DOCUMENT RESUME ED 102 372 CE 003 096 AUTHOR Lewis, Morgan V.; And Others TITLE Prison Education and Rehabilitation: Illusion or Reality? A Case Study of an Experimental Program. INSTITUTION Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park. Inst. for Research on Human Resources. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Humanitiei,NTWO Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Jun 73 NOTE 186p. EDBS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$9.51 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS *Correctional Education; *Correctional Rehabilitation; Corrective Institutions; Educational Programs; *Educational Research; Failure Factors; *Humanities Instruction; *Secondary Education; Student Characteristics ABSTRACT A review of the literature, covering a variety of theories as to the causes of criminal behavior in young people and barriers tc, their rehabilitation, lays the groundwork for a report of an experimental program using the humanities to assist in the rehabilitation of young criminal offenders, at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pa. Tta prison setting had a profound influence on the evolution of the program. Comparison with other inmates showed that the program was well received by most participants for whom significant changes were recorded on several of the psychological measures used. However followup surveys showed no differences in postprison behavior between participants and other inmates. This is also true of participants in other educational programs at the institution, raising the issues of punishment versus treatment and the role of education in a prison treatment program. The general conclusion is reached that the requirement that a prison confine inmates produces an inherently punishing environment that is antithetical to rehabilitative efforts. While it is unlikely that the humanities, or any other educational program will influence postprison behavior, such programs can serve to enrich the lives of inmates while they are in prison. (luthor/SA) S CE PPR TMCNT oFMIL ALTN EDUCATION it Wfc FANS. NATIONAL. [NSTiTUTE OF EDUCATION et PRO OLILl`SAC Nit(A f((( k T k()M EXACTLY A(Kt Cf(1:10r OOt E OliktAt.i(7A T (OPY Te-tt E-RsON Oit AI(sic,rF pOlfy Itor uk OP/tY(011.S 'NT MEC, DO NOT NPC r RE PRI. OrPtc-fAL N..TiONAL INsT:TuTCOf DO,. A TrOfki POSt tOhlOR POI. ik.'t BEST COPYAVAILABLE THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES The Institute for Research on Human Resources of The Pennsylvania State University was established in December 1964 as a multi-discipli- nary intercollege organization to conduct research on, and provide graduate training in, the utilization and development of human re- sources. The Institute conducts experimental programs and evaluates public policies and institutions concerned with education, corrections, manpower, medical care, welfare, science policy, and religion. In conducting experimental programs in such areas as school drop- outs and corrections, the Institute has directed its attention to institu- tional changes which are more effective in the achievement of the goals of society. Its evaluative research has included cost-effectiveness studies in areas such as vocational education, child health and welfare, man- power, and elementary education. An important aspect of the Institute's overall program is graduate training. Graduate students participate in all phases of the Institute's research projects, in the areas of their major interests. Dissemination of the research findings of the Institute is achieved through publications, workshops, and seminars, by testimony presented to such public agencies as the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and t_Ae executive branch at all governmental levels, and by advice to various public and private agencies. A center within the Institute contributes to its research efforts. The Center for the Study of Science Policy, created in mid-1969, is primarily involved in studying the relationship of state and local science policy to national science policy, and with the application of scientific and tech- nological knowledge to domestic problems of state and local bodies. The Center has completed a series of analytical studies, collected quan- titative and qualitative information on the organization of research and development within the public sector, and sponsored workshops and seminars for those involved in the formulation and implementation of science policy. 3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE PRISON EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION: ILLUSION OR REALITY? A Case Study of an Experimental Program Mortar V. Lewis with the assistance of David C. Gunipper Joan L. Meyer Andrew Broughton Alice Beamesderfer Institute for Research on Human Lesources The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 June 1973 4 The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The analysis and mom- mendations contained in this report are those of the senior author and do not necessarily reflect the position of any other individual or agency. 0 PREFACE The project described in this report required thecooperation of many different agencies and people. While it isnot possible to list all of those who participated in the project, its staff does wishto acknowledge these who made the most significant contributions. TheNational Endowment for the Humanities provided the funds whichmade the whole effort possible. Dr, Jacob J. Kaufman, Director of the Institutefor Research on Human Resources, initially suggested a study of this type and ad- vised and assisted in all phases of its conductand evaluation. Dr. Chad- wick Hansen helped to plan thecontent of the program and served as consult-.nt, For providing a setting where theprogram could he conducted, we are grateful to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction and its former Commissioner Arthur Prasse, and to the State CorrectionalInstitution at Camp Hill, its Superintendent Ernest Patton, staff membersMartin Brandt and Alfred Isenberg, and the 173 residentsof the Institution who took part either as studentsor control subjects, The teachers had perhaps the most difficulttask of all in translating the objectives of the program into* actual classroomactivities. To them we extend a special thanks: David Miller, Coordinator; Craig Kreider; Clyde Rohland; James Sprawls; and Ronald Zeigler. In the follow-up of the inmates after they leftCamp Hill, the Penn- sylvania Board of Prohadon and Parolewas especially helpful. We are grateful to Mr. Elton R. Smith and hissuccessor, Mr. John J. Burke, for arranging for their agents toserve as interviewers. The questionnaire that was administered during the follow-upinterviews inelt.ded scales developed by several social scientists. Thenames of these individuals and the sources for the scalesare cited in the text. We appreciate their kindness in allowing us to use their scales. In the preparation of thisreport, David C. Gumpper was primarily resmwible for Chapter 6, Joan L. Meyer forChapter 3, and Andrew Broughton for Chapter 2. Alice Beamesderfercontributed substantially to the organization of the material and to its final editing.Others who assisted in various ways were Deborah Check, StevenDooley, and Nor- man Kalber. Naturally, those who contributed to the projectcannot be held re- sponsible for its final resultsor the way in which their contributions are reflected in this report. That responsibilitymust rest with the project director. MORGAN V. LEWIS May 3 1, 1973 iii CONTENTS Preface iii List of Tables viii I INTRODUCTION The Program 3 Evaluation 4 Summary 6 PART IA REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2CAUSES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN YOUNG PEOPLE 11 Classical Theories 12 Psychological Theories 13 Sociological Theories 17 Ecology, Rote, and Class 17 The Effects of the Family 20 The Gang 21 Schools and Mass Media 26 Anthropological Theories 26 Summary 28 BARRIERS TO REHABILITATION 29 The Encapsulated ManPhysical and Psychic Boundaries 30 Social Presses on Inmate Life Space The Subjugated Group: Deviant Milieu 34 Isolation and Neutralization of "Outside" Relationships 34 The Pervasive Peer Group or the "Atomized" Society? 36 Exploitation of the Defenseless by the. Powerful 38 Racism in Prisons 41 iv Precarious Authority and Pernicious Bureaucracy 43 The Authoritarian/Bureaucratic Balance 43 Maintaining the Distance between Keepers and Kept 44 Conflicting Views of Criminals and Treatment 46 Intersection and Collision between Inmates and Staff 48 Inmate Culture as a Mirror of the Administrative Power Structure 49 Total Dependency: A Terrifying Return to Childhood 51 Hatred of the Keepers 52 Corruption of Authority: The Subverting Coalition 54 Summary 56 PART IIA CASE STUDY 4 AN EXPERIMENTAL HUMANITIES PROGRAM: THE SETTING AND THE INMATES 59 The Setting 60 The Inmates 63 Selecting the Subjects 63 Characteristics of the Subjects 64 Summary 67 5 THE PROGRAM AND ITS PROBLEMS 68 The Program 68 Problems Encountered 71 Summary 75 6 EVALUATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PHASE 77 Acceptance of the Program 77 Changes in the Students 79 Pretest Analysis 80 Pre to Posttest Analysis 84 Posttest Analysis 87 Summary 89 7RECIDIVISM, EMPLOYMENT, AND MAJOR PROBLEMS AFTER LEAVING PRISON 91 Definition and Prediction of Recidivism 93 Defining Recidivism 93 Recidivism Rates 93 Predicting Recidivism 95 Employment Experiences 97 A Case History 98 Indices of Employment 99 Jobs Held 100 Amount of Time Employed 100 Quality of Jobs 100 Job Satisfaction 101 Reasons for Leaving 102 Employment and Recidivism 102 Main Problems following Release 104 Training at Camp Hill 105 Summary 107 8ATTITUDES AND VALUES AFTER