Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 4-1982 A Study of the Differences Between Prison College Graduates and the Total Released Inmate Population on Recidivism by Risk Category James Jay Haviland Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons Recommended Citation Haviland, James Jay, "A Study of the Differences Between Prison College Graduates and the Total Released Inmate Population on Recidivism by Risk Category" (1982). Dissertations. 2499. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2499 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRISON COLLEGE GRADUATES AND THE TOTAL RELEASED INMATE POPULATION ON RECIDIVISM BY RISK CATEGORY James Jay Haviland A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April, 1982 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRISON COLLEGE GRADUATES AND THE TOTAL RELEASED INMATE POPULATION ON RECIDIVISM BY RISK CATEGORY James Jay Haviland, Ed.D. Western Michigan University, 1982 When a convicted felon is considered for parole from a correc­ tional institution, several factors relating to his experience while incarcerated are presented before the Parole Board. One of the factors which is considered favorably by the Board and indicative of rehabilitation is an individual's participation in educational pro­ grams while serving his sentence. This implies a non-verbal quid-pro-quo exchange. Its effect is to fill classrooms even where no formal requirement compels enrollment (Bowker, 1982, 241). The purpose of this research was to determine if the comple­ tion of a two-year post secondary program while incarcerated, re­ sulted in a lower rate of recidivism than that experienced by an inmate from a similar risk category that had not completed a two- year academic program while incarcerated. The research was concerned with identifying those institutions within the State of Michigan which granted two-year degrees to in­ mates in the years 1975 and 1976. More specifically, the criminal activity of one hundred and ninety-three inmates was recorded al­ lowing for a minimum of three years release time following incar­ ceration. The risk category of the inmate was recorded to determine if a particular risk category of graduates was more prone to re- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cidivate than a.sample of non-graduates with the same risk clas­ sification. There was not a significant difference in the rate of recidi­ vism between those inmates who had been graduated from a two-year college program while incarcerated and those inmates who had not graduated from a two-year program while incarcerated. The rate of success, defined as no new prison sentence being imposed on the re­ leased inmate, was independent of graduation. This study also in­ dicated that dispersion among the risk categories for graduates who failed was similar to the dispersion among the risk categories for the entire released prison population in 1975 and 1976. Inmate success, defined as no felony convictions following release from prison, was not associated with graduation, and the distribution among the five assaultive and three property risk classifications was similar for both graduates and non-graduates. Graduation from two year college programs while incarcerated does not appear to be instrumental in lowering rates of recidivism. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary t r begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8221732 Haviland, James Jay A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRISON COLLEGE GRADUATES AND THE TOTAL RELEASED INMATE POPULATION ON RECIDIVISM BY RISK CATEGORY Western Michigan University Ed.D. 1982 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. James Sanders, who as his Dissertation Committee Chairman, provided assistance and guidance during all phases of this investigation. He also wishes to extend his appreciation to Dr. Lloyd Braithwaite and Dr. Carol Sheffer for their time and constructive criticisms. A special note of thanks is extended to the Michigan Department of Corrections for their substantial assistance throughout the study. A special kind of appreciation is due his wife, Alicia, who of­ fered continual support, love and understanding which was so vitally necessary for the successful completion of this project. James Jay Haviland ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................... ii LIST OF TA B L E S ....................................................v LIST OF FI G U R E ...................................................vi Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................................. 1 The Problem............................................... 1 Historical Context ..................................... 3 Conceptual Framework ................................... 5 Research Objectives.................................. 7 Definition of Terms....................................... 7 Limitations.............................................. 10 Summary.................................................. 11 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................ 13 Introduction ........................................... 13 Historical Development of Correctional Education .... 13 Education as it Relates to an Inmate’s Self-Esteem . 22 Previous Studies on Recidivism ........................ 29 Previous Studies on Risk Factors ....................... 31 Need for Research........................................ 34 Hypothesis.............................................. 34 Summary.................................................. 35 III. PROCEDURES............................................... 36 Introduction ........................................... 36 iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Data Analysis.......................................... 45 Methodology Justification ............................ 45 IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.................................... 48 Introduction............................................ 48 Restatement of the Hypothesis..........................48 Population Sample ..................................... 49 Subsequent Offenses ..................................