conduct a study comparing characteristics of two groups of inmates*
The first group contained a random sample of work release inmates
during 1965 and the second group was comprised of non-work release
inmates chosen on a random sample covering the same period* The main
objective was to test the success of work release and its effect on
recidivism and to determine if there were any characteristics or
variables that have predictable probability of determining a man* s
success after release from the institution*
Methodology-Procedure Used in Selecting Cases
Several qualifying criteria were used to select individual
case histories for inclusion in the compilation* All individuals
selected were those who had been sentenced and had served a prison
term of over thirty days and who were released or paroled in 1965 from
Bucks County Prison at Doylestown, Pennsylvania* All the inmates were men* 22
Random samples were taken of two sub-populations of these cases0
The first sample was composed of a large portion, over 50, and under
90 of the possible individuals who were assigned to the Work Release
Program during 1965 with the earliest dates of release from the
program selected firsto
The second (control) sub-population was culled from a random
sample of releases from the Bucks County Prison during 1965o When the
same individual had been released twice during the year, duplication was avoided by omitting individuals already selected on another release,,
In addition, individuals who took part in the Work Release Program
during 1965 were also excluded from this sample0
The sample comparability showed the following:
In the non-work release group, the sample size was 51o
In the work release group, the sample size was 56„
Methodology
The investigation conducted was of an exploratory nature and was designed to indicate association patterns among and between the variables previously chosen for study0 Biserial coefficients of cor
relation were calculated where dichotomized variables were involved
that could be said to be essentially continuous and normally dis
tributed, and point biserial coefficients otherwise0
The sample was constructed in two separate parts - the work release group and the ,non-work release random sample0 Correlation
studies were run separately for each of these categories and then for both the work release group and the non-work release group0 The 23
program chosen calculated the correlation coefficients between all of
the variables, and in addition performed stepwise a multiple regression
analysis that aided in interpretation of the dataQ
The program selected computes a sequence of multiple linear
regression equations in a stepwise manner0 At each step one variable
was added to the regression equation0 The variable added was the one which makes the greatest reduction in the error sum of squares0
Equivalently it was the variable which has the highest partial cor
relation with the dependent variable partialed on the variables which
have already been added0 .Indices (such as total number of offenses) which were derived from others of the variables were withheld from the
regression analysis until last*
The entire analysis was performed separately for the work
release and non^work release groups«, The level of significance for
the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0o27o
The level of significance for the chi-square with 2 x 2 con
tingency tables at the 0o05 level of significance with a,one-tailed
test is 2o7o Chi-squares were computed for selected contingency
tableSo CHAPTER VI
FINDINGS OF STUDY.GROUP BY VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS AND SELECTED VARIABLES
The length of time over which the recidivism was studied was
two years after the release of the inmate0 The entire year of 1 9 6 7 was included since the original sample group was collected on inmates
at Bucks County Prison who were released during 1 9 6 5 o Chance would allow the normal distribution of time elapse over a two year period*
In other words the average period studied in terms of recidivism would be two years from release date* However, in specific cases, recidivism might be measured on time lapse of more than two years or in some examples less than two full years*
This section is broken into two categories* First, the find ings as interpreted by the computer program designed for this study were based on a multiple regression program and attempted to find significant correlation between sets of variables, and secondly, an analysis of percentage of recidivists to non-recidivists of work release and non-work release inmates in terms of specific variables*
Computer Program Findings
The computer program findings are a significant correlation of sets of variables on recidivism rate in work release and non-work release samples* Recidivism and Education
Many unexpected findings relating to recidivism were noted - high level of education, low recidivism; high skill rate, low recidivism* Some personal characteristics 'that one might expect to be associated with recidivism were not found0 Histories of past offenses and age appeared to have the greatest degree of relationship to recidivism within the two year period subsequent to release*
There appeared not to be a statistically significant relation ship between educational level attained and recidivism* The positive effect of high school graduation on recidivism may be imparted to those at the high end of the educational ladder, but harder to account for are the several individuals with less than a grade school educa tion who managed to stay out of trouble subsequent to release*
Age and Recidivism
Age does bear some relationship to recidivism* Among the non-work release sample, the younger and older men were particularly liable to commit a new offense* The coefficient of recidivism vari able with age distance from 33 was +0*365* As noted above, younger and older men were less likely to be selected for work release, but the young men that are selected seemed less likely than the middle aged group to commit a new offense, whereas the older men were most likely to commit a new offense* 26
Man is a creature of habit, and the findings of the current study (particularly age and recidivism) emphatically corroborates this truism with respect to the repeating of criminal activities by the older men0
Scars, Tattoos, and Recidivism
There has been a lot of speculation that people with scars and tattoos had higher crime incidences than those without these mark ings, however, in this study there were no significant relationships but there was a disassociation of scars and tattoos among work release group people0
There is some evidence of a weak association between tattoos and property of fenses, but this is not significant,,
Recidivism and Offenses
Overall, the tendency to recidivize correlates 0*290 with the number of past and current property offenses* Whereas the number of past and current property offenses was more (coeff* 0*384) indicative of recidivism among the non^work release sample, the number of crimes of personal violence was more (coeff* 40*166 as against -0*154) indicative of recidivism among the work release sample* Thus one might hypothesize that these observations are accounted for by lessened probability that professional burglars are placed on work release* The ratio of past to current property offenses is much greater among the non-work release group* Race and Recidivism
Contrary to what might be expected in the heart of a major urban area, Negroes in Bucks County were no more likely to recidivize than were whites o This was true of both the work release and non work release samples0
Marital Status
More surprising yet is that marital status is only weakly related to recidivism among the men not on work release, and hardly at all among the men on work releasee It should be noted that non support offenders have about the same probability to incur a new offense within the subsequent two years as do other offenders, and inclusion of this group does not materially affect the above conclusiono CHAPTER VII
COMPARISONS OF THE WORK RELEASE AND NON-WORK RELEASE GROUPS - (COMPUTER PROGRAM)
The following are hypotheses suggested by the correlation
studyo
Notwithstanding this observation, there was no discernable relationship between educational level and the likelihood of assign ment to the Work Release Program except for the very poorly and very well-educated groups, which together are a small percentage of
the total sample0 These appear to be the marginally employable and
eminently employable groups, respectively0
A very interesting characteristic of the work release group as contrasted to the non-work release group was noted with respect
to the effect of education on the skill category of employment of the
individualso In the work release group, a high correlation was noted between education and occupation, or skill level, but in the non- work release sample, this pattern was not observed0
Furthermore, among the work release population, age was also
directly associated with occupational status0 No such relationship . was noted among the non-work release sampleo
28 29
A partial reason for the congruence of both education and age • with occupational status in the work release group is that unlike the non-work release group, higher age was not associated with poorer education* In the non-work release sample, older men appeared definitely to reflect lower levels of education in their background*
(Correlation between age and education level, -0*482)* The work release population may be said in a sense to reflect a ^better integrated" constellation of age or education and occupation* The level of significance for the chi-square with 2 x 2 contingency tables at the 0*05 level of significance with a two-tailed test is 3*8 and with a one-tailed test is 2*7* Chi-squares were computed for selected contingency tables *
Also indicative of a difference between the work release and non-work release group is the stronger pattern of property crime which the latter appear to be engaged in, and which may account for some of the differences noted above* Among the men on work release, there are proportionately fewer past property offenses per property offender*
Worthy of special note are the non-support offenders assigned to the
Work Release Program* These individuals typicalTy did not have a history of property offenses, although two of the eleven did have a history of prior sex offense* Current sex offenders were not placed on work release* On the whole, individuals assigned to work release exhibited a somewhat longer history of non-property offenses than individuals remaining incarcerated, averaging 4*4 non-property pre vious offenses compared to only 3*7 for individuals remaining incarcer ated* Men nearer 33 are more likely to be placed on work release
than are youths or older men0 (Coeffo 0 o 2 6 8 9 with 0 o 1 9 5 significant
at 0 o 0 5 level for the combined population of 1 0 7 ) o Middle age is the more employable age, particularly so for offenders0
Since these men are even less likely to become recidivists than those placed on:the Work Release Program (coeffo 0*365 with 0o195 significant at 0o05 leVel for the combined sample of 107), it is a moot point whether favorable selection accounts for a degree of what ever success may be demonstrated by the Work Release Prograrrio
Sex offenders were not usually placed on work release, and non-support offenders, with one exception, were placed on work release*
General Observations
The average number of past property offenses is as follows:
Non-Work Release - recidivists 8*3
Non-Work Release - non-recidivists 5*0
Work Release - recidivists 4*5
Work Release - non-recidivists 1*5
Among those remaining in the non-work release population, the number of property offenses is even more directly related to the tendency to incur a new offense than other kinds of offenses* There are two possible explanations for this observation: either incarcera tion fortifies an existing pattern of burglary more than it does a 31 pattern of other offenses of a more violent nature, or more hardened burglars with longer sentences are not placed on work release0
As mentioned previously, men nearer 33 are more likely to be placed on work release0 It may be that vigorous men placed on work release who have resorted to violence are more. likely to repeat a similar offenseo
For both of the subsamples, the izotal number of past and current offenses was a good indication of the tendency to incur another offense in the subsequent two years, particularly for the
work release group0 (Coeffs* 0 o 3 8 2 , o0284)o Among the non-work release sample, coefficient of the recidivism variable with the total
number of previous offenses was 0 o 2 8 4 o The absence of a comparable correlation among the work release subsample suggests that younger and older men who had poorer prospects of lasting rehabilitation were not selected for the Work Release Program, and for that reason the program was considered by the prison administration to be successful?
This possibly was a personal bias of the Warden in his selection of candidates for the exclusion of certain prison-types for the Work
Release Program®
In making a final comparison of the work release and non-work release groups with respect to recidivism, a preliminary note is in ordero As may be noted in this table, the samples differed with respect to average sentence:
Work Release Non-Work Release
Average Minimum Sentence 77 days 171 days
Average Maximum Sentence 271 days 486 days
Average Time Served 126 days 183 days
With this in mind, as well as the favorable selection for work release based on age and employability, there is little evidence that the work release group has a lower rate of recidivism0 Indeed when groups not common to both samples such as non-support offenders and sex offenders are removed from the population, the percentage of recidivists remains the same at 37% to 38 in the work release group and falls from 43% to 41% in the non-work release sample<,
Among Negro men on work release, only 3 of 14 were recidi^ vists, or 27%® The Work Release Program appears to be particularly effective with this group who may have been willing but unable to secure steady employment in Bucks County (in contrast to Negro women, who may work as household servants0)
Remaining in the sample after sex offenders and non-support offenders are removed are:
Work Release 45 individuals 17 recidivists or.37o7%
Non-Work Release 46 individuals 19 recidivists or 41o2% Of Peripheral Interest
Sentencing Work Release Versus Non-Work Release
Some comparisons between the groups may be noted* Among the non-work release group, the maximum sentence was directly related to the occupational level * Among the work release group, the older men tended to get lighter maximum sentences, and age, in turn, was directly related to occupational status, (i0eo the higher the age, the higher the occupational status)* Nevertheless, there appeared to be no significant relationship between occupational status and sentence length time served* Thus factors preconditioned upon age in this group seem to command greater leinency on the part of judges than among the non^work release group*
For both groups, the lengths of sentences were associated with the number of prior burglary offenses* The minimum sentence was more strongly correlated (0*330) with the number of past offenses of the work release group, and the maximum sentence more strongly correlated (0*383) for the non-work release group* This appears to suggest that judges cede to penologists the responsibility for releas ing more incorrigible individuals, but assume that responsibility themselves for the less hardened work release candidates*
Some Recommendations On Policy
Education In itself is not a crucial point when selecting persons eligible for work release* People do not know better because they have more education* It may be that finding a better job for an 34 inmate than he had before his prison stay decreases recidivism® This could be the reason for the low recidivism rate among Negroes e They had managed to upgrade themselves" through the employment they found in prison®
It might also be helpful to people employing prisoners to have some kind of employment history if this can be taken and have some degree of accuracy®
It is very likely that people who commit burglary offenses do not do so because they feel the need for money but because they are in need of psychotherapy and not work release®
Most jails should employ more psychotherapists rather than use more people to administer work release® Many prisoners are suffering from a basic and chronic hostility toward society®
If inmates who need psychotherapy are placed on work release, they could pay for their own therapy and should be encouraged to do so as part of the reward for permitting them to participate in work release® CHAPTER VIII
FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
The composition on a percentage basis of the sample work release, recidivist, non-recidivist, and non-work release, recidivist non-recidivist compared on selected variables follows6
Table 1 is a comparison of work release inmates of Bucks
County Prison by types of motor vehicle offenses and shows the make up of the two groups (work release and non-work release) by number of previous offenses0 In this table the majority of the samples in the work release, recidivist section, or 42%, had one offense, 29% with two previous offenses and 29% with more than two offenses0 In the work release non^recidivist group, 50% had two previous motor vehicle offenses0 In the non-work release non-recidivist group, 70% had only one previous motor vehicle offense0 This leads one to believe that the number of previous offenses has very little to do with the assignment of men to work release0
In looking at the sample of.the two groups (work release and non-work release) on the variable of personal violence (Table 2), 83% of the non-work release recidivist group had only one previous offenseo In the work release group 55% had previous offenses listed as oneo Personal violence does not appear to be a factor in determin ing whether an inmate was eligible for work release0 35 TABLE 1
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by types of previous motor vehicle offenses. September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC)N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO'FAL Previous Offenses No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 3 42 1 17 4 30 2 40 5 70 7 59
2 2 29 3 50 5 40 2 40 1 15 3 25
Over 2 2 29 2 33 4 30 1 20 1 15 2 16
Total 7 54 6 46 13 100 5 41 7 59 12 100 -i ,.
-Ui ox TABLE 2
The assignment of work release and non work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO"FAL PERSONAL VIOLENCE No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % OFFENSE
1 4 40 6 55 10 48 5 83 5 50 10 63
2-4 4 40 3 27 7 33 1 17 4 40 5 31
OVER 5 2 20 2 18 4 19 -- 1 10 1 6
TOTAL 10 48 11 52 21 100 6 38 10 62 16 100 . jL 38
Table 3 on sex offenses shows nothing conclusive since the sample size is so small0
Table 4 on total offenses seems to favor the 0-3 category in assignment to the work release program since 50% of the 56 on work release had 0-3 offenses0 Forty-three percent of the non-work release came within;,this category so it appears that a low figure in total previous offenses makes the inmate more eligible for the
Work Release Progranio This table points out that the sample number of work release came within this category so it appears that a low figure in total offenses makes the inmate more eligible for the work release program® This table points out that the sample number of work release was 56 and of non-work release 51® It also points out that the work release group had 62 1/2% of non-recidivists and that the non-work release group had 56.8 of non-recidivists. As this study will bear out, it appears that there is very little difference between the work release and non-work release program results® It can be concluded from this table that the chance of success is not pre-determined by the selection of any visible variable in the assign ment of a man to the Work Release Program®
Table 5 points out that the number of property offenses have little bearing on the selection for work release® In fact, 54% of the
37 men on work release had :2 to 4 previous property offenses and in in the non-work release group 37%® Again, the largest percentage was in the t2 to 4 previous property offense group® TABLE 3
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, P a., by types of previous sex offenses, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NON NO N RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO'fal SEX OFFENSES No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 1 100 2 100 3 100 3 75 1 34 4 57
2 1 25 0 1 13
2-5 2 66 2 30
TOTAL 34 2 66 3 100 4 57 3 43 7 100
w vo TABLE 4
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by total offenses, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECID VI STS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO'FAL TOTAL OFFENSES No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0-3 5 24 23 66 28 50 5 23 17 60 22 43
4 -7 8 38 7 20 15 27 11 50 8 27 19 37
8-11 6 28 5 14 11 20 5 22 4 13 9 18
12-OVER 2 10 0 2 3 1 5 0 1 2
TOTAL 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43.2 29 56.8 51 100 TABLE 5
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, P a., by types of previous property offenses, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N PROPERTY RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO"FAL OFFENSES (Previous No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Number)
1 4 29 13 57 17 46 2 13 6 50 8 30
2-4 10 71 10 43 20 54 6 40 4 33 10 37
5-OVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 47 2 17 9 33
14 40 23 60 37 100 15 56 12 44 27 100 TOTAL - 42
In Table 6 in both the work release and non-work release group,
it appears that most of the men were either single, divorced or
separated, 57% in the work release and 69% in the non-work release groupo
Table 7 compares the classification non-support in the work release and non-work release groups0 As expected the majority of both groups were in for just one previous violation of non-support0 This
can be explained on the basis that those with over one violation have
changed their ways or have found a new mateo
In Table 8 it appears that the higher educational levels have
little to do with assignment to work release* In both groups, the number of inmates appeared to decrease with the higher level of educa
tion achieved* This probably demonstrates that men with higher edu? .
cation find more productive ways to support themselves in a society or
they are smarter and don’t get caught*
Table 9 shows no distinct difference on assignment according
to age, although the older men may not be assigned as readily to work
release since only 7 out of the 56 in the work release group and 12
out of the 51 in non-work release were 45 and over* This may support
the theory that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks and in the case
of Bucks County, you shouldn’t try*
Table 10 out of the 56 work release, 14 were black; in the non work release only 7 were black* There seems to be a tendency to allow
black inmates to participate and as will be seen as Bucks County, they
are a good risk* TABLE 6
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by marital status, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NON NO N RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO"CAL MARITAL STATUS No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Married 8 40 16 45.7 24 42.5 5 22.7 11 38 16 31 Single, Sep. Divorced 13 60 19 54.3 32 57.5 17 77.3 18 62 35 69 _
21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43 29 57 51 100 TOTAL ------
4> w TABLE 7
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, P a., by types of previous non-support offenses, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO'FAL NON SUPPORT No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % VIOLATION
1 3 40 4 57 7 50 1 34 1 50 2 50
2 3 40 2 30 5 36 2 66 1 50 3 50
OVER 2 1 30 1 13 2 14 ------
TOTAL 7 50 7 50 14 100 3 60 2 40 5 100 —i _ _j TABLE 8
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by educational level, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECID VI STS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO"FAL EDUCATION LEVEL No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0—8 6 28 6 17 12 21 10 46 7 24 17 34
9-10 10 48 10 28 20 36 8 36 10 35 18 35
11-12 5 24 15 43 20 36 4 18 11 38 15 29
12-OVER 0 4 12 4 7 0 1 3 1 2
TOTAL 21 35.5 35 64.5 56 100 22 43 29 57 51 100 TABLE 9
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by age, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N , NO N RECIDIVISTS RECK) VI STS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO"CAL
AGE No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
18-21 1 5 9 26 10 18 6 27 6 21 12 23
22-28 9 43 9 26 18 32 6 27 9 31 15 31
29-44 6 28 15 42 21 38 2 10 10 34 12 23
45-OVER 5 24 2 6 7 12 8 36 4 14 12 23
TOTAL 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43 29 57 51 100 TABLE 10
The assignment of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by race, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NON NO N RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO'CAL
RACE No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Negro 3 14 11 31.4 14 25 2 9 5 17 7 13
White 18 86 24 68.6 42 75 20 91 24 83 44 87
TOTAL 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43 29 55.7 51 100 48
Comparison of Work Release .and N.on^Work Release on Inmates of Bucks County Prison by. Types of Previous Offenses, Recidivist and Non-Recidivist Rates
Table 11 - work release did not affect the non-recidivist rate on persons with one previous offense® In fact it was much lower than the non-work release (25% to 71o5%)0 However with two previous offenses the men in the work release program showed slightly favorable results® Overall the non-work release program had a higher non recidivist rate than the work release®
Personal violence offenses in Table 12 showed that with one personal violence offense the Work Release Program was one better than the non-work release® But from two personal violence offenses or more the non-work release Program had a higher percentage of non-recidivists®
Overall there was nothing very significant® In both groups the non- recidivists were higher than the recidivists®
Unfortunately, the figures in Table 13 on sex offenses were too scanty® There is a better non-recidivist rate for work release with one offense and the overall totals favor a Work Release Program® How ever, there were not enough figures to make anything very significant®
In the 0-3 category in Table 14 on total offenses, the non- recidivist rate is good with it holding a slightly better edge in the work release group (82®2%-77®3%)® The groups 4-7 and 8-11 are pretty much the same for both work release and non-work release and the final total is slightly better for non-recidivists in the Work Release
Program® TABLE 11
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by types of previous motor vehicle offenses, recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NC N RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO"FAL NO. OF PREVIOUS No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % OFFENSES
1 3 75 1 25 4 100 2 28.5 5 71.5 7 100
2 2 40 3 60 r 5 100 2 66.7 1 33.3 3 100
OVER 2 2 50 2 50 4 100 1 50 1 50 2 100
TOTAL 7 54 6 46 13 100 5 41 7 59 12 100 — i - TABLE 12
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, P a., by types of previous personal violence offenses, recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NC N RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO'FAL PERSONAL VIOLENCE No. % No. % No. OFFENSES % No. % No. % No. %
1 4 40 6 60 10 100 5 50 5 50 10 100
2-4 4 57.1 3 42.9 7 100 1 20 4 80 5 100
OVER 5 2 50 2 50 4 100 -- 1 100 1 100
21 100 6 38 10 62 16 100 TOTAL 10 48 11 52 L _ TABLE 13
Comparison of work release and non-work release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by types of previous sex offenses, recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO’FAL
SEX No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % OFFENSES
1 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 100 3 75 1 25 4 100
_ 2 ------1 100 0 1 100
2-5 ------2 100 2 100
TOTAL 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 100 4 57 3 43 7 100 - TABLE 14
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by total offenses (including present), recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NON NO N RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO'fal TOTAL OFFENSES No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0-3 5 17.8 23 82.2 28 100 5 22.7 17 77.3 22 100
4-7 8 53.3 7 46.7 15 100 IT 57.8 8 42.2 19 100
8-1T 6 54.5 5 45.5 11 100 5 55.6 4 44.4 9 100
12-OVER 2 100 0 2 100 1 100 0 _ 1 100
TOTAL 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43.2 29 , 56.8 51 100 53
Table 15 on property offenses shows the figures as very similar throughout*, The non-recidivist rate is very good in both work release and non-work release for property offense*, Unfortunately there are no entries for 5 or over in work release* It is really not right to look at final totals without representation in this area*
Table 16 on marital status, again work release and non-work release percentages are quite similar with non-recidivists higher in all cases* For single, separated or divorced the non^recidivists rate is slightly better in the work release group, but nothing very significant is apparent*
In Table 17 on non-support, work release non-recidivists are slightly better than non-work release due mainly to the one previous offense group, but there is nothing really significant*
In Table 18 on educational level, the 0-8 category is slightly better risk than other levels (50%)*
In Table 19 on age, the most significant group here is theage
18-21 * There is a markedly better non-recidivist rate in the work release group, 90% to 50% in the work release group* The figures in the remaining categories are similar to each other* Over 45 years of age, there seems to be very little hope, the recidivist rate is high in both groups*
In Table 20 on race the trend seems to be the same for both races in both the work release and non-work groups* The non recidivists rate in the work release group is more favorable towards TABLE 15
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by types of previous property offenses, recidivist and non- recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N PROPERTY RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO"FAL OFFENSES (Previous No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Number)
1 4 23.5 13 76.5 17 100 2 25 6 75 8 100
2-4 10 50 10 50 20 100 6 60 4 40 10 100
5-OVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 77.8 2 22.2 9 100
TOTAL 14 37.8 23 62.2 37 100 15 56 12 44 27 100 _i _ ..
U i TABLE 16
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doyles!own, Pa., by marital status, recidivist and non-recidivist tales, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE ' NON NON " T " RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TO
MARITAL No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. STATUS "™
Married 8 33.3 16 66.7 24 100 5 31.3 11 68.7 16 100 Single, Sep. Divorced 13 40.6 19 59.4 32 100 17 48.6 18 51.4 35 100
TOTAL 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43 29 57 51 100
Ln Ui TABLE 17
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by previous non-support types of offenses, recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO'FAL NON SUPPORT No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
1 3 42.9 4 57.1 7 100 1 50 1 50 2 100
2 3 60 2 40 5 100 2 66.7 1 33.3 3 100
OVER 2 1 50 1 50 2 100
TOTAL 7 50 7 50 14 100 3 60 2 40 5 100
U i ox TABLE 18
Comparison of work release and non-work release Inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by educational level, recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NON NO N RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECID VISTS TO'fAL EDUCATIOr LEVEL No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0-8 6 50 6 50 12 100 10 58.8 7 41.2 17 100
9-10 ' 10 50 10 50 20 100 8 44.4 10 55.6 18 100
11-12 5 25 15 75 20 100 4 26.7 11 73.3 15 100
12-OVER 0 4 100 4 — 0 — 1 - 1 —
TOTAL 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43.1 29 56.9 51 100 TABLE 19
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by age, recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NC>N NO N RECIDIVISTS RECK) VI STS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO"fAL
AGE No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
18-21 i 10 9 90 10 100 6 50 6 50 12 100
22-28 9 50 9 50 18 100 6 40 9 60 15 100
29-44 6 28.6 15 71.4 21 100 2 16.7 10 83.3 12 100
45-OVER 5 71.4 2 28.6 7 100 8 66.7 4 33.3 12 100
TOTAL 21 | 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 22 43.1 29 , 56.9 51 100
Ui 00 TABLE 20
Comparison of work release and non-work release inmates of Bucks County Prison, Doylestown, Pa., by race, recidivist and non-recidivist rates, September 1968.
WORK RELEASE NON-WORK RELEASE NON NO N RECIDIVISTS RECIDIVISTS TOTAL RECIDIVISTS RECK) VISTS TO"FAL
RACE No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Negro 3 21.4 11 78.6 14 100 2 28.6 5 71.4 7 100
White 18 42.9 24 57.1 42 100 21 46.7 24 53.3 45 100
TOTAL 21 37.5 35 62.5 56 100 23 44.2 29 55.8 52 100
voU i 60 the Negro (78% vx0 57*1%)* The overall totals slightly favor the Work
Release Program0 CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSION
It appears that in the selection process by the judge and warden5 those with a history of property offenses are not likely to be s'elected for the Work Release Program* The correlation of a past history of property offenses correlated high with recidivism in the non-work release group (Table 15)@ There appears to be an adverse selection for work release of persons with a past history of property offenseso In summary on this point3 it does definitely appear that habitual property offenders are poor risks0
In the same vein, it also appears that people with a high number of total offenses have higher recidivism (Table 14)o In the selection process at Bucks County Prison, it appears that some attempt has been made to select those inmates more socially productive to include in the Work Release Program (Table 14)® However, the Warden was;,very vague when interviewed ^s to what he used as criteria for selection to the program®
Another finding was that the Negroes are a good risk in Bucks
County Prison for the Work Release Program and have a low recidivist rate in both the Work Release and the Non-Work Release Program
:(Table 20).
61 62
It might be concluded that Negroes who go to Bucks County Prison
have a productive reason for being there0 According to the 1 9 6 0 census,
Bucks County had a non-white population of less than 1 0 % o The per centage of unemployment in Bucks County was 4*3 while the state percentage was 5o60 It might be interesting to speculate on the recidivism rate in the ghetto of the neighboring County of Philadel phia e One might assume that the recidivism rate in the ghetto is much greater among Negroes there0 From this a conclusion might be that
Negroes in this ghetto area are socially inadequate and do not migrate outside their groupo
This type of study leads one to speculate on the negative connotation of recidivism as applied to correctional institutions0
For example, recidivism in a hospital or health care institution has a positive connotatione Readmission to a hospital is theoretically to
improve the health of an individual0 For its use in correctional
environments, it is a measure of failureo In correctional terminology, recidivism has a negative meaning and is universally regarded as such
since the environment is not supportive0 If people knew that a prison was or could become supportive and actually improved individuals,
social attitudes might change0 ' If this change could come about where
prisons were considered supportive to individuals and that a thera-
pautic type of treatment was offered, society might more readily,
accept those who are released*. Social acceptance of released inmates 63 might be enhancede The experience people have had with parolees and ex-cons has not been good* There is a widespread feeling that the released people will return to their old ways*
It appears that social support is crucial for the released prisoner in order to establish new friends and not be forced back into old patterns,of behavioro How society receives prisoners and ex-cons is indeed critical to the behavior of people released from the correc tional institution0 A greater acceptance and support by all of society may help reinforce the positive social behavior of these men0
This all goes to say that maybe there should be more inter change of ideas and practices between hospitals and prisons0 Phil osophy of hospitals is greatly needed in the prison community in order to build a positive social milieu and an emphasis that reincarceration is a positive rather than negative act, that recidivism is a helpful rather than negative measuremente The prison atmosphere then becomes one of a helpful rather than negative measurement0 The prison atmosphere then becomes one of a therapeutic nature and contributes positively to the individual's mental healthQ Along these same lines we may, as a nation, have to reexamine the meaning of the phrase,
"individual responsibility0"
It may be that in Western Civilization and law there are factors that make it extremely difficult for an individual to act normallyo It may be possible that the laws are made for a middle class economy and there may be extenuating circumstances which hinder 64 and actually decrease a person’s individual responsibility* If an
Indian boy had a vision, this is normal<, If a middle class white person has one, this is abnormal*
We as a society definitely need to seek a balance® The following two questions must be asked:
I* What are the social or environmental circumstances that
make it more difficult for an individual to maintain the
straight and narrow?
2* What are the personal or hereditary characteristics that
make it more difficult for an individual to integrate into
a lawful society?
The question that continually arises is that after a person has repeatedly committed a number of offenses, might he not be the most likely candidate for a therapeutic program? In this study, the one conclusive factor obvious beyond doubt is that of all groups in need of help to remain out of correctional institutions, it is the repeater of offenses who needs help* Also the study brought out the fact that this group of offenders, the repeater of all types of crime, have the worst probability of success® Also, they are the least likely to be put on work release*
Most of the literature that relates to the Work Release
Program evaluates them on the fact that the program reduced recidi vism* Therefore, those making the selection of inmates to include on the program may look for those inmates with the highest possible chance of success* However, it is this group with the lowest 65 probability of success who need the most help* Again, the criteria is non-recidivism and the emphasis on the need for a therapeutic environ ment in the institution and programs designed to provide social support to the criminal0 The need for criteria of success of a Work
Release Program needs to be reexamined and maybe emphasis put on reducing failure of the most needy in institutions rather than on selecting individuals who can help prove the worth of the program0
It would seem that an. examination of the type of therapy a man needs should be reevaluated and a classification system devised to codify a man?s social, physical and emotional needs, and then devise different programs to provide the indicated therapy0 It may be that the same therapy should not be provided at alio For example, repeated offenders have a poor success rate on the Work Release
Program* Sex offenders are seldom put on work release (Table 13)o
Maybe the underlying principle here is not only should the punishment fit the individual and not the crime, but the treatment should be tailored for the specific criminal as an individual rather than fitting the type of offense*
It seems that the crucial problem of law and the administra tion of penal institutions is being able to determine if a person needs support or punishment and also to test both before and after this administration if the individual, before his return to society, has acquired an individual responsibility*
It seems imperative that in this area the contribution of scientific inquiry is to test large scale studies and isolate those 66 characteristics which are a deterrent to an individual's own responsi bility and his social acceptanceQ
Right or wrong involves social toleration and community norms; therefore, an individual's responsibility is always seen as the means through which the individual tolerates and integrates into society*
White man's law, city laws or legislative laws - are they the laws of the various communities? It may not be a matter of right or wrong, but a social interpretation of normal behavior by a certain and select segment of society* The adherence to the law may be selectively done*
We may be at the point where we are able to design socially therapeutic environments * The churches haven't worked* The non profit and public institutions have not been totally successful* The protestors cry, "Destroy the establishment*" The great need is to draw the ex-con into the mainstream of society* The main need in the correctional institution is flexibility in decision making, continuing self-analysis and problem solving as part of every institution's structure and every person's attitude* All correctional organizations must become a more hospitable environment for the individual* The community at large must participate directly in reshaping of prisons and correctional institutions which today no longer enjoy their confidence*
Hospitals used to be for the dying poor* They originally were used to house the outcasts of society* Hospitals have recently 67 become part of a healthy communitye This resulted from advances in medical science0 If comparable knowledge about social therapy can be gained9 perhaps prisons can get into the mainstream of society*
Social sciences are new and a product of the last century* We need to incorporate these findings into the prison community* We will need to take the negative with a positive therapeutic atmosphere*
The final question is this:
1* How do you measure effectiveness of work release by
recidivism?
2* Is it the distance gained in the direction of acceptance
by society of the individual you started with?
This paper was conducted to determine whether work release had a positive effect on the recidivism rate* The findings, much like the
Penn State study3 gave no conclusive evidence that this occurred
(Table 4)* On the other hand, it did not indicate a strong correla tion of any characteristics that would seem to guarantee success of men placed on work release* There were some indications, however, that certain variables appeared to indicate recidivism might be re duced if individuals with these variables were placed on the program*
The hypothesis can neither be accepted nor rejected since the selec tion of work release and non-work release inmates seemed to be a matter of chance* No distinct criteria was described by the Warden for the selection process and the study definitely did not indicate a consistent policy of selection>* Thus, the success and failure of those 68 on work release or non-work release in terms of recidivism appears also to be a matter of chancee
As for a methodology for computer application, this can be done0 However this is too much sophistication for the present state of the recordso (Appendix II)0 Work release is too inexact a science and even though =. the technique for evaluating is available, ■ the practitioners are not scientifically trained to settup a meaning ful work release experience. Too much in the selection of the inmate and his supervision and performance is left to personal bias on the / part of the correctional administrators. Until better trained correctional administrators enter the prisons and jails we cannot expect a really meaningful program. APPENDIX A
WORK RELEASE AGREEMENT
Form No. BCP - 6 2M 7-66 Bucks County Prison & Rehabilitation Center
Name ______19 __ (last) (first) (middle)
Employer ______
Address ______Phone______
______M M ______Days per week Hour start Finish Weekly wages Starting date
1. I will deliver to the warden ALL moneys, of any kind, that I receive, to be distributed as below:
a. Board $
b. Travel and other necessary expenses
c. Support payments to Totals $
d. Arrears payments to $ $
e. Cost payments to $ $
f. Fine payments to $ $
s. Restitution payments to $ $
h. Other $ $
i. Voluntary assignments to $
Any excess is to be added to my account $
Total $______
3. I will travel to and from work by the quickest route with no stops. 69 70
4. I will N O T while outside the institution:
a. Visit family or friends or call on the telephone. b. Drink any intoxicating beverages (including beer). c. Take any medicine except that approved by the prison physician.
5. I know that if I violate either this agreement or prison regula
tions, that:
a. The Warden may remove me from work release for five days. b. Serious violations will be referred to court. c. Failure to return directly to the institution can result in my being charged with 'Prison Breach1 (Escape).
Approved by the Warden Signed by the inmate
Approved by the Judge
Distribution: The Judge - Chief Probation Officer - BCP Pine Street.
Department of Collections - BCP Rehab.
Pencil copy to jacket. APPENDIX B
COMPUTER PROGRAM
The author started this study in late 1 9 6 7 o The first attempt made was to devise a computer package that could be used easily either with the use of a large computer center (which was available to the investigator), or a remote input device from a great distance from the center (Ternstat)0
The author used a CDC 6400 model computer and devised a
Fortran program that establishes validity of single characteristics0
The functions it could perform are:
lo Order - sorts an array N into ascending order
2 o Rand
3o Reform
4o Mean
5o Median
6 o Anovo i
7 o Anova
8 o Kencon
9o Spearman
This would beuseful in arriving ar various rankings of variable® It^could do tests in a program which determinescongruence
71 72
in rankings— example: test scores would rank 1-2-3, etc* This pro
gram could determine the similarity between rankings0
In the present study there were many dichotomous variables
which were difficult to ranko There were too many possibilities of
attaining the same answer0 The package program (Ternstat) that was
devised by the author could only rank two variables at one time*
The author then perused the literature of computer packages
available from the computer center (See Exhibit A) and chose a
University of California at Los Angeles Program - which prior to
regression performs Means and Standard deviation and covariance
and correlation matriceso The program selected correlates a sequence
of linear regressions in a stepwise mannere At each step one variable is added to the regression equationQ
The choice of statistic, Pearson RHO, was conditioned upon
two factors:
lo The absence of rank orderings of individuals by two
or more criteria upon which rank-order correlation can be
computed^
20 The availability of a package program designed to compute
the Pearson RHO coefficient of correlation pairwise for
a set of variables as large as that involved in this
studyo
Methodological refinements in future studies could make use of non-parametrie measures of association more powerful than the chi-
square test utilized in this study0 The Spearman RHO computed by the ' 73
Ternstat program is 91% as efficient as is the Pearson used here*
Randomization of the control population to ensure a more perfect match to the work release population would also make comparisons between the two groups as regards recidivism and the effect of the
Work Release Program easiere Dimensions of randomization would probably be number of past crimes, age and education0
In the two-tailed test, no prejudgment about relationhsip fallso This tests both direct and inverse relationship assumption and if it is desired to determine if one relationship is either direct or inverse, the two-tailed test can be used* A two-tailed test
(size or correlative coefficient) at 0o05 level is the same as the tailed test at twice the level of significance0
In summary the program used (UCLA - stepwise regression -
BMD02R) can study more than two variables at a time and also does a correlation coefficient on pairs of variablese
In summary the (Ternstat-Durbin) package can be used on a selected pair of variables where a qualitative measurement of differ ence is indicatedo
A copy of the two programs and a Ternstat printout is included0
The purpose of this is to provide the library in the Department of
Public Administration at The University of Arizona access to this computer program. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Charles Go, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Vermonte Personal Correspondence, (May 28, 1968)0
Adamski, Franko "Reconstruction of a Citizen*" The Messenger, 51 (Spring, 1966), 2-9*
Anderson, Elmer R 0 "Successful Use of Work Release Sentences0" Municipal Court Review3 4 (Spring, 1964), 10-*13o
_____ o "Work Release Sentencing©" Federal Probation, 28 (December, 1964), 7-* 11©
Ashmand, Allan© "Work Release in North Carolina©" Popular Government, 12' (June, 1966), 1-5©
Barnes, Harry E©, and Teeters, Negley K© New Horizons in Criminology© New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1959©
Cannon, Joseph G©, Commissioner of Corrections, Department of Correc tions, Maryland© Personal correspondence, (May 16, 1968)©
Case, John D© "Citizen Participation: An Experiment in Prison- Community Relations ©" Federal Probation, (December, 1966), 18-24©
© "Doing Time in the Community©" Federal Probation, 31 (March, 1967), 9-17©
, et alo First Progress Report of the Bucks County Prison, (1964-1965), 9-10©
. "Incentives in a County Prison©" The Prison Journal, (Spring-Summer,1967), reprint©
______© "Modern Corrections in an Old County Jail©" American Journal of Corrections, (1965), reprint©
Clemmer, Donald© The Prison Community© New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958© Community Work: An Alternative to Imprisonment© Correctional Research Associates, Washington, D©C©, 1967©
74 Dickinson, Valjean Lo, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Correc tions , Indiana. Personal correspondence, (May 27, 1968)„
Godby, Garland, Division of Corrections, Oregon. Personal corres pondence, (April.17, 1968).
Grupp, Stanley E. "Work Release and the Misdemeanant." Federal Probation, 29 (June, 1965), 6-12.
______. "Work Release in the United States." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 54 (1968), 267-272.
______"Work Release Statuatory Patterns, Implementation and Problems." Prison Journal, 44 (Spring, 1964), 4-25.
Hall, R.; Milazzo, M.; and Posner, J. "A Descriptive and Comparative Study of Recidivism in Prerelease Guidance Center Releases." UoSc Department of Justice, Washington, D.C*
Hary, Edith L., Law Librarian, Main State Library. Personal corres pondence, (May 23, 1968).
Haworth, Byron. "North Carolina Adopts New Sentencing Mode." Municipal Court Review, 4 (Spring, 1964), 14-16.
Holliday, Audrey R., Research Administrator, Department of Institution Washington. Personal correspondence, (May 24, 1968).
______. Kings County Work Release Program, (1968).
Holt, RoCe 9 Administrative Assistant, North Carolina Department of Corrections. Personal correspondence, (August 14, 1967).
House Bill No. 514, State of Virginia.
Hulbert, J.F.; Mandel, N.Go; and Webb, R0L0 Work Release in Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Corrections (November, 1967).
King County, Washington, Sheriff's Department. Work Release Program (November, 1965).
Long, Edward V. "Prisoner Rehabilitation Act of 1965." Federal Probation, 29 (December, 1965), 3-7.
Madtes, William J., Administrative Analyst, Michigan Department of Corrections. Personal correspondence, (May 16, 1968). 76
McMillan, David R e nWork Furlough for the Jailed PrisonerFederal Probation9 29 (March, 1965), 33-34o
o "Work Furlough in Californiao" Municipal Court Review, 4 (Spring, 1964), 7-9.
Miller, E. Eugene. "Education at Bucks County Prison." American Journal of Correction, (March-April, 1967).
Newman, C.L. and "'Bulan, T.R. "Work Release: An Alternative in Correctional Handling." Reprint.
Prisoner Rehabilitation Act, Public Law 89-176, (1965).
Randolph, Ross V., Director, Illinois Department of Public Safety. Personal correspondence, (May 17, 1968).
Reinemann, John Otto. "Day Parole Program." The Quarterly, 20 (September, 1963), 18^19.
Research in Correctional Rehabilitation, Joint Commission on Correc tional Manpower and Training, (1967).
Samuels, Gertrude.. "Work Their Way Through Jail." New York Times, (November 14, 1964).
Survey of 1964 Huber Law Usage. Ralph J. Disilvo, Detention Super visor, Division of Corrections, State Department of Public Welfare, Madison, Wisconsin, (1965).
Theobald, H. Rupert, Chief of Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau. Personal correspondence, (May 14, 1968).
Troje, Bernard M. "Progressive Approach to Local Corrections.” Municipal Court Review, 4 (Spring, 1964), 2-6.
U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Basic Data Book, 9th Edition.
U.S. Congress Senate, Authorizing a Work Release Program for Persons Sentenced by the Courts of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., (1965), (89th Congress, First Session, Report No. 178).
U.S.Department of Justice, Furlough Fact Sheet, (January,1968).
Wachs, Sidney, and Adams, Stuart. Work Furlough Program: Evaluation of the First Year of Operation, Los Angeles, California, Department of Corrections. Wainright, Louis L., Director, Florida Division of Corrections. Personal correspondence, (May 27, 1968).
Watts, Fred. "Day Parole and the Iowa Sheriff." Presidio, 31 (July, 1964), 34-35.